Hiroshima/Nagasaki

[Camarada]

on one side of this debate is the argument that "the Japanese were close to surrender and dropping A-bombs on cities wasn't necessary". On the other side of the debate was "it was a necessary way to end the conflict and prevent loss of more life"

which argument do you support? or something in between?

just wanting to get some insight. I was recently talking about this online and wasn't sure which way to go in this debate.

[red_orchestra]

Would Japan have surrendered under conventional weapons attacks? Likely no....the warrior ethos was FAR too strong to be destroyed under Hirohito's rule that way. Two Nuclear Weapons were used to bring down a Fascist Empire to its knees. Unfortunately it has to be done....but so many innocent people died as a result and that is terriable.
Nuclear Weapons in general are very destructive weapons which should be abolished...plain and simple. We have learned what they do, now never let history repeat itself.

[Xvall]

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63


"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380


"It is my opinion 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- Admiral William Leahy [Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman] , I Was There, pg. 441.

Most people in the administration eventually realized that it was unecessary to drop the bombs. Most likely, it was simply used as a chance to test the weapon and show the rest of the world what the United States was capable of. I'm not sure why we're talking about this though. It was long ago and there is nothing that can be done about it now. It was an unfortunate period in human history that we can only hope to avoid in the future.

[Redvolution]

Don't know, lots of mixed feelings. Wasn't it two days after we dropped the first bomb and they still didn't dispaly any kind of surrender that we dropped the second?

I've been to Hiroshima, also. Awful stuff, it should never happen ever again.

Then there's those who claim it was to show Stalin that the US not only developed a successful A Bomb, but that we could USE it if he screwed with us.

Lots of mixed feelings on this issue. Just hope it never happens ever again.

[Clarksist]

We didn't HAVE to use it.

We didn't NEED to use it.

But, we COULD use it.

So we did.

WWII was very much a race to the most destructive weapons around, while most wars are for territory, WWII was very much a war of progression.

And what better progression from conventional explosives to nuclear radiation evisceration?

[anomaly]

Dropping the A-bomb on Japan was not neccesary. It was our way of saying 'look how big and bad we are' to the Soviets. There is always an alternative to such a move. We simply didn't feel the need to look for that alternative, and instead felt it was to murder hundreds of thousands of people in a matter of days.

[DaCuBaN]

What is a little known fact in Europe is that although the Manhattan Project that spawned these foul creations was US led, they recevied help from scores of British scientists - just for those of you out there who're looking to blame one more on the old yanquis.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mpmenu.htm

This page contains masses of useful information on the atrocities purpotrated against the Japanese proletariat. Another site well worthyl of note quotes the following:


Discoveries of which the people of the United States are not aware may affect the welfare of this nation in the near future. The liberation of atomic power which has been achieved places atomic bombs in the hands of the Army. It places in your hands, as Commander-in-Chief, the fateful decision whether or not to sanction the use of such bombs in the present phase of the war against Japan.

We, the undersigned scientists, have been working in the field of atomic power. Until recently, we have had to fear that the United States might be attacked by atomic bombs during this war and that her only defense might lie in a counterattack by the same means. Today, with the defeat of Germany, this danger is averted and we feel impelled to say what follows:

The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and attacks by atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such attacks on Japan could not be justified, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender.

If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender our nation might then, in certain circumstances, find itself forced to resort to the use of atomic bombs. Such a step, however, ought not to be made at any time without seriously considering the moral responsibilities which are involved.

The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.

If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States -- singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.

The added material strength which this lead gives to the United States brings with it the obligation of restraint and if we were to violate this obligation our moral position would be weakened in the eyes of the world and in our own eyes. It would then be more difficult for us to live up to our responsibility of bringing the unloosened forces of destruction under control.

In view of the foregoing, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition: first, that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief, to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use atomic bombs be decided by you in light of the considerations presented in this petition as well as all the other moral responsibilities which are involved.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/

For those of you who still harbour some form of trust for the ruling classes, here's a quote by President Truman:


The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction.

[Commandante_Ant]

Now, if Japan had surrendered or were close to surrender, what was the point of the A bomb on Hiroshima? Was it to push them over the edge....or simply, Hiroshima was the test area for the A Bomb, to see how much damage it would cause, even though there was no need for it. As for President Truman's statement, that's just scary. What is it with the Americans and destruction? Have they got a thirst for it or something?

The more and more i read about America's history, the more disgust i feel.

[Taiga]

Throwing a bomb is not good.
But throwing a nuclear bomb on innocent civilians is unjustifiable.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:16 AM
Now, if Japan had surrendered or were close to surrender, what was the point of the A bomb on Hiroshima? Was it to push them over the edge....or simply, Hiroshima was the test area for the A Bomb, to see how much damage it would cause, even though there was no need for it. As for President Truman's statement, that's just scary. What is it with the Americans and destruction? Have they got a thirst for it or something?

The more and more i read about America's history, the more disgust i feel.
i think part of the reason, or most who knows? was to show to the world we were the strongest nation from now on.

[Red Heretic]

What do you all mean "we?" We have nothing in common with the US imperialist class.

It is important to note that the atomic bombs were also dropped to scare the Soviet Union. They were the US imperialists saying "we're in charge now, and don't you EVER FUCKING TRY TO RESIST US!!"

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 12:54 PM
What do you all mean "we?" We have nothing in common with the US imperialist class.

It is important to note that the atomic bombs were also dropped to scare the Soviet Union. They were the US imperialists saying "we're in charge now, and don't you EVER FUCKING TRY TO RESIST US!!"
ok, i understand your point, but you know thats not what i ment, chill out.

[viva le revolution]

In my view, the atomic bombs had multiple purposes and were directed not just at Japan but the wider world at general.
1. To demonstrate U.S strength, making it easier for the U.S to display more clout to the rest of the world.

2. After the defeat of Germany in 1945 and the division of Germany between the U.S and the USSR, the only front left was on the pacific against the Japanese. The USSR was eager to enter that theater to spread soviet influence there and throughout southern asia. A need arising out of Mao's nationalistic course to communism and the decline of soviet influence over the chinese communist party, particularly after the ouster of the 28B( young chinese bolsheviks educated in russia, and arising as a major faction in the CCP). particularly after the absence of the comintern this was seen as the only way to furthur soviet influence. The U.S sensed this and for a time succeeded in keeping russians away from the pacific theater. However the japanese military ethos at the time made the victory of the U.S inevitable but not easy nor bloodless. After the losses in the european theater, the U.S government knew that the american public wasn't going to tolerate any furthur major losses and the legitimacy of the administration's position of refusing soviet help. Thus the bombs were the alternative the administration sought to solve these problems. Killing MANY birds with one stone, if you will.

3. It was a way ofdemonstrating the U.S effectiveness against the remaining neo-nazi element still in germany and throughout the world. spread with the help of the now defunct nazi organizations, odessa, etc.

[Red Rebel]

First of all nuking Japan was unjustified.

viva le revolution sort of touched on it. Another reason the US used the bomb was because the USSR was planning to invade Japan. If the Soviets were allowed to invade than Japan would end up a divided country. Ending the war quickly with two nuclear bombs ensured that Japan would be under the United States control.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:16 AM
Now, if Japan had surrendered or were close to surrender, what was the point of the A bomb on Hiroshima? Was it to push them over the edge....or simply, Hiroshima was the test area for the A Bomb, to see how much damage it would cause, even though there was no need for it. As for President Truman's statement, that's just scary. What is it with the Americans and destruction? Have they got a thirst for it or something?

The more and more i read about America's history, the more disgust i feel.
You want more disgust? I suggest you read Howard Zinn's People's History of the US to truly grasp the nature of the 'democratic' United States. The parts on Vietnam are especially good...

