Seventy Years On

Reiver

since the first use of atomic weapons in warfare on the city of Hiroshima (followed by Nagasaki a mere three days later).

Were the bombs dropped to force Japan to surrender? Were they using the cities as an experiment? Was it to intimidate the Soviet Union?

I'm just genuinely curious about peoples views here considering it's something we all learn about in school but beyond the bare facts, we don't discuss the morals of the act.

kfallon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPPdRP1oa_A

darkpagandeath

The bomb was not a deterrent until used.

uch

Atari Jaguar

NachoBusiness

Great song by The Blue Hearts (Japanese punk outfit) released in 1985 on the 40th anniversary of Hiroshima (with English subtitles).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEGkOkhamIo

Hande hoche!

Was to save purple heart related costs.

tigger123

There's never any justification for the mass murder of civilians like that. It's so indiscriminate.

Timberrrrrrrr

namloc1980

Unjustifiable slaughter of hundreds of thousands of defenceless people.

Corvo

How many would have died other wise? Millions? The Japanese weren't going to give up.

Still a war crime of course, wiping out so many civilians in an instant.

The whole thing was a tragedy.

Reiver

tigger123 wrote: »

There's never any justification for the mass murder of civilians like that. It's so indiscriminate.

More were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo though and most people don't even seem aware of it.

And Bomber Command in the European theatre of operations were regularly decorated for their bombing runs over the mainland. I just get bewildered how some acts get condemned and others dont.

valoren

Why spend billions of dollar's to research, develop and build a bomb and not use it in while under a state of war?

It took another dropping on Nagasaki for the Japanese to accept the inevitable.

Aimead

A land invasion of Japan would have been incredibly costly and would likely have cost more lives than those lost with the bombings. The problem is that in order to try and determine justifiability you’d need to know what the costs of other actions were – and in my mind I don’t think the history books give the full picture needed to make that determination.

Truth be told, justifying it is made much harder given that they didn’t nuke a military base or two before hitting the cities.

namloc1980

Reiver wrote: »

More were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo though and most people don't even seem aware of it.

And Bomber Command in the European theatre of operations were regularly decorated for their bombing runs over the mainland. I just get bewildered how some acts get condemned and others dont.

I'm pretty sure that the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden for instance have been widely condemned.

sxt

Corvo wrote: »

How many would have died other wise? Millions? The Japanese weren't going to give up.

Still a war crime of course, wiping out so many civilians in an instant.

The whole thing was a tragedy.

The Japanese were going to give up according to the top US Generals involved at the time. They had no Navy, airforce or any means to defend themselves. Their cities were already leveled to the ground. All the Generals were against the idea. The US President dropped the bomb as an example to what would happen to other nations if they didn't tow the line


The president of America, Truman, told the world that is was neccessary to drop these atomic bombs to save many lives on both sides, his word was taken as truth and as a justification to this day.

Harry S. Truman
"The atom bomb was no "great decision." It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness"



President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, in a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson

"I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."



Admiral William Halsey, commander of the U.S. Third Fleet,

"the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the
bomb was used".


General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific

"My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender"



Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

"It is my opinion that the use of the 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 ... 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"




Of course, school books in western countries will say that it was for the best, and that is was necessary but it wasn't. It was the biggest war crime in human history.

LuckyLloyd

Reiver wrote: »

since the first use of atomic weapons in warfare on the city of Hiroshima (followed by Nagasaki a mere three days later).

Were the bombs dropped to force Japan to surrender? Were they using the cities as an experiment? Was it to intimidate the Soviet Union?

I'm just genuinely curious about peoples views here considering it's something we all learn about in school but beyond the bare facts, we don't discuss the morals of the act.

Yes, absolutely. I don't see much of a conspiracy angle on this one tbh. A weapon became available that could take the American war effort to a new level in a brutal conflict with Japan and they used it.

