66 years ago: Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[Q]

In 45 minutes from now it will be exactly 66 years ago that Hiroshima was bombed, followed three days later by the bombing of Nagaki by another type of nuclear warhead.


About an hour before the bombing, Japanese early warning radar detected the approach of some American aircraft headed for the southern part of Japan. An alert was given and radio broadcasting stopped in many cities, among them Hiroshima. At nearly 08:00, the radar operator in Hiroshima determined that the number of planes coming in was very small—probably not more than three—and the air raid alert was lifted. To conserve fuel and aircraft, the Japanese had decided not to intercept small formations. The normal radio broadcast warning was given to the people that it might be advisable to go to air-raid shelters if B-29s were actually sighted. However a reconnaissance mission was assumed because at 07.31 the first B29 to fly over Hiroshima at 32,000 feet (9,800 m) had been the weather observation aircraft Straight Flush that sent a morse code message to the Enola Gay indicating that the weather was good over the primary target and because it then turned out to sea the 'all clear' was sounded in the city. At 08.09 Colonel Tibbets started his bomb run and handed control over to his bombardier.[28]

The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the gravity bomb known as "Little Boy", a gun-type fission weapon with 60 kilograms (130 lb) of uranium-235, took 43 seconds to fall from the aircraft flying at 31,060 feet (9,470 m)[29] to the predetermined detonation height about 1,900 feet (580 m) above the city. The Enola Gay had traveled 11.5 miles (18.5 km) away before it felt the shock waves from the blast.[30]

Due to crosswind, it missed the aiming point, the Aioi Bridge, by almost 800 feet (240 m) and detonated directly over Shima Surgical Clinic.[31] It created a blast equivalent to about 13 kilotons of TNT (54 TJ). (The U-235 weapon was considered very inefficient, with only 1.38% of its material fissioning.)[32] The radius of total destruction was about one mile (1.6 km), with resulting fires across 4.4 square miles (11 km2).[33] Americans estimated that 4.7 square miles (12 km2) of the city were destroyed. Japanese officials determined that 69% of Hiroshima's buildings were destroyed and another 6–7% damaged.[34]

70,000–80,000 people, or some 30%[35] of the population of Hiroshima were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured.[36] Over 90% of the doctors and 93% of the nurses in Hiroshima were killed or injured—most had been in the downtown area which received the greatest damage.[37]

Although the U.S. had previously dropped leaflets warning civilians of air raids on 35 Japanese cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki,[38] the residents of Hiroshima were given no notice of the atomic bomb.[39][40][41]

Read more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki).

Was the bombing of these cities necessary in order to end the war swiftly and thus spare many more lives (as was the American reasoning) or was it a crime against humanity?

Discuss.

[Ismail]

On Hiroshima and its relationship to the Cold War see: http://killinghope.org/essays6/abomb.htm

[Apoi_Viitor]

In the book Tragedy and Hope, Professor Carroll Quigley actually states that one of the main reasons for the dropping of the atomic bombs, was due to the amount of wealth invested in the Manhattan project. Because of all the capital invested, some of the project leaders ended up arguing, "Well we spent all this money developing the bombs, we might as well use them."

[ComradePonov]

I am of the opinion that the bombs were not dropped to end WWII faster. This is a ridicilous claim and absolutely false. The Japanese were on the brick of collapse, and , as a matter of fact, they were already discussing terms with both the Russians and the Americans.

I belive the bombs were dropped due to 2 main reasons;

1) to show Stalin that the Allies (Excluding the Soviet Union) had a powerful explosive which the Soviets did not have. And, more importantly;

2) to stop the Soviets from splitting Japan into two sections, just as they had done in Germany.

It is interesting to note that the bombs were dropped shortly after the Red army landed and captured a Japanese island and was driving towards Japanese cities. I think the latter of the two reasons mentioned above played the larger factor.

[Dr Mindbender]

I am of the opinion that the bombs were not dropped to end WWII faster. This is a ridicilous claim and absolutely false. The Japanese were on the brick of collapse, and , as a matter of fact, they were already discussing terms with both the Russians and the Americans.

I belive the bombs were dropped due to 2 main reasons;

1) to show Stalin that the Allies (Excluding the Soviet Union) had a powerful explosive which the Soviets did not have. And, more importantly;

2) to stop the Soviets from splitting Japan into two sections, just as they had done in Germany.

It is interesting to note that the bombs were dropped shortly after the Red army landed and captured a Japanese island and was driving towards Japanese cities. I think the latter of the two reasons mentioned above played the larger factor.


I'd also add

3) there was an element of punitive vengeance.

Many probably had little sympathy, or even felt the Japanese 'deserved' the explosions because of their conduct in the war.

[Ismail]

2) to stop the Soviets from splitting Japan into two sections, just as they had done in Germany.

It is interesting to note that the bombs were dropped shortly after the Red army landed and captured a Japanese island and was driving towards Japanese cities. I think the latter of the two reasons mentioned above played the larger factor.The Americans divided Germany. One book on this subject is Drawing the Line: The American Decision to Divide Germany, 1944-1949, but various other books make this point as well. I doubt Truman was thinking "Stalin is going to deprive the Japanese people of unity!" while nuking them. But yeah, the fear was that Japan would turn into a pro-Soviet state.

[Queercommie Girl]

http://links.org.au/node/1186

August 6 and August 9 mark the anniversaries of the US atomic-bomb attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. In Hiroshima, an estimated 80,000 people were killed in a split second. Some 13 square kilometres of the city were obliterated. By December, at least another 70,000 people had died from radiation and injuries.



Three days after Hiroshima's destruction, the US dropped an A-bomb on Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of at least 70,000 people before the year was out.



Since 1945, tens of thousands more residents of the two cities have continued to suffer and die from radiation-induced cancers, birth defects and still births.



A tiny group of US rulers met secretly in Washington and callously ordered this indiscriminate annihilation of civilian populations. They gave no explicit warnings. They rejected all alternatives, preferring to inflict the most extreme human carnage possible. They ordered and had carried out the two worst single terror acts in human history.



Hiroshima and Nagasaki anniversaries are inevitably marked by countless mass media commentaries and US politicians' speeches that repeat the 64-year-old mantra that there was no other choice but to use A-bombs in order to avoid a bitter, prolonged invasion of Japan.



On July 21, 2005, the British New Scientist magazine undermined this chorus when it reported that two historians had uncovered further evidence revealing that “the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... was meant to kick-start the Cold War [against the Soviet Union, Washington's war-time ally] rather than end the Second World War”. Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at the American University in Washington, stated that US President Harry Truman's decision to blast the cities “was not just a war crime, it was a crime against humanity”.



With Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in New York, Kuznick studied the diplomatic archives of the US, Japan and the USSR. They found that three days before Hiroshima, Truman agreed at a meeting that Japan was “looking for peace”. His senior generals and political advisers told him there was no need to use the A-bomb. But the bombs were dropped anyway.



“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war”, Selden told the New Scientist.



While the capitalist media immediately dubbed the historians' “theory” “controversial”, it accords with the testimony of many central US political and military players at the time, including General Dwight Eisenhower, who stated bluntly in a 1963 Newsweek interview that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing”.



Truman's chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy, stated in his memoirs that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”



At the time though, Washington cold-bloodedly decided to obliterate the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children to show off the terrible power of its new super weapon and underline the US rulers' ruthless preparedness to use it.



These terrible acts were intended to warn the leaders of the Soviet Union that their cities would suffer the same fate if the USSR attempted to stand in the way of Washington's plans to create an “American Century” of US global domination. Nuclear scientist Leo Szilard recounted to his biographers how Truman's secretary of state, James Byrnes, told him before the Hiroshima attack that “Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might and that a demonstration of the bomb may impress Russia”.



Drunk from the success of its nuclear bloodletting in Japan, Washington planned and threatened the use of nuclear weapons on at least 20 occasions in the 1950s and 1960s, only being restrained when the USSR developed enough nuclear-armed rockets to usher in the era of “mutually assured destruction”, and the US rulers' fear that their use again of nuclear weapons would led to a massive anti-US political revolt by ordinary people around the world.



Washington's policy of nuclear terror remains intact. The US refuses to rule out the first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict. Its latest Nuclear Posture Review envisages the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear “rogue states” and it is developing a new generation of ‘battlefield” nuclear weapons.


Fear of the political backlash that would be caused in the US and around the globe by the use of nuclear weapons remains the main restraint upon the atomaniacs in Washington. On the anniversaries of history's worst single acts of terror, the most effective thing that peaceful people around the world can do to keep that fear alive in the minds of the US rulers is to recommit ourselves to defeating Washington's current “local” wars of terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.



http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/hiroshima_wideweb__430x323.jpg

[Ismail]

Merged Iseul's thread into this one.

[ColonelCossack]

I saw this video on youtube and I was like WTF and I wanted to know if this was accurate- apparantly it's based on the little boy who walks around after the explosion's autobiography.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfJZ6nwxD38

[RED DAVE]

In the USA in the 60s, there were, routinely, large antinuke and antiwar demos on Hiroshima Day.* No more. How soon people forget.

* One of them was the first demo I was ever on.

RED DAVE

[Nox]

I feel ashamed to be a human.

[Ismail]

I feel ashamed to be a human.I'm pretty sure humanity didn't unilaterally decide to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[DarkPast]

How soon people forget.

Let's mention something else people have forgotten: the fire raids on Japan.


The raid had a massive impact on Tokyo. Photo-reconnaissance showed that 16 square miles of the city had been destroyed. Sixteen major factories – ironically scheduled for a future daylight raid – were destroyed along with many cottage industries. In parts of the city, the fires joined up to create a firestorm. The fires burned so fiercely and they consumed so much oxygen, that people in the locality suffocated. It is thought that 100,000 people were killed in the raid and another 100,000 injured. The Americans lost 14 B-29’s; under the 5% rate of loss that was considered to be ‘acceptable’.
On March 12th, a similar raid took place on Nagoya. The raid was less successful as the fires did not join up and just over 1 square mile of the city was destroyed. On March 13th, Osaka was attacked. Eight square miles of the city were destroyed. Nearly 2.5 square miles of Kobe was also destroyed by incendiary raids. In the space of ten days, the Americans had dropped nearly 9,500 tons of incendiaries on Japanese cities and destroyed 29 square miles of what was considered to be important industrial land.


“Stacked up corpses were being hauled away on lorries. Everywhere there was the stench of the dead and of smoke. I saw the places on the pavement where people had been roasted to death. At last I comprehended first-hand what an air-raid meant. I turned back, sick and scared. Later I learned that 40% of Tokyo was burned that night, that there had been 100,000 casualties and 375,000 left homeless.”
“A month after the March raid, while I was on a visit to Honjo on a particularly beautiful cherry-blossom day, I saw bloated and charred corpses surfacing in the Sumida River. I felt nauseated and even more scared than before.”
“We ourselves were burned out in the fire raid of May 25th 1945. As I ran I kept my eyes on the sky. It was like a fireworks display as the incendiaries exploded. People were aflame, rolling and writhing in agony, screaming piteously for help, but beyond all mortal assistance.”
-Fusako Sasaki

(source: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fire_raids_on_japan.htm)

[CHE with an AK]

9UHsEMXY5d8

[Teacher]

The dropping of the atomic bomb was terrible but it did end the war faster and save lives. There was an element of anticipating the Cold War among U.S. leaders but the primary objective was to end the war and achieve an unconditional surrender.

[Teacher]

I am of the opinion that the bombs were not dropped to end WWII faster. This is a ridicilous claim and absolutely false. The Japanese were on the brick of collapse, and , as a matter of fact, they were already discussing terms with both the Russians and the Americans.

This is not true. The Japanese were not on the verge of surrender.

[Dr Mindbender]

This is not true. The Japanese were not on the verge of surrender.

Even assuming that is true, i dont think it was worth the human cost in civilian losses. Its purely speculation that a conventional invasion would have been more costly. The USA was only concerned with saving its own combatants. At least many innocents would have been spared not just the blast but the decades of contamination.

[Raubleaux]

Even assuming that is true, i dont think it was worth the human cost in civilian losses. Its purely speculation that a conventional invasion would have been more costly. The USA was only concerned with saving its own combatants. At least many innocents would have been spared not just the blast but the decades of contamination.

I don't think it is purely speculation to say that an invasion of the japanese mainland would have had a very gruesome death toll. Look at the battle of Okinawa..

It is true that the US leaders were primarily concerned with their own combatants but they inadvertently saved a lot of Japanese and especially Chinese lives (who were being slaughtered by the thousands by the Japanese fascists).

[Dr Mindbender]

I don't think it is purely speculation to say that an invasion of the japanese mainland would have had a very gruesome death toll. Look at the battle of Okinawa...
I'm not denying that the death toll of a conventional invasion would have been either significant or gruesome. The Normandy landings are empirical evidence. However that's not the issue at stake. The issue is its not clear that invasion would have been MORE costly than the bombings. What we can say for certain is that an invasion would have saved generations of innocent non combatants from the horror of the blast and radiation related illnesses.

[Invader Zim]

Certainly it seems to me that the dropping of the bombs was ultimately unnecessary. It seems likely that Japan would have surrendered prior to any invasion, a point made by the US's own team. That said the use of the nuclear weapons was no more than an extension of the existing bombing campaign, and not much of an extension at that.