[Commandante_Ant]

I'll maybe pick it up but i'm disgusted enough already by America and its governments. I can only imagine the atrocities committed by american troops in Vietnam...in fact, i dont wanna think about it, i've a feeling that the worst thing i could think up would have happened.

[Samuel]

I think that the act of dropping a bomb on another human being is horrific, however, the well-researched look at the WWII Japanese warrior beliefs in the book Flyboys (James Bradley, Back Bay Books, 2003) shows that it was, ultimately, necessary to defeat the Axis powers. Although I do NOT condone the use of ANY weapon, Nuclear or not, there is ample justification for its use ON THOSE TWO OCCASIONS.

There were three alternatives to use on a city:

1) Don't use a Nuclear weapon
2) Invite Japanese officials to a demonstration of the Nuclear bomb
3) Detonate high in atmosphere over Japan

My Argument:

1) This needs no explanation, as it is covered in previous posts.

2) This might fail to force the Japanese to surrender, as they were already knowingly sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to immanent death around the Pacific and creating victories to assure the people, and we have to reason to suspect that they would continue undaunted. This is a problem because the US only had two nuclear bombs manufactured at the time, and manufacture of more would have prolonged the war.

3) This might have simply hardened the resolve of the Japanese people, who possibly would have interpreted it as an attack. Also, as in the second alternative, the US would have to manufacture more Nuclear weapons to end the conflict.


I am a communist. I suspect I will always be a communist. I do NOT condone the use of ANY weapon against another human being. HOWEVER, the atom bomb's use IS justified in the case of Hiroshima/Nagasaki in the year 1945 as it DID save lives. The estimated death toll in the capture of the four Japanese main islands was over 1 MILLION Allied soldiers. As an example of the horrific slaughter that would result from an invasion, ponder this: The first battalion to land in the planned invasion of Japan had no further instructions planned after landing. Why? Because it was estimated that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in that Battalion would be killed upon landing on the shores of Japan.

I don't know about you people here, but if the Atom bomb was not dropped, I would not exist today. My grandfather would have been killed in Japan (his regiment was planned to spearhead the Tokyo attack) and I would, as a result, have never been borne.

Weapons of mass destruction are a fact, albeit a TERRIBLE fact, but a fact still. If humanity could re-trace its steps so that the Archduke Ferdinand was not killed on that fateful day, and WWI had not been started, and Germany had not been subjugated by the Versailles treaty, and Hitler had not used that subjugation to rise to power, and WWII had not started, and Germany had started to develop Nuclear weapons out of desperation, and the US had not been forced to do the same, and the US had not succeeded, THEN we would live in a better world. However, that fateful day did witness a change to the world in a way never conceivable. That gunman's bullet DID tip the first domino, and thus the world DOES live in an Era of Nuclear Weapons.

[LSD]

HOWEVER, the atom bomb's use IS justified in the case of Hiroshima/Nagasaki in the year 1945 as it DID save lives.

What you're failing to understand is that, prior to the bombing, Japan was prepared to surrender. They had already put out feelers and were willing to lay down arms so long as they could keep the emperor, something that they were allowed to do anyways.

Japan would have surreneder exactly when they did if the US had merely pursured their offer instead of nuking civilians.

And speaking of civilians, if the US' aim was to save lives, then why didn't they, as Truman would claim, hit a "military base"? Why did they hit an effectively open city with no strategic importance. A city that was virtually untouched by the war? Could it be as a test?

Hiroshima was a military experiment, a trial run of this new technology. It was figured that testing on non-white innocents was best. Notice that no one nuked Germany!


Weapons of mass destruction are a fact, albeit a TERRIBLE fact, but a fact still. If humanity could re-trace its steps so that the Archduke Ferdinand was not killed on that fateful day...

Then something else would have started it. Europe in 1914 was ready to explode regardless. Wilhelm wanted to concquer, Francd was itching for a rematch, Russia was on the brink of revolution, and oh the treaties, the treaties...

World War I was inevitable from 1871, perhaps even earlier.

[Samuel]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide+Aug 5 2005, 03:51 PM--> (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide @ Aug 5 2005, 03:51 PM)
Hiroshima was a military experiment, a trial run of this new technology. It was figured that testing on non-white innocents was best. Notice that no one nuked Germany![/b]

Hiroshima WAS a testing ground, I'll give you that. It is generally accepted that Hiroshima was spared throughout the war from bombing so it could be used to test the power of an Atomic Bomb. Germany was not "nuked" because the American weapon was not available at that time.



Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 5 2005, 03:51 PM

What you're failing to understand is that, prior to the bombing, Japan was prepared to surrender. They had already put out feelers and were willing to lay down arms so long as they could keep the emperor, something that they were allowed to do anyways.

Japan would have surreneder exactly when they did if the US had merely pursured their offer instead of nuking civilians.

There is no reason to suspect that Japan was willing to surrender on terms favorable to the US (I am not supporting the US's policy, I am simply explaining it) and thus it was deemed unacceptable and disregarded. Also, you have to understand the American mentality at the time. The people of the US were justifiably angry that Japan involved them in the Pacific war. The US was involved in Diplomatic negotiations with Japan before and just up to the Pearl Harbor attack. Adopt a 1940's US mind set for a moment. Japan COMPLETELY disregarded your attempts at diplomacy, even used them against you as a disguise to their true intentions. Would YOU be in the slightest way open to a Japanese negotiation? The answer is NO.



Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 5 2005, 03:51 PM

And speaking of civilians, if the US' aim was to save lives, then why didn't they, as Truman would claim, hit a "military base"? Why did they hit an effectively open city with no strategic importance. A city that was virtually untouched by the war? Could it be as a test?

The idea of targeting a military installation with a Nuclear weapon is laughable, as the blast range and the radiation resulting from an Atomic attack would render everything around that installation uninhabitable and dead.



Lysergic Acid [email protected] 5 2005, 03:51 PM

Then something else would have started it. Europe in 1914 was ready to explode regardless. Wilhelm wanted to concquer, Francd was itching for a rematch, Russia was on the brink of revolution, and oh the treaties, the treaties...

World War I was inevitable from 1871, perhaps even earlier.

Even if WWI was inevitable from 1871 or earlier, that was out of the US's hands. The USA was sucked into a war it didn't want to be involved with.


I have never, in this entire thread, said that the use of Atomic weaponry is fair, honorable, OR correct. I said that it was justifiable IN THOSE TWO CASES. The Atom bomb is perhaps Man's greatest curse, but it is and will be a fact of Human Existence for years to come

[red_orchestra]

"What you're failing to understand is that, prior to the bombing, Japan was prepared to surrender."

No, I will strongly disagree with this statement. I have had the luxury of living in Japan for several years and I have seen the documentation from the imperial palace/ and Japanese high command. The evidence is pretty damning... Japan had no intention of giving up its control of the Pacific nor giving into to the Allies. The written transcipts I translated are pretty clear as to Japans position. Sure they would eventually have surrendered after another year or so. Who knows what the end result would have been.

So 2 Nuclear Bombs were dropped to end the war. Horrific, yes... may we learn from this example and NEVER do it again.

[Warren Peace]

Ever heard of Sadako Sasaki?

Sadako was a Japanese girl who was 2 years old when the nukes were dropped, murdering over a hundred thousand innocent people instantly and spreading deadly radiation that has lingered for decades, killing more and more. Sadako was diagnosed with leukiemia, known in Japan as the "A-bomb disease", 10 years after the terrorist attacks. A friend told her an old Japanese legend that anyone who folds 1,000 paper cranes would be granted a wish. Sadako wanted the gods to grant her wish to get well so she could run again. In the hospital, Sadako never gave up, and kept making paper cranes until she died that same year. When she had made her last paper crane before she died, she told it "I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world".