Regarding the morals of it, there is a documentary called "Fog of War" which gets a very frank personal perspective from former US Defense secretary McNamara on his involvement in the War and he draws attention to the savage loss of life the fire bombing of wooden cities produced along with noting his belief that himself and others could have been tried as war criminals if they ended up on the losing side. But they didn't.

melted_face

the japanese had already slaughtered thousands of civilians in china and beyond by then . of course , 2 wrongs don't make a right but in war , nobody's completely innocent

Reiver

namloc1980 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden for instance have been widely condemned.

I did my Leaving a few years ago and we had no mention of it in our coursebook. Allied bombing raids over Europe and Japan alright but Dresden and Tokyo weren't mentioned at all.

Neither were other things such as Unit 731 or the Sack of Nanking.

The atomics got a paragraph or two but you'd be surprised how many people are ignorant of what happened.

Guy:Incognito

Why waste (hundreds of) thousands of your own peoples lives trying to defeat Japan and stop them committing their atrocities when it can be done without loss of life on your side?

If it comes down to a choice between 1 of my 2 sons and one of their 2 dying to stop them doing what theyre doing or both of their sons and none of mine, I'll go with the latter thanks.

They had no intention of surrendering.

tigger123

Reiver wrote: »

More were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo though and most people don't even seem aware of it.

And Bomber Command in the European theatre of operations were regularly decorated for their bombing runs over the mainland. I just get bewildered how some acts get condemned and others dont.

Anything that targets civilians like that is deplorable.

I think those bombings loom large in history because it was the dawn of the nuclear age. Which is still relevant today. I think that's why we still talk about more so than other war atrocities.

NachoBusiness

Some amazing (*but very disturbing*) photos in the DM's article to mark the anniversary today.

namloc1980

Reiver wrote: »

I did my Leaving a few years ago and we had no mention of it in our coursebook. Allied bombing raids over Europe and Japan alright but Dresden and Tokyo weren't mentioned at all.

Neither were other things such as Unit 731 or the Sack of Nanking.

The atomics got a paragraph or two but you'd be surprised how many people are ignorant of what happened.

I wouldn't put much stock in Leaving Cert history books to be fair.

Reiver

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why waste (hundreds of) thousands of your own peoples lives trying to defeat Japan and stop them committing their atrocities when it can be done without loss of life on your side?

If it comes down to a choice between 1 of my 2 sons and one of their 2 dying to stop them doing what theyre doing or both of their sons and none of mine, I'll go with the latter thanks.

They had no intention of surrendering.

Fair point, we do tend to forget about the millions of Allied and Japanese soldiers still fighting in Burma, the Pacific, China. The fighting and dying was still going on everyday.

Dr.MickKiller

Corvo wrote: »

How many would have died other wise? Millions? The Japanese weren't going to give up.

Still a war crime of course, wiping out so many civilians in an instant.

The whole thing was a tragedy.

I wonder if a siege might have been an option? The Japanese Airforce or Navy wasn't up to much at that stage.

melted_face

btw , the guardian have pictures up of hiroshima now and how it looked after the bomb which i found interesting .

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/aug/06/after-the-atomic-bomb-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-then-and-now-in-pictures?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

tigger123

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yes, absolutely. I don't see much of a conspiracy angle on this one tbh. A weapon became available that could take the American war effort to a new level in a brutal conflict with Japan and they used it.

Regarding the morals of it, there is a documentary called "Fog of War" which gets a very frank personal perspective from former US Defense secretary McNamara on his involvement in the War and he draws attention to the savage loss of life the fire bombing of wooden cities produced along with noting his belief that himself and others could have been tried as war criminals if they ended up on the losing side. But they didn't.

It's a great documentary.

valoren

Apparantly the following text included on leaflets dropped on Japanese cities.

Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or a friend. In the next few days, four or more of the cities named on the reverse side of this leaflet will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories, which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique that they are using to prolong this useless war. Unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s well-known humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.
America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique, which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace, which America will bring, will free the people from the oppression of the Japanese military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan.
You can restore peace by demanding new and better leaders who will end the War.
We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked, but at least four will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.


