Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[The Red]

What are the opinions of the different individuals and ideologies? Personally I would say I'm for it, it was the least abhorrent choice as it eliminated the need for an invasion of Japan. What are the rest of the boards thoughts?

[Invincible Summer]

Truman and co knew that Japan was weak and would surrender in a matter of time. They just wanted to demonstrate their nuclear might to the world. The estimates of "hundreds of thousands" of American casualties (what about japanese ones?) that would be incurred from a beach invasion were exaggerated.

The second bomb on Nagasaki was definitely uncalled for though. I mean, you just used a new weapon of mass destruction on a city full of civilians, and you're expecting an unconditional surrender within 2 days? They don't even have a chance to understand what's happening or work out the politics behind the scenes, and then Americans drop a second a-bomb.

[Alf]

Rise like Lions is right to say the bomb was used as a demonstration of US power - not so much to Japan but to Russia which was now seen as a greater threat. if anything the bombing prolonged the war because the US did not want the japanese to surrender before they could use it. A true expression of barbarism, as argued in he article linked here:

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/286_1945.html

[gorillafuck]

It was one of the most horrible crimes in human history.

[The Red]

Truman and co knew that Japan was weak and would surrender in a matter of time. They just wanted to demonstrate their nuclear might to the world. The estimates of "hundreds of thousands" of American casualties (what about japanese ones?) that would be incurred from a beach invasion were exaggerated.

The Japanese knew where the Americans would land the geography of Kyshu told them, their forces on Kyshu at least matched those of the US landing forces and they had around 5000 kamikaze craft with which they would use to devastate the US fleets and landings.

The Americans on the other hand where by this point where preparing to cut off Hokkaido through bombardment of shipping lanes, which the rest of Japan was reliant on for food at this point. The Soviets were also planning to invade siad island which would have cut it off permanently. This would have led to a rice famine which could have potentially killed millions, forgetting the casualites from fighting which would also have exceeded the million mark. The Americans were also preparing to use gas on Japanese crops and hold outs.

With all th9is in mind it was the least abhorrent choice.

[The Red]

It was one of the most horrible crimes in human history.

Yet it ended the war, surely that should be taken into consideration?

[x359594]

...it eliminated the need for an invasion of Japan...

Was there a need for the invasion of Japan? The Joint Chiefs of Staff were still debating the necessity of a land invasion when Truman decided to use the bomb. As Rise Like Lions noted, the Japanese were on the verge of surrender, and American military leaders knew that. General Eisenhower, briefed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson on the imminent use of the bomb, told him that "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."

After the bombing, Admiral William D. Leary, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the atomic bomb "a barbarous weapon," also noting that: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

The various figures of lives saved ranged from "a half million lives" (Truman) to "a million lives" (Churchill) but the official projections made by the Invasion Planning Committee did not exceed 46,000.

Following the defeat of Japanese forces on Okinawa in May 1945 (the emperor ordered the Imperial Army to fight to the last man in an effort to secure more favorable surrender terms) the Japanese Supreme War Council authorized Foreign Minister Togo to approach the Soviet Union, which was not at war with Japan, to mediate an end to the war "if possible by September."

In his book The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, Gar Alperovitz concluded that the bomb was seen as a diplomatic weapon against the Soviet Union. The British scientist P.M.S. Blackett, one of Churchill's advisers, wrote after the war that dropping the atomic bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia."

Turning to the bombing of Nagasaki, Rise Like Lions reasonably asks, "I mean, you just used a new weapon of mass destruction on a city full of civilians, and you're expecting an unconditional surrender within 2 days? They don't even have a chance to understand what's happening or work out the politics behind the scenes, and then Americans drop a second a-bomb."

The answer is that the US didn't expect unconditional surrender within in two days and didn't care what was happening behind the scenes because the Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb and the bomb builders wanted an experimental test to compare with the uranium bomb used on Hiroshima. In short, the Nagasaki bomb was a straight out war crime.

[Red Commissar]

I would like to point out that the US had already been firebombing Japan long before the nuke was even dropped. There's a nice video about this, but I can't post links yet.