The Japanese later built a memorial to Sadako Sasaki, and people bring paper cranes to it all the time.

I have Sadako's quote in my sig on IRTR. Should I use Sadako's quote in my sig here, or stick with this Uncle Ho quote? I can't decide...

Anyways, Japan was already trying to surrender when the nukes were dropped; the reason of the bombings wasn't to defeat Japan.

The reason wasn't to test the effects of nukes on people either; the US was using their own soldiers for that. The attack was terrorism to scare the shit out of the Soviets and start the Cold War. Check out Al Jazeera's article. (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=9349)

[Commie Girl]

Sadako Sasaki and her story is taught to our children in school in Grade 4, they learn to make paper cranes and about how the U$ killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, it is stunning that the U$ has adopted such a revision of History!

For all revisionists, here is an excellent article:

The myths of Hiroshima
By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are coauthors of "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer," published earlier this year by Knopf.


SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate.

The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 — just five days after the Nagasaki bombing — Radio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even "saving" a million lives that might have been lost if the U.S. had been required to invade mainland Japan.

This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed them as a necessary act in a just war.

But although patriotically correct, the exhibit and the narrative on which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only that the bombs "caused many tens of thousands of deaths" and that Hiroshima was "a definite military target."

Americans were also told that use of the bombs "led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands." But it's not that straightforward. As Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has shown definitively in his new book, "Racing the Enemy" — and many other historians have long argued — it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, that provided the final "shock" that led to Japan's capitulation.

The Enola Gay exhibit also repeated such outright lies as the assertion that "special leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities" warning civilians to evacuate. The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed.

The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary. A million lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson.

The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on "an essentially defeated enemy." President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary of State James Byrnes, quite plainly used it primarily to prevent the Soviets from sharing in the occupation of Japan. And they used it on Aug. 6 even though they had agreed among themselves as they returned home from the Potsdam Conference on Aug. 3 that the Japanese were looking for peace.

These unpleasant historical facts were censored from the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit, an action that should trouble every American. When a government substitutes an officially sanctioned view for publicly debated history, democracy is diminished.

Today, in the post-9/11 era, it is critically important that the U.S. face the truth about the atomic bomb. For one thing, the myths surrounding Hiroshima have made it possible for our defense establishment to argue that atomic bombs are legitimate weapons that belong in a democracy's arsenal. But if, as Oppenheimer said, "they are weapons of aggression, of surprise and of terror," how can a democracy rely on such weapons?

Oppenheimer understood very soon after Hiroshima that these weapons would ultimately threaten our very survival.

Presciently, he even warned us against what is now our worst national nightmare — and Osama bin Laden's frequently voiced dream — an atomic suitcase bomb smuggled into an American city: "Of course it could be done," Oppenheimer told a Senate committee, "and people could destroy New York."

Ironically, Hiroshima's myths are now motivating our enemies to attack us with the very weapon we invented. Bin Laden repeatedly refers to Hiroshima in his rambling speeches. It was, he believes, the atomic bombings that shocked the Japanese imperial government into an early surrender — and, he says, he is planning an atomic attack on the U.S. that will similarly shock us into retreating from the Mideast.

Finally, Hiroshima's myths have gradually given rise to an American unilateralism born of atomic arrogance.

Oppenheimer warned against this "sleazy sense of omnipotence." He observed that "if you approach the problem and say, 'We know what is right and we would like to use the atomic bomb to persuade you to agree with us,' then you are in a very weak position and you will not succeed…. You will find yourselves attempting by force of arms to prevent a disaster."

Source (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bird5aug05,0,760322.story)

[bolshevik butcher]

Well i have read that the japanese actaully wanted peace before hiroshima and that ehy deffinatley asked for talks after it , but that the U$ jsut wanted to show the russians that they could do what they wnat so they atacked nagazaki.

[LSD]

There is no reason to suspect that Japan was willing to surrender on terms favorable to the US

Japan was prepared to surrender so long as they could keep the Makado.

Truman new it after Potsdam, Eisenhower new it, McArthur new it. Fuck, the OSS station chief in portugal new it!


Also, you have to understand the American mentality at the time. The people of the US were justifiably angry that Japan involved them in the Pacific war.

Well, the US didn't have to blockade Japan, but whatever, sure, they were pissed... so what?

Anger justifies mass-muder, now?

I thought we were talking about military nescessity not a fucking temper tantrum.


Japan COMPLETELY disregarded your attempts at diplomacy, even used them against you as a disguise to their true intentions. Would YOU be in the slightest way open to a Japanese negotiation?

Yes, because it beats killing a half a million civilians.

It's called human decency. :angry:


The idea of targeting a military installation with a Nuclear weapon is laughable, as the blast range and the radiation resulting from an Atomic attack would render everything around that installation uninhabitable and dead.

There were, literally, thousands of targets more strategic than Hiroshima. Hiroshima had no significant military value. It was about maximizing civilian death to "test" their new toy.

In legal terms, that's called a reckless disregard for human life. If Truman had been held to the standardof American law, he would have been hung.

And rightly so!

[red_orchestra]

So then those documents that I helped translate in Chiba, Japan must have been fake. Because the tone of those papers suggests that Japan was ready to attack more targets in the Pacific in September-October 1945. These papers did not indicate surrender of any kind. A long sustained military campaign was in the midst of being put together by the Imperial Government, with Hirohito's authority.

A-BOMBs were used to destroy the moral of the people and bring Japan to its knees. Which it did. I do not believe Nuclear Weapons have any place in a civil world. However, if we go back to WWII the issue was crushing Fascism. This also ment destroying the infrastructure of Japan's War Machine. How do you do that? Well, you use the biggest baddest bomb you've got to send a message. Very sadly, 96%+ casualities were innocent people...this should show the world why Nuclear Weaponry should never be used again. I doubt people are listening......

[LSD]

So then those documents that I helped translate in Chiba, Japan must have been fake.

I can't speak to that.


Because the tone of those papers suggests that Japan was ready to attack more targets in the Pacific in September-October 1945.

Attack? :huh:

Japan attack!? :unsure:

In October 1945?!?!? :blink:

With what navy? With what air force?

The US had complete air superiority, Japan couldn't even build ships at this point, let alone use them. The idea that Japan was planning excursionary operations when the home islands were being demolished is ludicrous. If Japan had had any tactical air support they would have used it to fend off the bombers leveling Tokyo, not to puruse the South Pacific.

The only "target in the pacific" by 1945 was Japan. If it had had even a semblence of a credible navy anymore it would have been used, it wasn't. By the summer of 45, the bulk of the reamaining imperial air force was running suicide missions. There were productions problems, aummunition problems, supply problems, etc... A good deal of "zeroes" were being set off without bullets, there simply weren't enough to spare. The planes were simply loaded with explosives ...and then crashed.

Do you really think that a military that is resorting to suicide bombing is prepared for a compaign of foreign invasions!?

I'll tell you, if that's the "tone" of these papers you're reading, I would suggest that they just might be faked!


These papers did not indicate surrender of any kind. A long sustained military campaign was in the midst of being put together by the Imperial Government, with Hirohito's authority.

No offense, but I think that General Eisenhower had access to better intelligence than you.


A-BOMBs were used to destroy the moral of the people and bring Japan to its knees. Which it did.

Japan was already on its knees; the conventional bombing campaign had done that. In two days the bombs dropped on Tokyo contained more explosive power than the cumulative force of every battle of every war in human history.


I do not believe Nuclear Weapons have any place in a civil world.

Well, not unless y&#39;all need to bring someone else "to their knees". <_<


This also ment destroying the infrastructure of Japan&#39;s War Machine. How do you do that?.

um... you destroy the infastructure? You don&#39;t masacre civilians in open cities.