The Normandy landings are empirical evidence.

Actually the loss of life on D-Day were actually very slight when compared to many other aspects of the conflict.


I'm not denying that the death toll of a conventional invasion would have been either significant or gruesome.

I don't agree. When the Americans dropped the second bomb the Soviets had also invaded Manchuria, as well as the Kuril islands and the southern half of Sakhalin and would doubtless have soon invaded Hokkaido. The Japanese, anticipating the invasion by the Americans from the south had very little in the way of defence in the North, so by entering the war the Soviets had effectively pincered and outflanked Japan making any military defence of the home Islands near impossible.

Of course this is where the debate becomes tricky regarding the use of the bombs. It seems to be a largely accepted fact that until the use of the bombs, and the invasion by the Soviets, that the Japanese supreme war council was split down the middle. Three, perhaps more militant, wished to force the US to invade and inflict so many casualties that a better peace deal could be achieved. The other half wanted to negotiate a better deal deal using the USSR as a high status go between. Obviously the intervention of the USSR killed the diplomatic option and at the same time it rendered any hope of defending the islands impossible. This has been described as one of the major shocks, along with the use of the bombs, which led to the eventual surrender of Japan.


What we can say for certain is that an invasion would have saved generations of innocent non combatants from the horror of the blast and radiation related illnesses.

Very unlikely. Even if we discount the existence of the bombs for the minute, any invasion would have been accompanied and preceeded by a heavily extension of the fire bombing campaign, which was capable of just as much death and destruction as the atomic bombs - for example, in the case of the destruction of Tokyo, some 100,000 individuals are estimated to have died.

This is what would have caused the real loss of life had an invasion occured, not the actual fighting from the invasion, which given the untenable position Japan was in seems likely to have been minimal.


This is not true. The Japanese were not on the verge of surrender.

On the contrary, it is true. As noted above surrender was inevitable, the debate between the big six was on the question of how to gain the most favourable surrender terms. Purple decrypts show that the Japanese had been sending peace fealers to the USSR for many months prior to eventual surrender. And the domestic situation would have required a surrender eventually, indeed the use of the bombs and the Soviet invasion, were actually employed as scapegoats by the Japanese government for the loss of the war. Rather than admit that they had surrendered because they were beaten and were out of resources and would soon be faced with catastrophic economic and agricultural melt-down they instead could claim that they were faced with the threat of utter destruction at the hands of a superweapon as well as now duel threat posed by a second great power.

To quote Kido,

"If military leaders could convince themselves that they were defeated by the power of science but not by lack of spiritual power or strategic errors, they could save face to some extent."

And Navy Minister Yonai,

“I think the term is inappropriate, but the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war are, in a sense, gifts from the gods [tenyu, also ‘Heaven-sent blessings’]. This way we don’t have to say that we have quit the war because of domestic circumstances. Why I have long been advocating control of the crisis of the country is neither from fear of an enemy attack nor because of the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war. The main reason is my anxiety over the domestic situation. So, it is rather fortunate that now we can control matters without revealing the domestic situation.”

Richard B. Frank, Downfall: the End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (New York, 1999), p. 310.

[Invader Zim]

On July 21, 2005, the British New Scientist magazine undermined this chorus when it reported that two historians had uncovered further evidence ...

What a load of bullshit. People have been making that argument for decades.

[Bronco]

Even assuming that is true, i dont think it was worth the human cost in civilian losses. Its purely speculation that a conventional invasion would have been more costly. The USA was only concerned with saving its own combatants. At least many innocents would have been spared not just the blast but the decades of contamination.

The invasion isn't the only thing that needs to be considered though, even if an invasion did not exactly cost as many lives it is sure to have taken longer for the Japanese to surrender this way (going by the assumption that the Japanese were not on the verge of surrender). The problem is that there were also literally hundreds of thousands in China and the rest of Asia dying every single month and that would have continued the longer the war had gone. That considered I think it was necessary for the war to be brought to an end as quickly as possible, although obviously if an armistice or a surrender could have been agreed than it should have

[Queercommie Girl]

What a load of bullshit. People have been making that argument for decades.

Well, don't point the finger at me. I didn't say that. I just posted the article, doesn't mean the article is 100% accurate. And frankly I don't have the responsibility to point out every single inaccuracy in every article I post.

I do agree with the general idea in the article though.

P.S. Frankly I'd advise you to stop talking to me in such a rude and condescending tone of voice as well.

[Queercommie Girl]

Very unlikely. Even if we discount the existence of the bombs for the minute, any invasion would have been accompanied and preceeded by a heavily extension of the fire bombing campaign, which was capable of just as much death and destruction as the atomic bombs - for example, in the case of the destruction of Tokyo, some 100,000 individuals are estimated to have died.

This is what would have caused the real loss of life had an invasion occured, not the actual fighting from the invasion, which given the untenable position Japan was in seems likely to have been minimal.


He was talking about the long-term effects of nuclear radiation, which conventional weapons, no matter how destructive, don't produce.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think it is purely speculation to say that an invasion of the japanese mainland would have had a very gruesome death toll. Look at the battle of Okinawa..

It is true that the US leaders were primarily concerned with their own combatants but they inadvertently saved a lot of Japanese and especially Chinese lives (who were being slaughtered by the thousands by the Japanese fascists).

Being Chinese, I would be the first one to point out the brutality of Japanese imperialism. But I still wouldn't support the mass slaughter of innocent Japanese civilians just to end the war.

Human rights isn't just an arithmetic game. In many situations objective speaking murdering someone can literally save other people's lives, (e.g. in a survivalist situation when people are trapped on a lone island, killing off the weak and injured would save precious resources and give everyone else a much better chance of survival. In addition, it is likely the weak and injured wouldn't really survive for much longer anyway. The logic works, but the ethics doesn't) but it doesn't make murdering people ethically justifiable.

What you are saying is that essentially innocent civilians, who had no direct links with the war, basically has to die in order to save other people from dying in the war, even though they've done absolutely nothing wrong at all. Wouldn't you say these civilians should have a say in this matter?

Even if the US really did have the interests of Chinese civilians in mind (which I clearly think is not the case), it would still be ethically wrong. Chinese people don't want innocent people's blood to pay for their own survival.

[Invader Zim]

Well, don't point the finger at me. I didn't say that. I just posted the article, doesn't mean the article is 100% accurate. And frankly I don't have the responsibility to point out every single inaccuracy in every article I post.

I do agree with the general idea in the article though.

P.S. Frankly I'd advise you to stop talking to me in such a rude and condescending tone of voice as well.

Well someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed, but that aside had you actually bothered to read my post before rushing to offence you would have noted that I addressed the quote to the article not to you.

As for being rude and condesending, like I said I slagged off, and was addressing, the article, not you - it isn't my fault you failed to register that.