[x359594]

Yet it ended the war, surely that should be taken into consideration?

Did it?

According to Japanese sources the declaration of war by the Soviet Union (with whom Foreign Minister Togo was hoping to negotiate a surrender while the USSR was still neutral) and the total defeat of the Kwangtung Army was at least as important and possibly more crucial in forcing Japan to surrender than the atomic bombings.

[The Red]

Did it?

According to Japanese sources the declaration of war by the Soviet Union (with whom Foreign Minister Togo was hoping to negotiate a surrender while the USSR was still neutral) and the total defeat of the Kwangtung Army was at least as important and possibly more crucial in forcing Japan to surrender than the atomic bombings.

Reports from the time indicate the Japanese did not know how badly the situation in Manchuria was, whilst the Soviet declaration was definately significant I tend to lean on the side which says the Atomic bombs were instrumental. After all, it provided a nice get out clause for a military government. They could claim they were brought to surrender due to the supernatural forces of the atom not military defeat at the hands of the Red Army.

[x359594]

Reports from the time indicate the Japanese did not know how badly the situation in Manchuria was, whilst the Soviet declaration was definately significant I tend to lean on the side which says the Atomic bombs were instrumental...

See Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa and sources cited there for a challenge to the traditionalist view. Downfall : The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard Frank also questions the traditionalist interpretation.

[Glenn Beck]

The Japanese were shitting themselves in anticipation of the promised Soviet invasion of their northern islands, especially after what the Red Army had done to their forces in northern China. It seems to me quite likely that in the event of a dual invasion from the two most powerful countries on Earth Japan would have sued for peace. But the Truman admin wanted to force an unconditional surrender for political reasons, largely in order to have a buffer against the Soviets in Asia. I'm not inclined to see it as some tragic but noble utilitarian moral judgment, just politics in a war where both sides were quite comfortable with annihilating civilian populations.

[Red Commissar]

I would like to point out that the US had already been firebombing Japan long before the nuke was even dropped. There's a nice video about this, but I can't post links yet.

And since I can now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmJDj-oLYyM

[Sendo]

What are the opinions of the different individuals and ideologies? Personally I would say I'm for it, it was the least abhorrent choice as it eliminated the need for an invasion of Japan. What are the rest of the boards thoughts?

Read some collection of diaries called Tales from an Autumn of Emergences or something I forget. Anyhow, even the most die-hard imperialist citizens were openly questioning the idea of their state and dying under the yoke of desperate war production, rationing and heavy casualties civilian and military.

The bombs were flexing muscles. Nothing can justify all that poison and carnage we unleashed.

The only reason the government didn't surrender earlier is because they wanted a conditional surrender that would safeguard the government, especially the emperor, from executions and from becoming a slave colony for the Yankees. But, no, Truman wanted unconditional surrender on principle. And hey, in the end, they kept the emperor alive to shore up support for the new liberal state and promote cooperation with the occupying forces.

In the wake of a looming Soviet/Yankee invasion the government would surrender or the PEOPLE would. To think that the yellow hordes would go Banzai! down to the last man, woman and child and take out 1,000,000 US soldiers is racist propaganda of the worst kind. It's the same racist, "yellow hoard" mentality that justifies the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the depiction of the GPCR as one idiotic hive destroying itself.

The Red's opinion on this matter staying wholly the same in the face our arguments is a tad disturbing.

[x359594]

...The only reason the government didn't surrender earlier is because they wanted a conditional surrender that would safeguard the government, especially the emperor, from executions and from becoming a slave colony for the Yankees. But, no, Truman wanted unconditional surrender on principle. And hey, in the end, they kept the emperor alive to shore up support for the new liberal state and promote cooperation with the occupying forces...