Now, imagine yourself as the Emperor of Japan and you read that.
Do you call their bluff? Conditions of surrender were outlayed to Japan well before the atom bombs were dropped. When confronted with the above warning, would you surrender or have the total arrogance to fight on to the end even after one of your cities has been destroyed? That you would have to wait for another bombing to finally accept defeat? The blood of those killed in the atomic bombings lies squarely with the Japanese authorities.

Barely There

If nuclear weapons weren't used on Japan during WW2, would they have been used in the 70 years since?

Impossible to know, but I think yes, and probably in the context of a global nuclear conflict.

I suspect we would not be here pondering the morals of bombing of Hiroshima had it not happened.

Rebellion

how did those pilots sleep that night?

Guy:Incognito

Barely There wrote: »

If nuclear weapons weren't used on Japan during WW2, would they have been used in the 70 years since?

Impossible to know, but I think yes, and probably in the context of a global nuclear conflict.

I suspect we would not be here pondering the morals of bombing of Hiroshima had it not happened.

It would have been a lot worse if the first was launched during the Cuban missile crisis. It may well have come to pass that none of us would be here today.

LuckyLloyd

Reiver wrote: »

I did my Leaving a few years ago and we had no mention of it in our coursebook. Allied bombing raids over Europe and Japan alright but Dresden and Tokyo weren't mentioned at all.

Neither were other things such as Unit 731 or the Sack of Nanking.

The atomics got a paragraph or two but you'd be surprised how many people are ignorant of what happened.

It's Leaving Cert History. It's not supposed to delve into the nuances of the conflict or attempt to be an authorative and detailed narrative. Countless volumes and man year's of research have gone into the individual decision to do the bombings, nevermind the result, context around them. Leaving Certificate history is doomed to be patchy and inaccurate, particularly when 'accurate' is a topic of hot debate in historic analysis.

Corvo

There is also the theory that they were "showing" the Russians just what they were capable of.

Reiver

Barely There wrote: »

If nuclear weapons weren't used on Japan during WW2, would they have been used in the 70 years since?

Impossible to know, but I think yes, and probably in the context of a global nuclear conflict.

I suspect we would not be here pondering the morals of bombing of Hiroshima had it not happened.

We could have been spared a Third World War since the effects of those weapons were so horrific.

LuckyLloyd

Rebellion wrote: »

how did those pilots sleep that night?

It seems that if you are in the war machine you think in terms of objectives and a simple idea of the righteousness of your cause and the moral bankruptcy of the opposition. In the case of WWII the German, Italian and Japanese states were evil and they had convinced their armed forces to engage in cruel immoral acts. Their objective was empire and dominance of one sort or another, so it wouldn't have been a hard sell to soldiers involved in bombing Tokyo, Dresden, etc. Then, for the victorious western nations, the ~30 years following the conclusion of WW11 were a time of great economic prosperity and social advancement. Easy to return home and believe you were seeing the fruits of your labour.

WW1 is of course a different story. How those young men felt about the horrors of the trenches as their generation were thrown into an unspeakable black hole of poverty is anyone's guess - but it certainly doesn't make WWÌI a surprise of any sort in hindsight.

cloud493

100% justified.

Clearlier

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's Leaving Cert History. It's not supposed to delve into the nuances of the conflict or attempt to be an authorative and detailed narrative. Countless volumes and man year's of research have gone into the individual decision to do the bombings, nevermind the result, context around them. Leaving Certificate history is doomed to be patchy and inaccurate, particularly when 'accurate' is a topic of hot debate in historic analysis.

The fire bombing of Dresden was mentioned in my LC history course 20 years ago (Irish and European only 1868 - 1945 IIRC). The syllabus has no doubt changed since but as you say the nature of the course makes it impossible to go into any detail.

Even at this remove I'm not sure that anyone has suggested a viable alternative for persuading Japan to surrender. On that basis I would reluctantly agree that it might have been the right thing to do from a utilitarian perspective given the number of deaths particularly civilian ones in conventional fighting. It's remarkably difficult even to write those words though.