[Bannockburn]

um... you destroy the infastructure? You don&#39;t masacre civilians in open cities

Certainly true. However, the infastructure are usually in civilian cities. That&#39;s the point: have the military woven in the civilian population

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:58 PM

um... you destroy the infastructure? You don&#39;t masacre civilians in open cities

Certainly true. However, the infastructure are usually in civilian cities. That&#39;s the point: have the military woven in the civilian population
:angry: YOU STILL don&#39;t kill innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands&#33;

Is there any argument in favour of the A-Bombings? :o

[anomaly]

Even with the supposed evidence that the A-bombings were &#39;neccesary&#39;, it cannot be refuted that the war could have been ended other ways. The US government should have done everything possible to avoid dropping the nukes on Japan (hell, even send a video tape of an explosion and warn them), and they clearly did not do that. By August 1945, we had intercepted the Japanese code being used to communicate, and we knew exactly the ruins that Japan was in. The Japanese people we literally starving, the military was exhausted. IN fact, the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations. Unconditional surrender was the only obstacle to peace, as the ambassador told the Soviets. This one condition the Japanese requested was that the Emperor remain in place. The Americans, however, did not listen. If only we had accepted this one condition we could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people&#33; In Nagasakie, there is evidence that there were US prisoners of war being held&#33; And we still dropped the bomb&#33;

If one&#39;s argument is that the bombings &#39;destroyed the infrastructure&#39;, then why was the Nagasaki bomb dropped? There was no military base in Nagasaki, although there was one in Hiroshima (despite this, the fact remains that mostly civilians were killed). There has never been justification for this bombing. Was one bomb just not enough?

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders, reported just after the war that the Japanese would have surrendered certainly by Decemder 31 1945, and in all probability prior to November 1 1945, without the dropping of the bombs, without the russians entering the war, and without an invasion.

In light of such things, I have trouble seeing how anyone on this board can support the dropping of the Atomic Bombs. Clearly, it was solely for US imperial interests that we dropped the bombs. What reason does any leftist have for supporting these actions of imperialism??

[Seeker]

The fire bombing of Japanese cities was going well. The Air Force took Hiroshima and Nagasaki off the list of targets to be fire bombed for two reasons:

1. Of all large Japanese cities, those two had the least number of military targets.

2. In order to get an accurate picture of what an atomic bomb was capable of, they wanted to drop it on an undamaged city.


After the first a-bomb was dropped, the general population of Japan was ready to surrender. They were terrified - a single plane carrying a single bomb could wipe out a large city, and many had experienced massive bomb runs and knew a lot more than 1 plane could get through their air defenses. The Emperor was ready to surrender as well, but one of his generals attempted a coup. IIRC the terms of surrender had been already been signed by the Emperor along with a recorded message for the people of Japan when the second bomb was dropped, but the documents and vinyl were hidden lest the rogue general find and destroy them. A higher ranking general decided to end the coup, the war, and his own life, and soon after the news of surrender was made public, reinforced by broadcasting the Emperors&#39;s own voice recording (in case any of the soldiers didn&#39;t want to stop fighting, the direct order from their #1 would leave them little choice when they may have balked at potentially forged documents telling them to lay down their arms).

The necessity of the first bomb is arguable. It was certanly demoralizing, but was the people&#39;s will to fight already broken? The second was uncalled for, and I believe it was done to show off and intimidate - the opening move of the Cold War.

[red_orchestra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 05:17 AM
The fire bombing of Japanese cities was going well. The Air Force took Hiroshima and Nagasaki off the list of targets to be fire bombed for two reasons:

1. Of all large Japanese cities, those two had the least number of military targets.

2. In order to get an accurate picture of what an atomic bomb was capable of, they wanted to drop it on an undamaged city.


After the first a-bomb was dropped, the general population of Japan was ready to surrender. They were terrified - a single plane carrying a single bomb could wipe out a large city, and many had experienced massive bomb runs and knew a lot more than 1 plane could get through their air defenses. The Emperor was ready to surrender as well, but one of his generals attempted a coup. IIRC the terms of surrender had been already been signed by the Emperor along with a recorded message for the people of Japan when the second bomb was dropped, but the documents and vinyl were hidden lest the rogue general find and destroy them. A higher ranking general decided to end the coup, the war, and his own life, and soon after the news of surrender was made public, reinforced by broadcasting the Emperors&#39;s own voice recording (in case any of the soldiers didn&#39;t want to stop fighting, the direct order from their #1 would leave them little choice when they may have balked at potentially forged documents telling them to lay down their arms).

The necessity of the first bomb is arguable. It was certanly demoralizing, but was the people&#39;s will to fight already broken? The second was uncalled for, and I believe it was done to show off and intimidate - the opening move of the Cold War.
Yes, thats right...the USA did use Japan as a test ground. Thats a sure thing. pretty sad.
The documents that I helped translate did speak of further military action in the Pacific by Japan after August 1945... the document was written in Febuary of 1945. It could have just been created by an over zelous officer driven by conquest and Empire, but the document was certianly detailed. If any document like that fell into the hands of US/Allied troops then it would have justified their position on dropping the A-Bombs. There is still a lot of secrets that remain about the Second World War... their is a lot of incomplete information. We may never recover all of it.

[LSD]

Certainly true. However, the infastructure are usually in civilian cities.

Often true, but not in this case. Hiroshima had no strategic value&#33;


The documents that I helped translate did speak of further military action in the Pacific by Japan after August 1945... the document was written in Febuary of 1945.

Japanese aggression in February of 45 would have been a stretch, but by August, even if such plans existed, they had long been abandoned ...and hence are entirely irrelevent to this discussion.


If any document like that fell into the hands of US/Allied troops then it would have justified their position on dropping the A-Bombs.

But it didn&#39;t and it wouldn&#39;t.

An obscure 6 month old memo planning military actions that the allies knew were impossible? Sorry, but that&#39;s no justification for anything, let alone mass slaughter.


There is still a lot of secrets that remain about the Second World War... their is a lot of incomplete information. We may never recover all of it.

True enough, but what we do know is that in late July of 1945 the Japanese government was prepared to surrender to American occupation provided the emperor be absolved of all crimes and be permitted to remain as "spiritual leader" of the Japanese people. Furthermore, we know that the US government was aware of this fact, and we know that the OSS had recieved detailed information regarding this surrender plan. ...and we know that despite this, the US nuked two civilian cities for absolutely no military reason.

[No. 355728]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 06:02 AM

The documents that I helped translate did speak of further military action in the Pacific by Japan after August 1945... the document was written in February of 1945. It could have just been created by an over zealous officer driven by conquest and Empire, but the document was certainly detailed. If any document like that fell into the hands of US/Allied troops then it would have justified their position on dropping the A-Bombs.
I&#39;ve read various documents about what happened and the document you mention is quite interesting. However, the Suzuki government replaced the Koiso government on the 7th April 1945 and the politics changed drastically as we can see from the meetings in early May. "Suzuki alone had the deep conviction and personal courage to stand up to the military and bring the war to an end.", the US Official Bomb Survey noted (a quote from Marquis Kido).The Japanese government sent out several peace proclamations through out June and July such as; [...]we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." and "it is His Majesty&#39;s heart&#39;s desire to see the swift termination of the war", as two examples.

In my oppinion there was a chance of entering in peace negotiations, or as Paul Nitze stated, "While I was working on the new plan of air attack... [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.", and in his memoir, written in 1989, Nitze repeated, "Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.".

The US Official Bomb Survey noted that :"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey&#39;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.".

[red_orchestra]

True enough, but what we do know is that in late July of 1945 the Japanese government was prepared to surrender to American occupation provided the emperor be absolved of all crimes and be permitted to remain as "spiritual leader" of the Japanese people. Furthermore, we know that the US government was aware of this fact, and we know that the OSS had recieved detailed information regarding this surrender plan. ...and we know that despite this, the US nuked two civilian cities for absolutely no military reason.