Absolutely right. Foreign Minister Togo sent Ambassador Sato to the USSR to seek Soviet intervention for a negociated peace as mentioned earlier. Togo sent a telegram to Sato after he arrived in Moscow that read, "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. It is his Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war." The US knew the contents of the telegram since it had the decryption key since 1942, so the State Dept. and the War Dept. knew that the only thing holding back a Japanese surrender was a guarantee to retain the Emperor. Joseph Grew (who had been US Ambassador to Japan) led a segment of State Dept. "wise men" who believed that allowing Japan to keep the Emperor would bring about a Japanese surrender.

[Sendo]

Absolutely right. Foreign Minister Togo sent Ambassador Sato to the USSR to seek Soviet intervention for a negociated peace as mentioned earlier. Togo sent a telegram to Sato after he arrived in Moscow that read, "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. It is his Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war." The US knew the contents of the telegram since it had the decryption key since 1942, so the State Dept. and the War Dept. knew that the only thing holding back a Japanese surrender was a guarantee to retain the Emperor. Joseph Grew (who had been US Ambassador to Japan) led a segment of State Dept. "wise men" who believed that allowing Japan to keep the Emperor would bring about a Japanese surrender.

Hmm, good points. (by the way: It's Tojo or To-jo- with macrons on top)

[StalinFanboy]

This sorta seems like one of those topics that is pointless to debate about.

Cause, you know, it already happened and shit.

[Axle]

If this example of good old fashioned American warmongering wasn't bad enough, the underlying tension from their use will not disappear until Capitalism is dissolved completely and all nuclear weapons are destroyed.

Since we've got enough atomic weapons to destroy the Earth quite a few times in the hands of countries so hostile to each other that it warranted the creation and continued relevance of a fucking Doomsday Clock...well, I honestly think that the tragedy of the atomic bombings of Hiroshiman and Nagasaki are really just the tip of the iceberg.

[Floyce White]

This topic has been well discussed in previous threads. I suggest that the OP search and read. The claims that atomic bombing "saved lives" or "ended the war" were inventions after the fact. The "saving lives" claim in particular was invented years after the fact. At the time, aerial bombardment of cities was denounced as "baby killers."

Incineration of human beings is causing death. Causing death is not "saving lives." The claim is false on its face. I suggest that the OP be more critical of war propaganda.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I can't really buy the whole "Japan was going to give up," especially not to unconditional surrender. After fighting tooth and nail over every square inch of Okinawa it wouldn't make sense.

Secondly, after the US had already fire-bombed many (50+) Japanese cites, the Allies issues the potsdam decleration, which set an ultimatum for Japan to surrender and declared that if they did not, they would face "prompt and utter destruction."

Now, whether the decleration was meant to be agreed to or not is debatable, but either way Japan would have been destroyed. Napalm was really coming into vogue and the idea of millions of US Army/Marines and Soviets raping their way across Japan is perhaps more unsettling.

Don't get me wrong. Of course Truman was sending a message to the Soviets by dropping the bombs.

[x359594]

I can't really buy the whole "Japan was going to give up," especially not to unconditional surrender. After fighting tooth and nail over every square inch of Okinawa it wouldn't make sense...

Why did the Imperial Army fight tooth and nail over every square inch of Okinawa?

According to Japanese sources, the emperor in consultation with the Supreme War Council ordered resistance to the last man as a way to obtain better surrender conditions. As noted several above posts, peace feelers were sent to the USSR and the only firm condition was retention of the emperor. So it does make sense because the historical record indicates that the fierce Okinawa resistance was a move in the direction of a negotiated surrender.

Since the only condition for surrender was maintaining the emperor's position after the war, one would have to ask why the Allies insisted on unconditional surrender when they in fact met this condition after Japan surrendered? Did the fact that the US spent a billion dollars building these weapons have anything to do with it? Or that the US wanted to check Soviet plans for Asia? Or that domestic political considerations may have played a role in Truman's decision?

Remember, Leahy, McCloy, Grew, and Stimson all urged Truman to relax the "unconditional surrender" demand just enough to permit the Japanese their face-saving requirement for ending the war.

In light of the above (as articulated in Atomic Diplomacy, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan, Downfall : The End of the Japanese Empire) I find it incredible that the decision to use the atomic bombs was in any way whatsoever a matter of military necessity.