He was talking about the long-term effects of nuclear radiation, which conventional weapons, no matter how destructive, don't produce.

Which were still not anywhere near as high as the deaths from the conventional bombing campaign as it was and that campaign, to say it again, would have been dramatically stepped up and been bolstered by Soviet efforts. While the horror of the fallout caused the premature deaths of hundreds of thousands (300,000 I recall reading recently), I suspect that would have been a far lower figure than would have been burned alive and maimed in the firestorms prior to an invasion.

[tanklv]

For anybody to think, let alone claim, that the Japanese were ready and willing to surrender before the bomb drop is delusional and wishful
revisionist thinking, at best - and revisionist bullshit.

Not to mention the convenient and purposeful omitting of the brutal Japanese rape of the Chinese mainland, along with the Philippines, etc.

For gods sake people - EVEN AFTER DROPPING THE FIRST BOMB, THEY REFUSED TO SURRENDER!!!

And after the second bomb, they STILL REFUSED TO SURRENDER for a few days - the FASCIST Japanese generals were trying to convince the Emperor and the rest of the command to NOT SURRENDER!

It took Hirohito, to his credit, to plea for the surrender.

And don't think for a second that the Germans and Japanese weren't also working feaverishly to do the same thing sooner. There is ample evidence that Germany had transferred a large portion of it's research to the Japanese and many experts and historians have uncovered evidence that they were just weeks away from dropping their own bomb.

[KC]

The Japanese were already willing to surrender. The allied forces decided to not enter into negotiations and instead nuked a few hundred thousand people. The atomic bombs were strategically completely pointless and the allies refused to negotiate a surrender with the Japanese.


For anybody to think, let alone claim, that the Japanese were ready and willing to surrender before the bomb drop is delusional and wishful
revisionist thinking, at best - and revisionist bullshit.This is a complete fabrication.


There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

US Strategic Bombing Survey (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw)Emphasis mine.


Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945

JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals

By Walter Trohan

Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago.

Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.

MacArthur Relayed Message to F.D.

The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures.

The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces.

Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.

General's Communication Dismissed

President Roosevelt dismissed the general's communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician."

The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta. However, it was carefully preserved in the files of the high command and subsequently became the basis of the Truman-Attlee Potsdam declaration calling for surrender of Japan.

This Jap peace bid was known to the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald shortly after the MacArthur comunication reached here. It was not published under the paper’s established policy of complete co-operation with the voluntary censorship code.

Source (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/475703002.html?dids=475703002:475703002&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Aug+19%2C+1945&author=WALTER+TROHAN&pub=Chicago+Daily+Tribune+%281872-1963%29&edition=&startpage=1&desc=BARE+PEACE+BID+U.+S.+REBUFFED+7+MONTHS+AGO)


On 12 July--the day after advising Ambassador Sato [sic] of Japan's desire to "make use of Russia in ending the war"--Foreign Minister Togo dispatched the following additional message on the subject, labelled "very urgent":

...

"His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland. His majesty is deeply reluctant to have any further blood lost among the people on both sides, and it is his desire for the welfare of all humanity to restore peace with all possible speed.

"The emperor's will, as expressed above, arises not only from his benevolence toward his own subjects but from his concern for the welfare of humanity in general. It is the Emperor's private intention to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a Special Envoy with a letter from him containing the statements given above. Please inform Molotov of this and get the Russians' consent to having the party enter the country...

"Magic"-Diplomatic Summary - 13 July 1945 (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/31.pdf)
Ultra Top Secret - Declassified 7/20/05

[gendoikari]

Was the bombing of these cities necessary in order to end the war swiftly and thus spare many more lives (as was the American reasoning) or was it a crime against humanity?


Both. It was a horrendous act that never should have been done, but the alternatives were worse. Either we went home and let the japanese rape the world like the rape of nanking, or we beat them into submission without the atom bombs killing millions of civilians instead of hundreds of thousands.


also what about the firebombing to tokyo, that killed more people than either atom bomb.

war, it's a horrible fucking thing, but sometimes you have to do it. But it should be avoided until it's something you have to do.

[Invader Zim]

Emphasis mine.

Well I agree, to a point, but the problem of using the USSBS is that it was wrong as has been shown by plenty of historians since.

[ZeroNowhere]

For anybody to think, let alone claim, that the Japanese were ready and willing to surrender before the bomb drop is delusional and wishful
revisionist thinking, at best - and revisionist bullshit.]Cut your yapping and make an argument for how blatantly 'delusional' it is, if you really want to.

[Queercommie Girl]

For anybody to think, let alone claim, that the Japanese were ready and willing to surrender before the bomb drop is delusional and wishful
revisionist thinking, at best - and revisionist bullshit.


Go and fuck yourself, you pro-US piece of shit.



Not to mention the convenient and purposeful omitting of the brutal Japanese rape of the Chinese mainland, along with the Philippines, etc.


So in other words, some innocent civilians must be sacrificed, against their will, in order to save other innocent civilians.

And you are delusional if you think the US army really had Chinese and other Asian civilians in mind when they bombed Japan.

A better approach would be to try to assassinate the leaders of the Japanese Empire. But the US, being a bourgeois imperialist state, never really cared about civilian lives of any country anyway, as the subsequent Vietnam War demonstrated in ample amount of detail.

The US never was some kind of "socialist liberating force", and it's delusional to think otherwise. The war between Japan and the US was essentially the war between two capitalist imperialist powers.

[Queercommie Girl]

Both. It was a horrendous act that never should have been done, but the alternatives were worse. Either we went home and let the japanese rape the world like the rape of nanking, or we beat them into submission without the atom bombs killing millions of civilians instead of hundreds of thousands.


also what about the firebombing to tokyo, that killed more people than either atom bomb.

war, it's a horrible fucking thing, but sometimes you have to do it. But it should be avoided until it's something you have to do.

I don't think the firebombing was necessarily any less problematic than the 2 atom bombs, even though the latter looks "more impressive".

But generally speaking, I think the very idea of "killing some innocent people to save other innocent people" is not ethically justifiable.

Consider 5 people trapped on an isolated island with very limited supplies. If they murder the weakest of the 5 who is also severely injured and probably won't survive for very long anyway, then there will be more resources for the remaining 4, and hell, they can even use the poor guy's body as a meat source! But even though the logic seems to work, the ethics doesn't. I think in such a survivalist situation it would be wrong to murder someone so the survival chances of others are increased. Indeed, if I were one of the 4 other people on the island I'd literally rather starve to death in solidarity with the weak and injured person than to kill him to improve my own survival chances.

As I said, human rights isn't just a matter of simple arithmetic.

[gendoikari]

Cut your yapping and make an argument for how blatantly 'delusional' it is, if you really want to.