Agreed... my angle of approach on this subject is that there are written documents which show the desention within the Japanese Military~ many of those document were inflated by US intellegence or lack their of... and used as an excuse to test new weapons on the enemy nation. I now have comfermation that this document was written by a Submarine commander who was plotting a last ditch effort to destroy a US Navy Ship depot in the south pacific. His plan was detailed...I won&#39;t get to far into specifics. The document was sent to high command. Is it possiable that it fell into Allied Hands? It could have..... Who knows.

What I didn&#39;t reallise was that the high command rejected his plan--- and told him to abort. He committed ritual suicide as a result. But he did havve the support from other Japanese Military officers who were ready to use what was left of their arsenal...which probably wasn&#39;t very large at this time.

[Wiesty]

Hell no did the us need to use it, Italy and Germany had already surrendered, it was all on 1, japan could of easily had to surrender with 2 a bombs being dropped. It pisses me off how america is all anti nuke, when they&#39;re the only ones to ever use it on another race.

[red_orchestra]

Nuclear Weapons are horrific....plain and simple. Back in early 1945, few people really knew how horriable a weapon it was...until August.

[OleMarxco]

Well, I&#39;m pretty "split" on the issue, but it&#39;s mostly simple...hear me out....
I definately see nukes as VERY VERY VERY "last-resort" option in war, and even then, with major doubt as it could backfire on you too, mainly due to longwind after-effects, such as FALLOUT, and mutations ;)

&#39;Tho, however, it&#39;s true that alot of the "innocent" citizen&#39;s of Japan where-in, somewhat way, involved in the war-effort, although not directly or very actively....but......there&#39;s a difference between the Japanese&#39;s attack on American&#39;s, and the vice versa; There WERE people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that had NOTHING to do with the war, but EVERYONE on the -military-target- PEARL HARBOR (prior to the events in Japan) were soldier&#39;s. Citizen&#39;s of a town are not.

P.S., I recognize also that Japan was on the line to fascisto-corporato-feudalistic-state dribble-drabble, but people are people, soldiers are soldiers, and not vice versa, people are not soldiers but soldiers are people yet how inhumane they can be yet they could&#39;ve refused their order&#39;s. And the A-Bomb&#39;s still nuclear fission, and it kills alot of future generations to come to who is TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE WAR, it&#39;s not justified at all, and my tolerance stops at usin&#39; Bomber-Planes, even &#39;tho I would&#39;ve PREFERRED infantry-invasion&#39;s ONLY, and keep the fuckin&#39; gun-fire OUT OF THE CIVLIAN&#39;S WAY. Yes, it was civilians going at soldier&#39;s at P.H., but does that justify reversin&#39; the roles at people who whould&#39;ve potentionally doin&#39; it? Maybe, but renember after-effects&#33;

[Wiesty]

good point, and if people try to make hiroshima a "payback" for pearl harbor, they&#39;re fucking nuts.

[red_orchestra]

no kidding....

[Samuel]

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide

What you have to understand is that Imperial Japan WAS NOT ready to surrender.

The Japanese were fed from birth that it was the highgest honor to die for your Emperor. In the time period where Japan was "at its knees," the people were being fed propaganda that Japan was destined to win the war, that the Japanese Divine Empowerment would enable them to kill anyone who set foot on their soil. Re-inforced by their dominating victory in the Russo-Japanese war, the idea of "kamakaze" (translated as "divine wind" but means "the Gods&#39; favor of the Japanese and their resulting protection") lead the people to believe that they would never lose to the "Barbaric Americans."

Up until surrender, the people of Japan were drowning in propaganda filled with imaginary victories and false military statistics. The Japanese mindset was that of inevitable victory over invaders. If the US invaded Japan, every Japanese citizen would have risen up against them. Even if they weren&#39;t armed, every Japanese would have became an enemy.

Ponder this:

You are an American soldier fighging in Japan. The US has already established a beachead, and you are starting to move inland. You hit a small fishing village, and find there is no Japanese military presence. In Europe, when American soldiers entered a town without any enemy soldiers, they were applauded, flowers were dropped out of windows, and people crowded the streets. When you enter this town, there is nothing. The streets are deserted, so you signal a tank column to pass through. Suddenly, a milotov coctail flies ouf of a window, and the first tank explodes. More come out. You start shooting up into the buildings. When the town is secured, you look around those buildings. You expect bodies of soldies, but find civilians.

It is very similar to Vietnam, the people are foreign, and Soldiers mix with Citizens. You cannot tell the difference. What is worse? There IS no difference. Old men, women, CHILDREN&#33; They will ALL fight alongside the soldiers. In order to take Japan, you would have to kill or capture EVERY SINGLE JAPANESE CITIZEN. Even if the average American soldier kills 100 Japanese combatents before he is killed, more than 500,000 Allied soldiers would die, not to mention the TENS OF MILLIONS of dead Japanese.

Yes, the Atom Bomb&#39;s most powerful asset is Shock. The bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki shocked the Japanese Government into surrender. The only reason that the people of Japan surrendered was because of the Bomb.

It did do in two ways:

1) It shocked the people into surrender
2) It shocked the Government into surrender, and NO Japenese person would EVER disregard the holy word of the Emperor.

The bombing of Japan, again, WAS NESSACARY. I HATE the Atomic Bomb. I AM a communist. BUT, in THOSE TWO OCCASIONS, the use of Atomic weapons IS justified.

[LSD]

What you have to understand is that Imperial Japan WAS NOT ready to surrender.

...except it was.

Again, the Japanese government was prepared to surrender to American occupation provided the emperor be absolved of all crimes and be permitted to remain as "spiritual leader" of the Japanese people. Plain and simple. That&#39;s what the OSS said, it&#39;s what Eisenhower said, It&#39;s what McCarther said, it&#39;s what Imperial Cabinet minutes said.

All available evidence suggests not only that Japan was willing to acceed to occupation, but that the US government knew it.


The Japanese were fed from birth that it was the highgest honor to die for your Emperor. In the time period where Japan was "at its knees," the people were being fed propaganda that Japan was destined to win the war, that the Japanese Divine Empowerment would enable them to kill anyone who set foot on their soil.

Absolutely, but also completely irrelevent. No occupation was ever going to happen. All estimates said that Japan would surrender before November.

Read the Official Bomb survey report. Read declasified OSS reports, read Eisenhowers autobiography for God&#39;s sake.

This isn&#39;t "secret", it&#39;s common fucking knowledge&#33;


Yes, the Atom Bomb&#39;s most powerful asset is Shock. The bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki shocked the Japanese Government into surrender.

Shocked?

Japan was plenty "shocked" from the absolute devastation of the firebombinb campaign over Tokyo. The Japanese Navy and Air Force was devastated, Japanese moral was demolished, and the government was willing to surrender.


The bombing of Japan, again, WAS NESSACARY.

No it wasn&#39;t, and regurgitating asserions discredited 60 years ago doesn&#39;t make the case that it was.

If you want to claim that Japan was not prepared to surrender, in the face of all of the evidence that they were, you&#39;re going to have to provide more proof than "they were brainwashed".

Yeah, there was propaganda, but the government wasn&#39;t "stupid". They knew that they had lost.

Not to mention that even if you were right (and you are not), it still doesn&#39;t justify nuking an effectively open city with absolutely no strategic military value.

[red_orchestra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 08:03 PM
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide

What you have to understand is that Imperial Japan WAS NOT ready to surrender.