[The Red]

The only reason the government didn't surrender earlier is because they wanted a conditional surrender that would safeguard the government, especially the emperor, from executions and from becoming a slave colony for the Yankees. But, no, Truman wanted unconditional surrender on principle. And hey, in the end, they kept the emperor alive to shore up support for the new liberal state and promote cooperation with the occupying forces.

In the wake of a looming Soviet/Yankee invasion the government would surrender or the PEOPLE would.

The thought of revolution to the Japanese people was alien, remember for months that they had been encuraged to eat acorns and where already dealing with fire bombings. You could argue that the onset of famine would finally push the Japanese to unconditional surrender however how many hundreds of thousand would have already starved to death by that point?

Militarily, the Japanese had a good idea of where the allies were going to land and could boast at lease parity in terms of infantry forces. Their idea of conditional surrender was not just keeping the emperor as mayn believe but included no occupation of the Japanese mainland and trial os war criminals by Japanese courts only. Not only where these terms unacceptable but also political suicide for Truman.

Even if Truman had accepted a conditional surrender on those terms, it does nothing to stop the Soviets from island hopping until all of Japan is theirs (they still haven't made peace IRL). I'm sure no-one wants that.

[Scary Monster]

What are the opinions of the different individuals and ideologies? Personally I would say I'm for it, it was the least abhorrent choice as it eliminated the need for an invasion of Japan. What are the rest of the boards thoughts?

Nevermind the fact that Japan was too weak to fight off an american invasion or that it was stated that the nuke would save the need for american troops, Nuking two entire cities full of civilians is NEVER a good idea, and is the most criminal act ever committed in human history. Its disgusting to think anyone would be "for" the nuke attacks :thumbdown:

[Scary Monster]

The Japanese knew where the Americans would land the geography of Kyshu told them, their forces on Kyshu at least matched those of the US landing forces and they had around 5000 kamikaze craft with which they would use to devastate the US fleets and landings.

The Americans on the other hand where by this point where preparing to cut off Hokkaido through bombardment of shipping lanes, which the rest of Japan was reliant on for food at this point. The Soviets were also planning to invade siad island which would have cut it off permanently. This would have led to a rice famine which could have potentially killed millions, forgetting the casualites from fighting which would also have exceeded the million mark. The Americans were also preparing to use gas on Japanese crops and hold outs.

With all th9is in mind it was the least abhorrent choice.

This sounds exactly like the bullshit straight out of one of our american History books

[x359594]

The thought of revolution to the Japanese people was alien...

Not so. Read Japan in War and Peace by John Dower.

...Even if Truman had accepted a conditional surrender on those terms, it does nothing to stop the Soviets from island hopping until all of Japan is theirs (they still haven't made peace IRL). I'm sure no-one wants that.

Says who? Comrade where are you getting your history? I've told you my sources, what are yours?

[Sendo]

I can't really buy the whole "Japan was going to give up," especially not to unconditional surrender. After fighting tooth and nail over every square inch of Okinawa it wouldn't make sense.

Even if the central government didnt surrender, the government itself was on the brink of internal collapse and the extreme food shortages and social unrest testify to that. It's also ridiculous to assume the people themselves would have fought tooth and nail, dead to the last man. American GIs in Vietnam aren't the only humans capable of resisting their officers.


Now, whether the declaration was meant to be agreed to or not is debatable, but either way Japan would have been destroyed. Napalm was really coming into vogue and the idea of millions of US Army/Marines and Soviets raping their way across Japan is perhaps more unsettling.

Don't get me wrong. Of course Truman was sending a message to the Soviets by dropping the bombs.

With an invasion, far fewer would have died I'm betting. The surrender would have been quick.

The atomic bombs were used 100% on civilians and it poisoned so many people who died in the aftermath or were sick for the rest of their lives. Please examine the issue from the Japanese people's side. Give some films of theirs a try or read some primary sources from Japanese people. The USA propped Japan back up with the atomic bombs and the reconstruction at an enormous human cost. The action definitely staved off an uprising and really pulled people together in defense and in shock and in grief. The whole Emperor/MacArthur propaganda campaign in Reconstruction was cooperate and be good to your country and rebuild it because Japan needs you so badly.