The japanese at that point had taken bushido and perverted it into something that was akin to racist emperor worship with a near cult like following. They expanded bushido to say that EVERYONE was a samurai who fought for the emperor... bullshit. I'll have to search for the documents but this is a commonly held knowledge. Also Look at the bushido charge to see what the japanese believed. They thought their weapons were superfluous and it was their willingness to die for the emperor and the superiority of the Japanese race that would win them ANY conflict.

[gendoikari]

I don't think the firebombing was necessarily any less problematic than the 2 atom bombs, even though the latter looks "more impressive".

But generally speaking, I think the very idea of "killing some innocent people to save other innocent people" is not ethically justifiable.

Consider 5 people trapped on an isolated island with very limited supplies. If they murder the weakest of the 5 who is also severely injured and probably won't survive for very long anyway, then there will be more resources for the remaining 4, and hell, they can even use the poor guy's body as a meat source! But even though the logic seems to work, the ethics doesn't. I think in such a survivalist situation it would be wrong to murder someone so the survival chances of others are increased. Indeed, if I were one of the 4 other people on the island I'd literally rather starve to death in solidarity with the weak and injured person than to kill him to improve my own survival chances.

As I said, human rights isn't just a matter of simple arithmetic.

That's kind hearted thinking but the simple fact of the matter is that the atom bombs would be more like a guy who straps a bomb vest to 5 people and tells them they have to kill one of the five and they can all go. (we're assuming the psycopath is honest here and will let them go and there is no way to escape). In this situation you either kill the one guy to save 4, or everyone dies including the one that would have been sacrificed. In short, that one guys is already fucked, but the others don't need to be, to let them die would be the unethical thing to do. Because trying to save that one, is litterally killing the other 4. That is not to say that the whole thing is FUBAR in the first place, but at times you have to choose between saving a few and killing many.

It becomes a matter of arithmatic, because if you choose to let the higher number of people die, you are essentially killing the difference in your choice. For instance those people in hiroshima and nagasaki would likely have been killed anyway had we had to invade, but millions more around them would also die. It's FUBAR but that's war. Once you've been pushed into war, your primary goal should be limiting casualties, placing priority on saving civilians.

[Invader Zim]

But the bombs alone did not solicit th surrender. Their role, from the perspective of the Japanese high command, was nothing more than an extension of the bombing campaign, but one which offered an honourable excuse to surrender. In my view the Soviet invasion was just as necessary. The soviet invasion removed the available opinions remaining adnt the bombs provided a way out.

[gendoikari]

But the bombs alone did not solicit th surrender. Their role, from the perspective of the Japanese high command, was nothing more than an extension of the bombing campaign, but one which offered an honourable excuse to surrender. In my view the Soviet invasion was just as necessary. The soviet invasion removed the available opinions remaining adnt the bombs provided a way out.

You are correct and incorrect on that. it gave the high command a reason to surrender, that wouldn't have the japanese people up in arms. These people were not going to give up, and small bombing raids did nothing to the morale of the people. It was when they saw that a single plane would come and wipe out a city that they started to think "Okay maybe we're not undefeatable" It was a shock to the entire system. And without them we would probably have had to wipe out a good 50% of the Japanese people to end that war, and esitmates have american casualties at around 1 Million or more. The Japanese were not some pidly little nation you really wanted to fuck with, they were nuts and power hungry. A very bad combination.

I mean, we had planned two attacks but we only authorized one to begin with to see if they'd surrender.... they did not. They took a nuke up the backside and told the americans "Is THAT all you got? Weak ass fool"

[Invader Zim]

You are correct and incorrect on that. it gave the high command a reason to surrender, that wouldn't have the japanese people up in arms. These people were not going to give up, and small bombing raids did nothing to the morale of the people. It was when they saw that a single plane would come and wipe out a city that they started to think "Okay maybe we're not undefeatable" It was a shock to the entire system. And without them we would probably have had to wipe out a good 50% of the Japanese people to end that war, and esitmates have american casualties at around 1 Million or more. The Japanese were not some pidly little nation you really wanted to fuck with, they were nuts and power hungry. A very bad combination.

I mean, we had planned two attacks but we only authorized one to begin with to see if they'd surrender.... they did not. They took a nuke up the backside and told the americans "Is THAT all you got? Weak ass fool"

Why, exactly, would the second and weaker bombing have caused a surrender which the first did not? Why would either bombing have resulted in surrender when the more damaging and deadly fire bombing campaign did not? Is it a coincidence that the Soviet entry into the war resulted in surrender hours later? Sorry, but your putting this down to the bombs does not add up.

And everybody knows it.

[gendoikari]

Why, exactly, would the second and weaker bombing have caused a surrender which the first did not? Why would either bombing have resulted in surrender when the more damaging and deadly fire bombing campaign did not? Is it a coincidence that the Soviet entry into the war resulted in surrender hours later? Sorry, but your putting this down to the bombs does not add up.

And everybody knows it.

Because One bomb doesn't matter. And we were going full force with what we had before that. But as soon as the second bomb came the japanese knew that if they didn't surrender they would be wiped off the face of the map, litterally. The reason the atom bombs worked was not just that they killed a lot of people ... it's that they wiped whole cities off the map with single planes. At first the japanese didn't even believe it was a bomb. They thought it was an act of nature. it's a shock and awe weapon with more power in it's psychological impact than real impact.

The soviets entering were just a late game grab. Now that's not to say that it had nothing to do with their surrender, but on the other hand had they stayed out, the japanese would still probably have surrendered. Maybe not as quickly, perhaps a few more days, or months perhaps, but the bombs ended the war. the Russian declaration of war just sealed that end off quickly because the japanese didn't want to end up just another puppet state, and in fact there was in some historians view a likely hood of a second war over japan between the two super powers. I'm not saying that's a likely scenario but it was something for the japanese to consider. So while the Soviet declaration wasn't a main cause for the japanese surrender, it certainly hastened it, they knew the americans would be much kinder to them.

Now had the japanese has a few more weeks or months of the war, the story would have been vastly different. The japanese were just over a week away from testing their own Atom bomb (allegedly, I've only seen anecdotal evidence of this and never any photos of the actual facility) at the end of the war. (one single bomb, not 100% sure if they had the capablility to even make a second after their test device, the only accounts of this point to them only having one enrichment method and no plutonium production capabilities), had the war been offset by a few months they could have had a fleet of jet fighters in the air, possibly with guided missiles to defend against the american bombers coming with atom bombs, and then the soviet declaration would have had much more of an impact in being an acutal cause for their surrender. That's all speculation however, as all we know are that they had a few test devices and prototypes ready, and the guided missiles were just copies of german weapons that never saw production.

[Invader Zim]

But as soon as the second bomb came the japanese knew that if they didn't surrender they would be wiped off the face of the map, litterally.