The Japanese were fed from birth that it was the highgest honor to die for your Emperor. In the time period where Japan was "at its knees," the people were being fed propaganda that Japan was destined to win the war, that the Japanese Divine Empowerment would enable them to kill anyone who set foot on their soil. Re-inforced by their dominating victory in the Russo-Japanese war, the idea of "kamakaze" (translated as "divine wind" but means "the Gods&#39; favor of the Japanese and their resulting protection") lead the people to believe that they would never lose to the "Barbaric Americans."

Up until surrender, the people of Japan were drowning in propaganda filled with imaginary victories and false military statistics. The Japanese mindset was that of inevitable victory over invaders. If the US invaded Japan, every Japanese citizen would have risen up against them. Even if they weren&#39;t armed, every Japanese would have became an enemy.

Ponder this:

You are an American soldier fighging in Japan. The US has already established a beachead, and you are starting to move inland. You hit a small fishing village, and find there is no Japanese military presence. In Europe, when American soldiers entered a town without any enemy soldiers, they were applauded, flowers were dropped out of windows, and people crowded the streets. When you enter this town, there is nothing. The streets are deserted, so you signal a tank column to pass through. Suddenly, a milotov coctail flies ouf of a window, and the first tank explodes. More come out. You start shooting up into the buildings. When the town is secured, you look around those buildings. You expect bodies of soldies, but find civilians.

It is very similar to Vietnam, the people are foreign, and Soldiers mix with Citizens. You cannot tell the difference. What is worse? There IS no difference. Old men, women, CHILDREN&#33; They will ALL fight alongside the soldiers. In order to take Japan, you would have to kill or capture EVERY SINGLE JAPANESE CITIZEN. Even if the average American soldier kills 100 Japanese combatents before he is killed, more than 500,000 Allied soldiers would die, not to mention the TENS OF MILLIONS of dead Japanese.

Yes, the Atom Bomb&#39;s most powerful asset is Shock. The bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki shocked the Japanese Government into surrender. The only reason that the people of Japan surrendered was because of the Bomb.

It did do in two ways:

1) It shocked the people into surrender
2) It shocked the Government into surrender, and NO Japenese person would EVER disregard the holy word of the Emperor.

The bombing of Japan, again, WAS NESSACARY. I HATE the Atomic Bomb. I AM a communist. BUT, in THOSE TWO OCCASIONS, the use of Atomic weapons IS justified.
The research...and diggin&#39; for documents I did in Japan shawn a fairly good light on the state of the Japanese Government in 1945. It was a fair mess. Was Japan truely ready to surrender in November 1945? Well, partly yes..partly no.... the japanese high command knew by this time that the war would be over shortly (US winning) but other Military leaders in the field were convinced that they could win by "Imperial Might" helped by the Kamikaze. The document that I was able to recover was published in Febuary 1945 and it did speak of further Military action against the Allies after August 1945. It sounded like a suicidal attack.... and the will to continue the War was certianly their but the Japanese didn&#39;t have the machinery to do the damage but they did have the raw materials, like explosives and very limited man power. Lysergic Acid Diethylamide is correct... Japan was on its knees at the time the A-Bombs. They could not lauch any full scale attacks. A-Bombs were used as a part of a "shock and awe" campaign to speed up the surrendering process, unnessecarily I might add.

[DaCuBaN]

Japan was on its knees at the time the A-Bombs. They could not lauch any full scale attacks. A-Bombs were used as a part of a "shock and awe" campaign to speed up the surrendering process,

This is true, although how well it was known amongst those involved in the planning and execution of the Hiroshima-Nagaski atrocities is in some doubt.

Japanese culture (during this period in history) was predominantly concerned with "face" - a bastardised version of the idea of honour, and the protection of it to be held in the highest regard - you do not wish to lose face, and you do not cause another to lose face - to do so is abominable . Most believed that their current emperor was their God, and so for the US to demand he admit to the world that he is NOT a god would be an appalling prospect.

Japan was logistically a defeated country. All that remained was her desire to survive, to expand and to thrive. Given time, this strong feeling of pride or honour could have been disarmed with good diplomacy - instead, we chose to drop the deadliest weapon seen on the face of the planet onto them. Overkill, perhaps?

[Comrade san]

If that bomb wasn&#39;t dropped then (no saying it was necessary, NOT AT ALL was it) then somebody would have their finger on the button for years to come, people would be etching to be the first person to set off the atomic bomb.

So it was inevitable one time or another.

[cubalibra]

Albert Einstein dreaded having helped the CIA develop the bomb after he saw the devestation it caused.

[kingbee]

it&#39;s all very well looking at this with a modern gaze, 60 years after it happened, but we simply weren&#39;t around at the time, and therefore don&#39;t know much of the context. it happened, and as much as i believe america has done some horrific decisions in the past, i&#39;m still undecided on this one.

[LSD]

it&#39;s all very well looking at this with a modern gaze, 60 years after it happened, but we simply weren&#39;t around at the time

No, but many people who were agreed that the bombings were entirely unnescessary.

Besides, what kind of lunatic logic says that you can&#39;t judge actions committed 60 years ago ...because they were committed 60 years ago? I would remind you that the holocaust happened 60 years ago as well. Should we be retiscent to condemn it because we "simply weren&#39;t around at the time"? Of course not&#33; That&#39;s not how history works, and it&#39;s not how historiography works. We take the available evidence, the surviving documents, and our common sense and make the best judgment we can make. And if careful analysis suggests that a crime was committed we say so. It&#39;s the only way to prevent it from happeneing again.

All the information we have stronly suggests that not only were the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki useless, but the US new it as well. "Modern gaze" or not, how can we not publicize such a thing?

Don&#39;t the victims, at least, deserve it? Doesn&#39;t humanity deserve it?


and therefore don&#39;t know much of the context.

Actually, we know all of the context; that&#39;s one of the advantages of a "modern gaze". It was only 60 years ago, we have a great deal of records, documents, testimonials, autobiographies, memos, declassified reports, etc...

In fact, we have much more on this subject then we do on any issue about Genghis Kahn, yet, historians are not afraid to point out that Kahn was guilty of mass murder.


as much as i believe america has done some horrific decisions in the past, i&#39;m still undecided on this one.

Then I suggest you do further research on the subject.

[OleMarxco]

Sometimes, I just shouldn&#39;t answer :rolleyes:

[Zespris]

Playing the devil&#39;s advocate... do you really think Truman/Eisenhower and the whole bunch KNEW the devastating effects of the bomb, or just had made estimates of its power?

[LSD]

True enuf&#39;, but whaddya &#39;bout my comment&#39;s on the Nagasaki&#39;s citizen&#39;s bein&#39; involved in Pro-War activities? That makes them kind-of guilthy of bringin&#39; action on them

No it doesn&#39;t.

And besides what "pro-war" activities could the civilians of Hiroshima have been involved in? We&#39;re not talking about a military base here. They weren&#39;t building bombs or airplanes, they weren&#39;t holding prisoners, they weren&#39;t even training soliders. Are you suggesting that speaking in favour of the war is a crime worthy of death? That by saying they believed in the war they "brought action" on themselves? What kind of justice is that?&#33;


do you really think Truman/Eisenhower and the whole bunch KNEW the devastating effects of the bomb

Well, they knew as well as anyone. They had reports and estimates, yes, but they also had a full accounting of the test in New Mexico. They knew full well how devastating the effects would be, in fact, many of them expected it to be more devastating then it actually was.

Ignorance was certainly not a defense here,

[OleMarxco]

Oh, no, I only meant the people who worked strictly togheter with the military-apparatus - perhaps indirectly forced, but who knows? There were alot of patriotism - and not to speak of the Suicide Bomber&#39;s. But I&#39;m still Anti-A-Bomb. Sure, they might not have been doin&#39; that shit right there, right then, but well....a support of a war sort of comes to bein&#39; a part of it, and well, if you support a war...wouldn&#39;t you love it if the war comes to you? Sure, droppin&#39; a big bomb on &#39;em all is a total No/No, but in war, attack&#39;s are expected... even &#39;tho the American&#39;s could&#39;ve been a bit more patient, I&#39;m sure they could&#39;ve come to a deal. Once dropped, it&#39;s no way back&#33; ;)

[Samuel]

Ok. I am going to show all of you this about how the Atom Bomb (at least the WWII versions of it) is NOT all it is cracked up to be.

