Seventy Years On

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

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.

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 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.

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

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 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.

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.

Larbre34 wrote: »

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.

Surely if it was that close they'd have surrendered after the first one?

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.

Or it could have been their Pearl Harbour.