And why is that? As has already been noted several times in this thread the conventional bombing campaign was capable of, and indeed had, inflicted far more damage than either Little Boy or Fat Man. So your assertion that the Japanese surrendered because the Americans were suddenly capable of inflicting city-scale damage is plainly flawed. As is the notion that the Americans, by dropping the bombs, made clear that they were willing to engage in the total destruction of Japan from the air. Plainly the Japanese, given the scale of bombing already visited upon their urban areas, would already have been aware of just how far the Americans were willing to go, and that hadn't caused their surrender.


but on the other hand had they stayed out, the japanese would still probably have surrendered. Oh, undoubtedly, they would have surrendered without the bombs too. In fact they would also have surrendered without an invasion of the home islands. The reason they surrendred was because Japan had failed and was on the verge of economic, industrial and agricultural meltdown. The bombs, the soviet invasion of Manchuria (etc.) and the threat of invasion from two points did not cause the end of the war, they merely dictated that it end a few months sooner rather than later.

Of course, this ignores the fact that the Americans could have ended the war at least a year earlier than they did had they been willing to negotiate a surrender, as opposed to simply demand unconditional surrender. It is worth noting that when Japan did surrender it did so under the condition that the Americans would not prosecute Hirohito or remove him from his position.


the Russian declaration of war just sealed that end off quickly because the japanese didn't want to end up just another puppet state, and in fact there was in some historians view a likely hood of a second war over japan between the two super powers. I'm not saying that's a likely scenario but it was something for the japanese to consider. So while the Soviet declaration wasn't a main cause for the japanese surrender, it certainly hastened it, they knew the americans would be much kinder to them. Plainly you do not fathom the role of the Soviets in either Japanese diplomatic efforts or Japan's overall stratigic outlook.


The japanese were just over a week away from testing their own Atom bomb (allegedly, I've only seen anecdotal evidence of this and never any photos of the actual facility) at the end of the war.

Firstly, this is nonsense. Secondly, even if they were it was irrelevent given that the ability to drop an atomic bomb required air superiority which the Japanese most certainly did not possess by that stage of the war.


had the war been offset by a few months they could have had a fleet of jet fighters in the air, possibly with guided missiles to defend against the american bombers coming with atom bombs, This is pure fantasy.

[gendoikari]

And why is that? As has already been noted several times in this thread the conventional bombing campaign was capable of, and indeed had, inflicted far more damage than either Little Boy or Fat Man. So your assertion that the Japanese surrendered because the Americans were suddenly capable of inflicting city-scale damage is plainly flawed. As is the notion that the Americans, by dropping the bombs, made clear that they were willing to engage in the total destruction of Japan from the air. Plainly the Japanese, given the scale of bombing already visited upon their urban areas, would already have been aware of just how far the Americans were willing to go, and that hadn't caused their surrender.

it was not that the americans were suddenly ABLE, it is that it was percieved, remember the main effect of a nuclear bomb is not it's devestation or immediate blast but it's psychological impact and area denial.

Oh, undoubtedly, they would have surrendered without the bombs too. In fact they would also have surrendered without an invasion of the home islands. The reason they surrendred was because Japan had failed and was on the verge of economic, industrial and agricultural meltdown. The bombs, the soviet invasion of Manchuria (etc.) and the threat of invasion from two points did not cause the end of the war, they merely dictated that it end a few months sooner rather than later.

Not sure about not having to invade, maybe if we had decided to just call a truce, or wait it out COULD have worked but that's a lot of speculation

Of course, this ignores the fact that the Americans could have ended the war at least a year earlier than they did had they been willing to negotiate a surrender, as opposed to simply demand unconditional surrender. It is worth noting that when Japan did surrender it did so under the condition that the Americans would not prosecute Hirohito or remove him from his position.

True, though the americans are also a stubborn people

Plainly you do not fathom the role of the Soviets in either Japanese diplomatic efforts or Japan's overall stratigic outlook.

Oh I understand it quite, well, Japan's goose was cooked less than a year into the war, but it was so extremely stubborn they just would not give up

Firstly, this is nonsense. Secondly, even if they were it was irrelevent given that the ability to drop an atomic bomb required air superiority which the Japanese most certainly did not possess by that stage of the war.

I don't know about nonsense there is a great deal of data suggesting the positive, and had they actually developed it there were only two possible methods of delivery, the first was a long range bomber that never even saw prototype stage, and the other was the sen toku class, but I doubt one of those planes could have even gotten off with a bomb that big so the sen toku would not really be anything more than a harbor blast.

This is pure fantasy.
Actually, no, the were three different rocket/jet fighter aircraft designs that had seen a development, the factories that made them were bombed out shortly there after and production sent to the mountains, where it came to a near halt.

Now the J8M was just a knock off of the german Comet and saw a few prototypes and the Nakajima KI-201 which was a knock off of the ME-262 never saw prototype but I cant remember the model number but it was something like swi swi, that had swept wings and a single jet engine, IIRC that one also saw prototypes.

Edit: Found it it was the Kyūshū J7W, originally fitted with propeller engines it was to be adapted to use a jet engine. If you look into the axis powers they all had neat little (resource draining) advanced technological projects they were working on. Guided missiles, rockets, and the like. To my knowledge the americans had the flying flapjack and the manhattan project, and the british had the bouncing bomb, one jet fighter, and at the end some next gen tank, can't remember the name.

[Invader Zim]

it was not that the americans were suddenly ABLE, it is that it was percieved, remember the main effect of a nuclear bomb is not it's devestation or immediate blast but it's psychological impact and area denial.

And what evidence do you have to show that these strikes had more psychological impact than the Tokyo fire bombing?



Not sure about not having to invade, maybe if we had decided to just call a truce, or wait it out COULD have worked but that's a lot of speculation

No, Japan would have surrendered, and if they hadn't and an invasion had occured, which would have been from the North and South, resistance would almost certainly have been minimal because Japan did not have the resources to conduct a serious defense.


but it was so extremely stubborn they just would not give up

No. The role the soviets played was to remove the last two serious options open to Japan to achieve a favourable peace settlement.



I don't know about nonsense there is a great deal of data suggesting the positive, and had they actually developed it there were only two possible methods of delivery, the first was a long range bomber that never even saw prototype stage, and the other was the sen toku class, but I doubt one of those planes could have even gotten off with a bomb that big so the sen toku would not really be anything more than a harbor blast.

So you do agree that the issue is an irrelvence. Right.


Found it it was the Kyūshū J7W,

An aircraft which hadn't even passed through the opening prototype stages when it was prop. powered, let alone provided with jets. Really convinsing.

[gendoikari]

And what evidence do you have to show that these strikes had more psychological impact than the Tokyo fire bombing?