****

Or what if we never got a surrender? Either the Soviets would have taken over or it would have just been the same imperial government teetering on the brink of destruction and stripped of all its foreign dominions. Would that have been so bad? They had already lost everything they gained in war, so what would have happened if the Allies just kept the place blockaded? What harm would have befallen the Allies?

[Invader Zim]

MAGIC decrypts have shown that the Japanese had been seriously considering surrender prior to the use of the weapons, and that when the USSR was neutral had been approached to act as a potential liason for the Japanese surrender.

While that doesn't necessarily imply that the hawkish elements of Japanese government wouldn't have won out, it does prove that there were large and powerful elements that saw that the war was lost and surrender was the only choice. With that in mind, and the US knowledge of this fact, the failure of the US to extend the olive branch, and instead drop the bombs, strikes me as damning.

[Sendo]

the only justifications one could have outside of naked cold war preparation and callous muscle-flexing, would be a racist fear of the Japanese even when they were already defeated in deed (but not in word) and a racist assumption that the people are fundamentally different from the conscientious soldiers and workers of the white West.

[x359594]

...a racist fear of the Japanese even when they were already defeated in deed (but not in word) and a racist assumption that the people are fundamentally different from the conscientious soldiers and workers of the white West.

Racist fear infected part of Truman's cabinet but not all of it. For example, Grew was ambassador to Japan and was the leader of the "keep the emperor" faction.

The racist angle was one variable in the decision to use the bomb, the threat/warning to the USSR another, the necessity of justifying the expense of the bomb yet another, the domestic political costs to Truman of not using it another factor, but military necessity was certainly the least important factor in the decision given that Leahy and Eisenhower (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Supreme Commander European Theater respectively) both argued against the bomb as militarily unnecessary.

[The Red]

This sounds exactly like the bullshit straight out of one of our american History books

Nice rebuttal there, come up with arguments against my point instead of brainless insults next time.

[The Red]

Says who? Comrade where are you getting your history? I've told you my sources, what are yours?

Getting my history of what? If you mean the likelihood of a Soviet invasion then that's just face search "Planned Soviet invasion of Hokkaido" and you'll get plenty of sources.

[Scary Monster]

Nice rebuttal there, come up with arguments against my point instead of brainless insults next time.

Everything you are saying that you believe justifies the nuke attacks was the exact same shit that was in my history text book back in high school. Im stating a fact, not really a "brainless insult". It sounds like you are regurgitating everything the teacher told you in school or something.

[x359594]

Getting my history of what?...

I trust that you're not being disingenuous comrade, but where are you getting your history of Japan during the 15 Year's War, the origin of such statements that "the thought of revolution was alien to the Japanese people," your assertion that an invasion of Japan was a military necessity, for starters. In all of your posts you haven't cited any references to support your assertions nor have you provided any links to back up your thesis; all we get is "search 'planned soviet invasion of Hokkaido'." Surely you can do better than that.

Finally, let me add two more references: Hiroshima in America: 50 Years of Denial by Robert J. Lifton and Greg Mitchell, and The Legacy of Hiroshima by Naomi Shomo.

[Sendo]

Racist fear infected part of Truman's cabinet but not all of it. For example, Grew was ambassador to Japan and was the leader of the "keep the emperor" faction.

I was referring to racism as the justification that is sold by Truman and by history textbooks. I don't care if Truman was personally racist or not.

[x359594]

I was referring to racism as the justification that is sold by Truman and by history textbooks...

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, that's a valid point.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

This sorta seems like one of those topics that is pointless to debate about.

Cause, you know, it already happened and shit.
That'd seem to cover pretty much everything in the entire history forum, then.

Nice rebuttal there, come up with arguments against my point instead of brainless insults next time.
And as for all the actual arguments that've already been posted in this thread?