I am sure pleanty of you know about the Tokyo firebombing campagin. It also happens that ALMOST EVERY CITY IN JAPAN WAS FIREBOMBED. The leader of the Army Air Force even acknologed that the US would RUN OUT OF TARGETS by October.

Again, I refer to the book Flyboys:

The Tokyo firebombing raids took place on two nights. In those two nights, the US AAF scortched, burned, baked, and fried more civilians than in the Nagasaki and Hiroshima Atom Bombings COMBINED.

The M69 Napalm Bomb is a far more terrible weapon (at the WWII Time Period) than the Atom Bomb. In those two nights, over a HALF MILLION TONS of Gelled Gasoline upon a city. Temperatures reached 1200 Degrees Farenhight and created a wind vortex that kept the head low, like a preassure cooker.

Another city that was bombed, Osaka, was 99.5% destroyed in ONE NIGHT.

The point is, we should not be focusing this argument on Nuclear and Atom weaponry. The M69 (a "conventional" weapon) is responsible for far many more deaths than Atomic weaponry. The Stragetic Bombing Report after the war concluded that One Atom Bomb was equivilent to 220 B29 Bombers with M69 Napalm Payloads.

[Samuel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:52 PM
Albert Einstein dreaded having helped the CIA develop the bomb after he saw the devestation it caused.
Sorry, I am picky:

There was no CIA then, you must mean the OSS or the Manhattan Project.

He actualy didn&#39;t help that much. He did write a letter to the adminstration urging them to develop the Atomic Bomb before the Germans. He later regretted that letter, but he was not actualy allowed to work on the project because of his suspected communist affialiations.

[Vanguard1917]

Read this quote from President Truman justifying the bomb in a letter:

&#39;The only language [the Japanese] seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true.&#39;

They chose the Japanese because the Asians were considered as an inferior race. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, partly, part of a military experiment. But it was also based on racist grounds. Afterall, the Allies could have tested the bomb on the Germans, but the Germans were "one of us". The employment of the most destructive military weaponry could only be justified if employed on the "beasts" of the far-east.

Also note that the growing strength of the Japanese pre-1945 had dealt a blow to Western beliefs of the superiority of the white race, which the Western imperialists had been using to rationalise and legitimate their imperialism and their spreading of civilisation to the "savages" elsewhere. So the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also a means to regain the prestige of white imperialism that had been dented by the growth of Japan as a world power. (The rise of anti-colonialist struggles by the colonised people was also key in the way that it showed that the colonised were not actually "grateful subjects", with arms open, embracing the export of the white man&#39;s civilisation.) Imperialist prestige was in crisis because imperialist illusions of white superiority were being challenged all over the world. It was hoped that the atomic bombs would show those pesky savages (and those abhorrent Russians) who was boss.

[No. 355728]

"The only language [the Japanese] seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true." -Truman

"When fighting a beast, it is important not to become one".

(Im not sure it&#39;s the accurate quote, i think its from Sun Tzu, or Clausewitz.....can&#39;t really remember).

[Red Heretic]

I thought this Article would be relevant from the latest issue of Revolution:



Burning Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Name of Freedom

Revolution #011, August 14, 2005, posted at revcom.us

This is the first in a new series for Revolution.

April 25, 1945, U.S. Secretary of War Henry Stimson met with the new president Harry S. Truman to brief him about a major military secret. “Within four months,” Stimson said, “we shall in all probability have completed the most terrifying weapon ever known in human history.”

This briefing lasted 45 minutes. There was no debate over whether to use this weapon. The leaders of the United States condemned tens of thousands to an awful death without hesitation.

Sixty years ago this month, on August 5, 1945, the U.S. military plane Enola Gay circled over Hiroshima, and released a single bomb. It plunged toward the Japanese city below and detonated in an enormous fireball as hot as the sun. At Ground Zero almost everything was simply destroyed and every human being died. Even two miles from the blast, human skin was severely burned.

The wind blew at 1,000 miles per hour —shattering the bodies of thousands of people as it hurled them through the air or brought buildings crashing down upon them.

When the firestorm died down, the former city was a scorched plain. A heavy black rain brought radioactive dust back down to earth. Some of the dead had been vaporized, many others lay where they died, in their thousands and thousands.

When President Harry Truman was told of the Hiroshima bombing, he said, “This is the greatest thing in history.”

The U.S. high command felt that the destruction of one city was still not enough. Three days later, also without warning, they dropped a second bomb on the city of Nagasaki.

Long after the bombing, people kept dying, from a then-mysterious illness — radiation. Five months after the bombing 140,000 people had died in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki.

Crimes in the Name of Safety and Freedom

How was this horror excused? How did the U.S. government and military try to convince their soldiers to fight, their bomber crews to bomb, and the people of the “civilian home front” to back all of this?

The people of the U.S. were told that this war against Japan was a war of self-defense. They were told that they faced invasion from Japan—and that “the enemy” was vicious, fanatical, and barely human.

People were told that the expanded American war machine would defend their homes and “the American way of life.” They also were told that this war was “bringing freedom and democracy” to the world.

Official U.S. mythology teaches the U.S. armed forces are always the “good guys,” guided by the purest motives.

This is one of the world’s greatest lies—covering a truly shameful history. And this war in the Pacific, including the horrific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is a vivid example.

The Pacific war was part of a much larger world war—where many different class forces, much of the planet and all its major powers were all drawn into a bitter series of interconnected wars. It is beyond the scope of this article to analyze all of that. But we can see, from a closer look at just the Pacific theater of that world war (where the U.S. and its allies fought with the Japanese) how all these U.S. justifications for war were deceptions covering the real motives and goals.

Not Defense, But Imperialism&#33;

By the time World War 2 broke out, the United States had already been fighting for control in the western Pacific for over half a century. The U.S. brutally conquered the Philippines in the early 1900s and demanded an “open door” into China —to exploit those countries without barriers.

Japan emerged as a rival power—similarly eager to dominate China, Korea, the Philippines, and the rest of this region. The U.S. built a “deep water navy” to “project power” to eastern Asia. And when the Japanese military built a navy to rival all that, and when Japanese troops took over parts of China in the 1930s—driving out U.S. and British “interests” — then it became pretty clear to everyone in power (in both Washington and Tokyo) that a showdown (and probably war) was coming.

But we have all been taught that the main issue was that Japan attacked first at Pearl Harbor.

In fact, you can’t correctly analyze the wars by “who hit first” or even “who is fighting on whose soil.” You have to evaluate them by the goals and class interests that various forces are fighting for. This Pacific war came out of an imperialist rivalry, rooted in capitalism’s drive to “expand or die.” It was a war over which powers would dominate and exploit hundreds of millions of people—and this makes the U.S. war for the Pacific unjust, no matter which of these rivals ended up landing the first blow.

And there is much evidence that powerful forces in the U.S. government were quite excited when the Japanese navy attacked Pearl Harbor—because it now gave them a public justification for the war they had long wanted to launch.

And all this talk of Pearl Harbor being “sacred American soil” is especially grotesque once you look into the way the U.S. military conquered Hawai’i from its own people.

Promising Liberation, Delivering Domination

In history books and war movies, people are told that U.S. marines went “island hopping” through the Pacific to “liberate” the people. The colonial master Douglas MacArthur is portrayed as a hero when he promised “I shall return” (to the Philippines he had ruled at gunpoint&#33;).