Dude, Think about what your saying, it's a nuke. Where do you think the social fear and MADD come from? In this case it was only one nation that had nukes. so MADD would have simply been Assured Destruction of Japa

No, Japan would have surrendered, and if they hadn't and an invasion had occured, which would have been from the North and South, resistance would almost certainly have been minimal because Japan did not have the resources to conduct a serious defense.

Resistance would not have been minimal. Just look at the civilian pockets that were there on the islands we did attack, they either attacked the americans or threw themselves off cliffs, these are not americans they had and still have a MUCH different culture and whether or not they could win the war would have been irrelevant to them. The atom bombs *****slapped them to their senses.



No. The role the soviets played was to remove the last two serious options open to Japan to achieve a favourable peace settlement.



So you do agree that the issue is an irrelvence. Right.

Depends on how much longer they would have had, how much later the war had started ect ect

An aircraft which hadn't even passed through the opening prototype stages when it was prop. powered, let alone provided with jets. Really convinsing.


again we're talking about a theoretical where japan had several months to years of preperation.

[Teacher]

[COLOR=Black]And what evidence do you have to show that these strikes had more psychological impact than the Tokyo fire bombing?

Intercepted Japanese communications indicated a serious drop in morale after the atomic bombings that was not present after the bombings of Tokyo et al. In addition we know that the atomic bomb, while not completely swaying the emperor and the war party, did weigh on them heavily.


No, Japan would have surrendered, and if they hadn't and an invasion had occured, which would have been from the North and South, resistance would almost certainly have been minimal because Japan did not have the resources to conduct a serious defense.

Um.. google "ketsu-go"


No. The role the soviets played was to remove the last two serious options open to Japan to achieve a favourable peace settlement.

Not necessarily. The Japanese army pinned their hopes on Ketsu-go and believed basically that they could force a more favorable settlement by inflicting massive casualties.

There is a case to be made that the Soviet intervention was more important than the bombs, but there is considerable evidence that the shock value of the atomic weapons was an important factor in the Japanese military capitulating to surrender.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I think both events are the epitome of my worst nightmare, science and determination being used for ghastly destruction. I think it's one of the most horrific events in human history; two cities, within the blink of an eye, obliterated completely to the point where shadows were grim reminders of what had taken place.

[RED DAVE]

Not necessarily. The Japanese army pinned their hopes on Ketsu-go and believed basically that they could force a more favorable settlement by inflicting massive casualties.
The state of the [Japanese] economy and of the armed forces was deteriorating. Navy units lacked fuel to support more than two sorties by the few remaining destroyers, even in homeland waters; and the last two Japanese battleships had had to be moored in Kure, with skeleton crews. A government estimate judged that because of the critical fuel shortage, ships and small craft could be used only in the harbor AA defense role.

In the Japanese Army and Navy air corps, routine flight training was abandoned, and emphasis was assigned to primary training in the piloting (essentially the takeoff and steering) of suicide planes. Many such pilots were given only 20 to 90 hours of training. Aviation fuel reserves were dwindling to the point where a final sortie by all available planes could not even have been mounted. Army pilots said that oil had become more precious than blood. Wood turpentine and charcoal were used as fuel, and imaginative government chemists worked on many a feckless project designed to create ersatz petrol. One example was the much publicized effort to extract oil from the roots of the pine tree.

By July 1945, production of civilian goods was below the level of subsistence. Munitions output was less than half the wartime peak-a level they could not be expected to support sustained defensive operations against an invasion. The vital railway net was overburdened, defenseless, and deteriorating. Production and raw-material shortages were felt in all sectors of the economy-oil, transport, aircraft, coal, steel. The manufacturers of suicide boats, for example, could provide only 20 to 40% of the total force projected for the end of September 1945. Quality control was also suffering. By the end of 1944, 70% of the output of new planes broke down before ever entering combat. To conserve air strength, the Japanese High Command issued instructions in July 1945 that direct combat with enemy task force sweeps and bombardments was to be avoided. Little Japanese resistance was being put up against American carrier planes, bombers, and warships that were now hammering at the homeland. Serious (but ineffective) thought was given to the dispatch of airborne raiding teams against B-29 bases in the Marianas, or surprise attacks by submarine launched planes. Planes were actually readied at Misawa air base to fly teams out, but the concentration was destroyed by US carrier planes on 14 July 1945.http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/olympic.html

RED DAVE

[gendoikari]

I think both events are the epitome of my worst nightmare, science and determination being used for ghastly destruction. I think it's one of the most horrific events in human history; two cities, within the blink of an eye, obliterated completely to the point where shadows were grim reminders of what had taken place.

Was still better than the alternative.


Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties[1] and tens of millions for Japanese casualties.

[Invader Zim]

Intercepted Japanese communications indicated a serious drop in morale after the atomic bombings that was not present after the bombings of Tokyo et al.

Purple decrypts dealt with diplomatic traffic and are not a remotely adequate guage of Japanese public moral, and they provide little insight into that factor on Japanese officials. However, we do know that the bombing of Hiroshima had no impact on the deadlock that already existed among the big six.


In addition we know that the atomic bomb, while not completely swaying the emperor and the war party, did weigh on them heavily.

On the contrary, we know that the militarists among the big six saw it as no different from the existing bombing campaign and no reason to change their outlook, which it must be noted, did not change.


Um.. google "ketsu-go"

Um.. google the findings of the USSBS.

Actually, don't bother, I'll quote it for you:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

p. 26.

As suggested earlier, this is infact slightly misleading, it is doubtful that Japan would have surrendered quite that early, but virtually certainly prior to invasion.



Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily. The soviet invasion pincered Japanese forces and it eliminated the diplomatic moves being made. Perhaps you should read some of the diplomatic traffic you alluded to earlier.


The Japanese army pinned their hopes on Ketsu-go and believed basically that they could force a more favorable settlement by inflicting massive casualties.

Wrong. The militarists among the big six thought that, and their plans were crippled with the invasion of the Soviets which rendered their entire defence plans and preperations obsolite.


but there is considerable evidence that the shock value of the atomic weapons was an important factor in the Japanese military capitulating to surrender.

Certainly it was a shock, as was the Soviet invasion,, but as I've explained - with quotes - their real value was to provide a long awaited honourable reason to surrender.

[gendoikari]

Yes necessarily. The soviet invasion pincered Japanese forces and it eliminated the diplomatic moves being made. Perhaps you should read some of the diplomatic traffic you alluded to earlier. so a few squishy men and a few tanks carried over by ships the japanese had defeated 30 years prior was scarier than a weapon which would literally vaporize the nation with virtually no defense?


"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

This is pure fantasy spoken by people who know nothing about the japanese culture, specifically japanese culture prior to the end of the war.