Corvo

Clearlier wrote: »

On that basis I would reluctantly agree that it might have been the right thing to do from a utilitarian perspective given the number of deaths particularly civilian ones in conventional fighting. It's remarkably difficult even to write those words though.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree.

Thought when you read accounts like the following -

General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."....

....General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war....

LuckyLloyd

Corvo wrote: »

There is also the theory that they were "showing" the Russians just what they were capable of.

I always feel that analysis is only possible from the perspective of being within or having lived through the other side of the cold war where you can start to view all of the major foreign policy decisions relating to the Soviet / Western divide.

Japan were losing the war and were isolated. But the savagery of the fire bombings had not forced a surrender and the Nazis had fought all the way through the streets of Berlin. They had developed a weapon of huge potential and had estimated they could lose half a million men invading Japan and hacking their way through it. In that context, I would say thoughts of laying down a marker for Russia could only have been considered an ancillary benefit and not the primary objective of the bombings - a Japanese surrender.

Barely There

I often wonder at the timing of it all.

If nuclear weapons had been invented 5 years earlier or 5 years later, the world might be a very different place indeed,

and not in a good way.

Larbre34

It is said that the Japanese was fast losing the war anyway and that following the rout in the pacific and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, a Japanese surrender was coming. The question is how long that would have taken and whether more lives were saved by summarily ending the war with the atomic attacks. There is no doubt a conventional invasion of the Japanese home islands, even with the combined strength of the allies would have been difficult and protracted.

Personally I think the atomic bombings of two residential cities was unjustified and I think the same net effect could have been gained by atom bombing some significant military installations, like a major naval base or two, or a major bomber base. The shock and awe factor of vapourising a naval fleet would have led to the same thing. However Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centres and strategic bombing was the order of the day, plus weather was a big factor in target selection in that pre-digital age, so some other population centre could have been hit in any case.

Overall, I think the japanese sacrifice and demonstration of the power of nuclear weapons has saved the world from a far more escalatory conflict, had the first atomic detonation waited until the 1950s. The superpowers might have been less reticent to use nukes on each other and by that time, the yield of available weapons was such, that we may never have come back from the brink.

Remembering those who suffered such a terrible death this week, 70 years ago

Starscream25

War is very simple, you have to kill and beat your enemy into submission, the Japanese were a different kind of foe from that of the European theatre, a killer blow HAD to be dealt (twice even) I'm surprised from these poll results that so many people are calling the murder card, complete and utter bull. The atomic bomb needed to be used, it's as simple as that, obviously it's a terrible weapon that's wreaks absolute havoc and the amount of innocents that died in that war is an ugly reminder of how low humanity can go.

It ended the war early
Saved countless US troops
Saved countless Japanese civilians from starvation and disease
The bomb wasn't used lightly or without serious thought, the Potsdam declaration was issued to the Japanese government issuing an unconditional surrender before any atomic bomb was dropped but it was ignored.

The Americans were no saints during that war but would people prefer if the Russians developed it first (and if they did we'd be living in a very different world) I think any sensible person would say no to that one.
You hippies sicken me.

Firefox11

From Wikipedia:

In August, the Japanese government refused surrender demands as specifically outlined in the Potsdam Declaration and with the invasion of mainland Japan imminent, Truman approved the schedule for dropping the two available bombs. Truman always said that attacking Japan with atomic bombs saved many lives on both sides; military estimates for the invasion of mainland Japan were that it could take a year and result in 250,000 to 500,000 American casualties. Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, and Nagasaki three days later. Japan agreed to surrender the following day.


Truman announces Japan's surrender. Washington, DC, August 14, 1945
Supporters[a] of Truman's decision argue that, given the tenacious Japanese defense of the outlying islands, the bombings saved hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been lost invading mainland Japan. Critics have argued that the use of nuclear weapons was inherently immoral. Truman strongly defended himself in his memoirs in 1955-56, stating that many lives could have been lost had the U.S. invaded mainland Japan. In 1963 he stood by his decision, telling a journalist "it was done to save 125,000 youngsters on the American side and 125,000 on the Japanese side from getting killed and that is what it did. It probably also saved a half million youngsters on both sides from being maimed for life."

evo2000

Only the victor can get away with dropping atomic bombs and wiping out entire citys, had the Germans done that and lost the war... the uproar! of course its murder you re kill hundreds of thousands of non combatants i dunno how you d live with yourself being the lad that actually dropped the bomb to be honest.