But the U.S. was fighting for domination, not liberation.

Look at what happened after the war. The U.S. took over the Philippines again, and eventually became the main power in Singapore, South Vietnam, Indonesia, Taiwan, and South Korea. The U.S. also tried to replace Japan as the power dominating China, but the people of China prevented that through the great revolution led by Mao Tsetung&#33;

The victorious U.S. imposed a series of brutal regimes, including the notorious Marcos government, that tortured the Filipino people over the following decades. Look at the history of Indonesia or South Korea.

The U.S. victory in World War 2 meant more brutal domination, not liberation, for these countries. Generations sweated in the fields and sweatshops, women were crudely sold around U.S. bases, and brutal regimes were propped up by U.S. aid and guns.

And today, U.S. domination is still going on&#33;

Bringing Democracy to the Conquered

During the current war in Iraq, U.S. war-makers like Paul Wolfowitz have said they intend to “bring democracy to the Middle East” and point to U.S. post-war policies in Japan as a model. And it is a way of saying that the U.S. may do terrible things in war, but their victory always means good things in the end.

Is this true? No.

After Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and the Japanese surrender), the U.S. occupied Japan and imposed a new arrangement that included a political system with elections.

But this bringing of democracy was constructed to serve the political and strategic interests of the U.S. First, great care was taken to make sure that Japan remained a capitalist class society. Much of the hateful, oppressive old Emperor system was preserved—and in particular, the Emperor himself was not removed from power.

New political forces were allowed to form and allowed to contend for power as long as they were committed both to capitalism generally and the pro-U.S. strategic arrangement in particular. Revolutionary political forces who opposed all that were suppressed, and important workers strikes were simply banned.

The new Japanese government was not allowed to create a large new military that could ever challenge the U.S., but the Japanese ruling class of monopoly capitalists was allowed to share in the exploitation of the surrounding poorer countries.

In short, the democracy that the U.S. brought to Japan was a bourgeois democracy— designed to prevent revolution, preserve capitalism, and create a Japan in keeping with U.S. interests.

Saving Lives with Mushroom Clouds?

It is particularly shocking when these U.S. war- makers claim their treatment of the Japanese people could be a model for Iraq and the Middle East. As if no one remembers Hiroshima and Nagasaki&#33; As if the world will accept their lame, shameful and still- unapologetic justifications of those bombings&#33;

Officially, the U.S. government claims that these atomic bombs were dropped to “save lives” (meaning, of course, American lives)&#33;

The U.S. military (and its apologists) claim that many U.S. soldiers would have died, if the U.S. had “been forced to invade” Japan’s home islands. And so the atomic mass killing of tens of thousands of civilian Japanese (in their heartless calculations) are treated as if it is a good trade-off. And in such ways, then and now, people of the U.S. are trained to think that mountains of dead bodies are quite fine, as long as they are not American bodies.

And, in fact, all this talk was a lie. By August 1945, the Japanese military and empire were on the verge of collapse—and the conditions were ripe for a negotiated end to the war. Where did this need come from to directly occupy Japan and drop these atomic bombs—it came from what the rulers of the U.S. saw was in their interests.

The U.S. ruling class wanted complete surrender of Japan and long-term occupation—because they were after unquestioned domination—both of Japan itself and the whole vast surrounding region. They were using the most gruesome means to grab complete victory for their global ambitions, and yet claiming to do all this in the name of the people of the U.S.

They wanted to remake Japan in ways that would prevent future rivalry. And they wanted to end this war with a great show of ruthless strength—leaving piles of scorched and radioactive bodies—to send a message to anyone who might still think about challenging the U.S. in the postwar world.

The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sacrificed—wiped out in great fireballs—to deliver a gangster threat to the then-socialist Soviet Union (which was preparing to launch military moves in east Asia) and to the restless colonized people of the western Pacific, especially the communist- led revolutionary movement of China.

Those who rule the U.S. today still try to excuse the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and claim these mass murders were all for the greater good.

“Fighting for freedom”? “Fighting to defend America”? No. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are among the most bloodthirsty and brutal acts in human history—and they were all about expanding the reach and profits of U.S. capitalism and its imperialist grip on much of the world.

This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolution Online
http://revcom.us
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497

[Zespris]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 12 2005, 11:24 PM

do you really think Truman/Eisenhower and the whole bunch KNEW the devastating effects of the bomb

Well, they knew as well as anyone. They had reports and estimates, yes, but they also had a full accounting of the test in New Mexico. They knew full well how devastating the effects would be, in fact, many of them expected it to be more devastating then it actually was.

Ignorance was certainly not a defense here,
Ok... I didn&#39;t know about these estimates, I thought they had just done a test run and did not know / expect the destroying power and the side-effects the bomb had

[kingbee]

Besides, what kind of lunatic logic says that you can&#39;t judge actions committed 60 years ago ...because they were committed 60 years ago? I would remind you that the holocaust happened 60 years ago as well. Should we be retiscent to condemn it because we "simply weren&#39;t around at the time"? Of course not&#33; That&#39;s not how history works, and it&#39;s not how historiography works. We take the available evidence, the surviving documents, and our common sense and make the best judgment we can make. And if careful analysis suggests that a crime was committed we say so. It&#39;s the only way to prevent it from happeneing again.


there are some quite blatant exceptions. there is still a debate raging over whether we should or shouldn&#39;t have used nukes. i don&#39;t think there has ever been a debate over whether the holocaust should have been committed.

and we can take all the documents needed, etc, but i still believe that if we were under the pressures that the world, and the world&#39;s governments were, then we would be thinking about this very differently today.



Actually, we know all of the context; that&#39;s one of the advantages of a "modern gaze". It was only 60 years ago, we have a great deal of records, documents, testimonials, autobiographies, memos, declassified reports, etc...

In fact, we have much more on this subject then we do on any issue about Genghis Kahn, yet, historians are not afraid to point out that Kahn was guilty of mass murder.

yes, we do have many more bits of paperwork to fiddle with and to interprete. but a lot of the context is the time itself, and the many different variables at the time that brought about this decision.




as much as i believe america has done some horrific decisions in the past, i&#39;m still undecided on this one.

Then I suggest you do further research on the subject.

no. i&#39;m happy as it is, thanks.

i&#39;m not for the bomb at all. but i just think that us left wingers can tend to bve very narrow minded and ideological on specific subjects.

[Samuel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:26 AM
i&#39;m not for the bomb at all. but i just think that us left wingers can tend to bve very narrow minded and ideological on specific subjects.
Good call. I agree.

[Iepilei]

The creation and deployment of the nuclear weapon set a precedent which has since kept them out of action during times of war. Japan would have surrendered to the Allied forces, eventually, however the casualties would have been massive.

Was it the best option to completely level two cities for it, though? The bigger question should be would those two cities have eventually been destroyed anyways? You can&#39;t replace or paint over anything that has happened historically. It was a tragic event, of course, but that is the tale behind the history of our progression.

:ph34r:

[Led Zeppelin]

In the end of July, the Soviet Union decided to attack Japan, which was headed for inevitable military defeat. However, without the slightest military necessity, the U.S. decided to `experiment&#39; their nuclear weapons on human beings. They wanted to terrorize their adversaries to an extent that even the Nazis had not done. The main purpose of imperialism, when it massively killed Japanese, was to create terror among the Soviets: the main message was for Stalin. As soon as Churchill learned of the atomic bomb&#39;s existence, he wanted to use it against the Soviet Union&#33; Professor Gabriel Kolko writes:

`Field Marshal Alan Brooke thought the Prime Minister&#39;s infantile enthusiasm bordered on the dangerous: `He was already seeing himself capable of eliminating all the Russian centres of industry&#39;.&#39;

The nuclear bomb against the Soviet Union (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node143.html#SECTION001310200000000000000)