You seem to equate not being able to win with them surrendering, and while that MIGHT hold on SOME western battlefields. The japanese were certainly FAR FAR different. Glory and honor held more sway than extinction. Not that they believe Gaijun could wipe them out anyway.


Purple decrypts dealt with diplomatic traffic and are not a remotely adequate guage of Japanese public moral, and they provide little insight into that factor on Japanese officials. However, we do know that the bombing of Hiroshima had no impact on the deadlock that already existed among the big six.

as I have said before after the first bomb dropped the high command didn't even believe it was a bomb they thought it was an earthquake.

[Teacher]

The Strategic Bombing Survey is not a valid source. It's own data contradict its conclusions. See Barton Berstein "Compelling Japan's Surrender without the A-Bomb, Soviet Entry, or Invasion: Reconsidering the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's Early Surrender Conclusion"

On the atomic bombs and the decision to surrender, see Sadao Asada, "The Shocks of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration"

[Teacher]

as I have said before after the first bomb dropped the high command didn't even believe it was a bomb they thought it was an earthquake.

They rather quickly found out it was an atomic bomb actually. However, they didn't believe that the United States could have that many weapons (which we didn't). Japan's own attempts to create a bomb were thwarted by lack of materials such as uranium. This is why the second bomb was important, because after Nagasaki many in the Japanese leadership began to speculate that the United States had many more atomic bombs.

[Teacher]

Another thing to consider is that in addition to a brutal invasion of the Japanese mainland, the U.S. Air Force planned on switching its tactics to targeting Japanese railway and infrastructure, which would have led to massive upheaval and the deaths of millions through starvation in Japan.

[gendoikari]

Another thing to consider is that in addition to a brutal invasion of the Japanese mainland, the U.S. Air Force planned on switching its tactics to targeting Japanese railway and infrastructure, which would have led to massive upheaval and the deaths of millions through starvation in Japan.

I'm going to quit arguing with you because you obviously are looking at things from a westerners viewpoint, must like your Barton Berstein, you are very incorrect in your assumptions. The culture difference even today is extreme and simply saying the japanese would have revolted to end the war is a fallacy. They were utterly loyal to the emperor and often times killed themselves in his name, ala the kamikaze's, Bushido charges, ect. (seriously these people charged battalions of US soldiers with SWORDS). That culture difference is why the japanese were able to use the kamikaze's when the west could NEVER have come up with anything like that. The clostest thing we had was the germans ramming planes and even they bailed out at the last minute for some chance of survival.

and it is that cultural difference that made the bombs necessary. and saying the war could have been ended without an invasion, or the bombs is cultural and historical ignorance.

[Teacher]

gendo I am agreeing with you. I was just saying that what would've happened without the bombs would have been much worse.

[Invader Zim]

The Strategic Bombing Survey is not a valid source. It's own data contradict its conclusions. See Barton Berstein "Compelling Japan's Surrender without the A-Bomb, Soviet Entry, or Invasion: Reconsidering the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's Early Surrender Conclusion"

On the atomic bombs and the decision to surrender, see Sadao Asada, "The Shocks of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration"


I've read both of them, the latter many times. And the latter agrees that an invasion would not have been necessary and, in turn, neither were the bombs. Asada argues that the twin shocks of the invasion and the bombs dictated the precise timing of the surrender, but he directly refutes the notion that the surrender was caused by the bombs also rejects the notion that Japan would have gone on fighting indefinately. He casts doubt, or rather suggests, that there was a possibility that the conclusion of the the of the USSBS was over confident in asserting that Japan would have surrendered by Nov. 1 1945. But you need not take my word, to quote the man himself:

"In all probability Japan could not have endured the winter of 1945-1946, but there was a possibility that Japan would not have surrendered before November 1.", p. 478.

He then discusses the planned bloody outcome (from the Japanese perspective) of a defence of the home islands. But I fail to see the point in that part of his article given that all of the Japanese war-leaders defensive plans were rendered obsolite and entirely impractical given that Japan no longer was able to mount a single defensive line in the south to inflict maximum casualties on the American invaders. The Soviets, by attacking from the North, where Japan had very little defenses or preparations in place, would have swept through Japan and not only outflanked Japan's forces but also forced Japan to be fighting a two front war against the two single most powerful military forces on earth at that time.

There was no way that Japan could have made the defence it planned.

[A Marxist Historian]

so a few squishy men and a few tanks carried over by ships the japanese had defeated 30 years prior was scarier than a weapon which would literally vaporize the nation with virtually no defense?

This is pure fantasy spoken by people who know nothing about the japanese culture, specifically japanese culture prior to the end of the war.

Ha! The reason that Japan went to war vs. America instead of the Soviet Union in the first place was that the Soviet army had kicked Japan's ass at Khalkin Gol in 1938, and the Japanese military thought that beating America would be *easier* than beating the Soviet Union.

And when the Soviet Union did declare war on Japan, they rolled up the Kwantung Army, the largest and most important military formation Japan had left, in one week!

Militarily a *much* greater blow to Japan than destroying two largely civilian cities. An invasion by the Soviet Army was a much bigger threat than an American invasion, quite simply because the Soviet Army was larger and more effective than the US army. Had better tanks too, as all military historians know.

And it was notorious that Stalin simply didn't care how many Soviet soldiers died, so the Japanese idea of frightening off the Allies with the danger of huge casualties suddenly became useless.

And worst of all, the idea of a Soviet occupation was *far* more frightening to the Japanese ruling class than an American occupation.


You seem to equate not being able to win with them surrendering, and while that MIGHT hold on SOME western battlefields. The japanese were certainly FAR FAR different. Glory and honor held more sway than extinction. Not that they believe Gaijun could wipe them out anyway.

as I have said before after the first bomb dropped the high command didn't even believe it was a bomb they thought it was an earthquake.

Now, if one really believed that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was what got Japan to surrender, you'd have to say that was the most successful act of terrorist mass murder in human history.

But in fact it was a warning, to the Soviets and to the rest of the world as well. Don't mess with Uncle Sam, or this is what happens to you.

The basic reason for Japan surrendering was that they knew they were going to lose sooner or later, but their hand was forced, partially by Hiroshima, the perfect excuse, but more importantly by the Soviets.

It's true that for the Japanese ruling class, maintaining their honor was indeed far more important than the death of millions of Japanese. But preventing a Soviet occupation of Japan, like with Germany, was far, far more important than mere honor, for both the Japanese and American ruling classes. So they kissed and made up with remarkable speed.

-M.H.-

[x359594]

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.

It is now commonplace to hear use of the bomb absolved by invoking the claim of all of those lives saved that would otherwise have been sacrificed. But those thus hypothetically saved are only nominally alive, and those that the bomb killed are actually and irrefutably dead. The future can never vindicate the past.