MonkieSocks

evo2000 wrote: »

Only the victor can get away with dropping atomic bombs and wiping out entire citys, had the Germans done that and lost the war... the uproar! of course its murder you re kill hundreds of thousands of non combatants i dunno how you d live with yourself being the lad that actually dropped the bomb to be honest.

If the Germans could have had the capability of developing the Bomb first, they might not have lost the War.

imitation

I went to hiroshima on a trip a few years back. The museum was really grim and depressing. I think the worst thing I saw was a childs trike, he was on it when the bomb went off and he died. His father buried him in the garden with the trike because he could not face a mass grave. In the 1980s he reburied him and donated the trike to the museum. I think the that was so recent made me realise it was not that long ago.

Thing is though, Hiroshima actually a really nice city, with good parks and nice european trams, and ultimately what I took away from it is that society is resiliant, and despite the horrible things that people do, they can still be overcome.

Boring username

Reiver wrote: »

We could have been spared a Third World War since the effects of those weapons were so horrific.

This is something that most people tend to forget. The atomic age was such a shock to the human mindset that it has paradoxically prevented a third world war, since there can be no clear winners. Even if you sustain less damage than the enemy, you have still lost anyway.

Although I do think it is inevitable that we will see a nuclear detonation in a major population centre in our life time, almost certainly as a result of rogue Pakistani army officers supplying a nuclear weapon to Islamic extremists.

Then the gloves will be coming off for sure......

Cianmcliam

Larbre34 wrote: »

Personally I think the atomic bombings of two residential cities was unjustified and I think the same net effect could have been gained by atom bombing some significant military installations, like a major naval base or two, or a major bomber base. The shock and awe factor of vapourising a naval fleet would have led to the same thing. However Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centres and strategic bombing was the order of the day, plus weather was a big factor in target selection in that pre-digital age, so some other population centre could have been hit in any case.

The Japanese were hiding their losses from the public though so news of a nuclear attack on one of the military bases or one one of the islands probably would not have reached the people on the street.

It was the same tactic they tried to use in Iraq decades later, demonstrate such a ferocious show of firepower that the majority of supposedly rational people on the enemy side would do your work for you, abandon and hopefully overthrow the fanatics at the top making war and invasion unnecessary.

Fleawuss

I don't think anyone quoted at the time about it was objective. They all had self interest, MacArthur most of all. War weariness played its part: why let things drag into 1946? Who could tell what Rusdia would do? It was brutal and horrific but it ended the war. And the lessons learned saved us from any further nuclear weapon use. At least this far.

DarkyHughes

namloc1980 wrote: »

Unjustifiable slaughter of hundreds of thousands of defenceless people.

Yes, but WW2 was fought by all combatants as Total War. So there was no distinction between military & civilian targets.

Aimead

Reiver wrote: »

…. or the Sack of Nanking.

I can’t for the life of me remember who said this but it highlights just how brutal that episode was:
“You know it is pretty bad when the Nazi’s show up and are heralded as the good guys.”

---

Boring username wrote: »

Although I do think it is inevitable that we will see a nuclear detonation in a major population centre in our life time, almost certainly as a result of rogue Pakistani army officers supplying a nuclear weapon to Islamic extremists.

There is a good documentary, ‘Countdown To Zero’, which mentions just how easy building the actual bomb mechanism it – the challenge is in getting/producing the weapons-grade fissile material. The ‘Penney Report’, which was released under the thirty year rule, contains some rudimentary plans. Postgraduates in physics from most universities have a decent understanding of what’s involved. Then you have things like the Cox Report which show that there is probably plenty of other nuclear weapon plans floating about.

Scary thoughts.

LordSutch

Reiver wrote: »

Were the allies right to drol the bomb?

Were the Americans right to drop the bomb?