[Barry Lyndon]

I recognize that morally, the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrendous and one of the greatest single crimes in human history. A Indian judge who wrote the only dissenting opinion at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal(kind of the Pacific counterpart to the Nuremburg trials) noted that the two atrocities that history would remember World War II for would be the Nazi extermination camps and the atomic bombings of Japan.

A lot of arguments are going back and forth about how many Americans and how many Japanese would have died if their was an invasion.
However, what is rarely asked is how many Asians under Japanese rule would have died if the war was prolonged for another year or so, or even a few months? By some estimates, 100-200,000 people were dying EVERY MONTH in China alone due to the war that Japan was waging there, the vast majority of the dead being civilians-which is roughly the equivalent of the death toll of both bombings. In the winter of 1944-45, 2 million Vietnamese starved to death because of the Japanese army's looting and pillaging of farmland. 4 million Indonesians died in three and a half years of Japanese rule due to terror, forced labor, and starvation.

From that standpoint the atomic bombing may have saved many lives, although inadverdently.

[Tablo]

The Japanese actually tried to surrender prior to the bombings, but were ignored. At least that is what I read. Do not quite remember where though...

[Sendo]

I recognize that morally, the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrendous and one of the greatest single crimes in human history. A Indian judge who wrote the only dissenting opinion at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal(kind of the Pacific counterpart to the Nuremburg trials) noted that the two atrocities that history would remember World War II for would be the Nazi extermination camps and the atomic bombings of Japan.

A lot of arguments are going back and forth about how many Americans and how many Japanese would have died if their was an invasion.
However, what is rarely asked is how many Asians under Japanese rule would have died if the war was prolonged for another year or so, or even a few months? By some estimates, 100-200,000 people were dying EVERY MONTH in China alone due to the war that Japan was waging there, the vast majority of the dead being civilians-which is roughly the equivalent of the death toll of both bombings. In the winter of 1944-45, 2 million Vietnamese starved to death because of the Japanese army's looting and pillaging of farmland. 4 million Indonesians died in three and a half years of Japanese rule due to terror, forced labor, and starvation.

From that standpoint the atomic bombing may have saved many lives, although inadverdently.

I disagree, but I like your points and you make a good argument.

However, the surrender did not put a stop to looting and all that. It took time for the message to get out, and even then the Soviets and the Chinese Red Army had to mop up many Japanese who were under orders to defend their positions until they surrendered to the correct parties. Yes, the US told the Japanese to fight off the Chinese until Chiang's forces accepted their surrender.

[The Ben G]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two of the reasons I refuse to say the pledge of allegience. They were unnessisary killings of innocents.

[Kléber]

The real reason was that the Soviet army, with help from local guerrillas, was rapidly taking over Japanese-held territory; the Allies had even already secretly decided on the date at which the USSR would declare war on Japan, so all sides knew what was going on. The US imperialists wanted as much of the collapsing Japanese Empire as they could get, so it had to be forced to surrender as quickly as possible. The capitulation of Japan to the US instead of the USSR allowed the former to cut short the advance of pro-Soviet forces by occupying South Korea, flying Chinese Nationalist representatives around to Japanese-held Chinese cities to hand most of China over to the GMD, and shipping French forces to reoccupy most of Southeast Asia, not to mention taking over Japan itself.

Left-wing and even Communist scientists in the US helped design the atomic bomb for their imperialist government using the reasoning of Earl Browder and the Popular Front, but they were fools in my opinion. The claim that it "stopped the war" isn't logical because it was the cynical opening shot in a new cycle of imperialist war, no longer in the name of, but now clearly against the peoples of Asia. US imperialist and pro-US comprador rule didn't replace Japanese imperialism with something more "progressive," I mean look at the Philippines, there might have been more lip service to democratic rights, but on the other hand, the Japanese imperialists had had their pseudo-progressive anti-imperialist rhetoric with the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. As far as Indonesia goes, don't forget that the departing Japanese army armed the Indonesian nationalists against the returning Anglo-Dutch forces. It can't really be said one imperialist camp was better than the other.