Hiroshima

It's easy playing armchair general.

The concept of total war means the days of armies leaving their cities behind and marching to the battlefield are over. The goal is to minimize, not eliminate, civilian casaulties, as the latter is impossible. Any mental hand wringing over the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ignores the more damaging and extensive carpetbombing of Japan that was done. Even with conventional bombing, Japan's resolve wasn't shaken. The fury with which Japan defended Okinawa and Iwo Jima, 2 relatively pointless piles of rock in the Pacific, hinted at what would await a landing force of American soldiers on the mainland.

If you can't push the nuclear button, fine. You ain't built for that. Leave that for the people who can, and carefully weigh all the options before even considering doing so.

adexkola said:

It's easy playing armchair general.

The concept of total war means the days of armies leaving their cities behind and marching to the battlefield are over. The goal is to minimize, not eliminate, civilian casaulties, as the latter is impossible. Any mental hand wringing over the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ignores the more damaging and extensive carpetbombing of Japan that was done. Even with conventional bombing, Japan's resolve wasn't shaken. The fury with which Japan defended Okinawa and Iwo Jima, 2 relatively pointless piles of rock in the Pacific, hinted at what would await a landing force of American soldiers on the mainland.

If you can't push the nuclear button, fine. You ain't built for that. Leave that for the people who can, and carefully weigh all the options before even considering doing so.

Click to expand...

Is the last line you ironically pretending to play the armchair general, or do you honestly see yourself as 'that person who can'?

AkaAkuma said:

Is the last line you ironically pretending to play the armchair general, or do you honestly see yourself as 'that person who can'?

Click to expand...

I don't. (Funnily enough I was going to put that quip right next to the last line, good catch).

Then again, I try and understand the reasoning behind the decisions made by those who have the complete picture of what's going on. I don't make arbitrary judgements.

I'm not sure anyone ever has the complete picture. Especially in fog of war, and all that.

AkaAkuma said:

Im British. My Grandfather was also in a Japanese PoW camp in Burma. So go feck yourself and your high horse.

While the Japanese army committed unspeakable acts, there were victims within Japan - men, women and children who were caught up in the war.

Click to expand...

K. I was really steamed when I wrote that post because of the absolute blithering ignorance of that other guy. I've just reread your post in the context of the other thread and you weren't quite saying what I thought you were saying. If I was harsh, I apologize.

Now, having said that, do you disagree that

1) the a-bombs materially shortened the war
2) the war was allowing an unbelievably depraved, murderous regime to commit further war crimes, unbelievable both in their nature and quantity, on a daily basis
3) the a-bombs shortened the extent to which such war crimes were occuring

creates a very strong - quite unimpeachable imo - case for their usage?

SteveJ said:

Why should American - or Japanese or whatever - posters be obliged to explain their country's actions? After all, I wasn't asked whether we (the UK) should invade Iraq; these momentous decisions, be they prove to be right or wrong in retrospect, aren't left to the public - the blood isn't on our hands, and it's not fair that the general public should feel guilty about these awful events.

Click to expand...

That wasn't at all what I was saying. I hold no ill-will towards the modern state of Japan or its inhabitants - nor should anyone, and its unfortunate that the shadow of WWII continues to hang over much of NE Asia. A large part of the problem was that I was posting while wound-up and misinterpreted that poster as wheeling out the usual Japanese right-wing historical revisionism - we deserve the whole world's sympathy for being the victims here, because we didn't do anything, or if we did, it wasn't that bad, and you started it anyway, etc. I've apologized for that.

The big picture, I think, is this. In 1945, the world could pull its punches with Imperial Japan, costing millions of lives in the inevitable conventional conflict that would follow, and forcing occupied Asia to endure Japanese rule for an indefinite period of time. Or it could deliver a short, sharp - and yes, utilitarian - shock, finish the war once and for all, and end the horror.

The alternative to the a-bombs was not peace and love and dancing in meadows. The alternative to the a-bombs was maybe AsaAkuma and I aren't here today, and maybe Japan killed 30 million civilians instead of the 20. In Nanjing alone, up to 7 million people may have been killed.

This was not random acts of terror. This was deliberate application of the Three Alls policy - to kill all, burn all, and loot all - to leave those parts of Asia that they could not control an uninhabited wasteland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Alls_Policy

I invite people criticizing the usage of the a-bombs to think about that for a moment, and consider what would happen if Imperial Japan had more time to carry out the Three Alls Policy.

naturalized said:

K. I was really steamed when I wrote that post because of the absolute blithering ignorance of that other guy. I've just reread your post in the context of the other thread and you weren't quite saying what I thought you were saying. If I was harsh, I apologize.

Now, having said that, do you disagree that

1) the a-bombs materially shortened the war
2) the war was allowing an unbelievably depraved, murderous regime to commit further war crimes, unbelievable both in their nature and quantity, on a daily basis
3) the a-bombs shortened the extent to which such war crimes were occuring

creates a very strong - quite unimpeachable imo - case for their usage?

Click to expand...

My grandfather flew liberators and Wellingtons during the war. he was shot down while on a mission flying over Chiang Mai and had to crash land in the bay of bengal. 5 of the 8 onboard died. 1 of the 3 remaining was seriously injured. Im not sure how long they spent at sea, but attempts to rescue them failed and they were captured by Japanese forces and interned in the Rangoon PoW camp. The injured man died soon after. I believe they were interned for just over a year.

I might not be here if the war lasted longer.

Fate determined that I came to Japan - It wasnt something I felt compelled to do, but looking at it now, I see that coming here may have resolved any issues my family may have still harboured. My grandfather had passed away by that time, but my grandmother was still alive, we spoke a lot about the country and she ultimately was alive to meet my Japanese wife and see us married. My Mum and Dad have both visited Japan a few times now - I think that was important for my dad, he sees what I saw in my wife, shes incredibly sweet natured, but he needed to meet 'the Japanese'.

On the whole, Ive found Japanese people, particularly the women to be very kind, sensitive people. Have you met and spent time with many Japanese people Naturalised?

Hundreds of atrocities are committed in war. Where exactly do you draw the line, and whose decision is that to make?

Without having read as much on the subject of the bombings as I probably should have (although my general WW2 knowledge is decent), millions had already died. Poison gas attacks, bombing (by planes) of civilian cities/factories etc, kamikaze bombers...the list goes on. Obviously the A-Bombs was the largest in scale and scope of these atrocities, but realistically, a war is two or more nations potentially seeking to destroy or subdue one another through force. Typically whichever side has the most/best forces and uses them more effectively, will win. America's A-Bombs obviously were the largest/best force (best in the sense of pure killing power), and after they had been deployed, the war ended shortly after.

In an ideal world there would be no war, no guns, no bombs or anything else. But again, who exactly can choose where to draw the line? And what if the other side disagrees with that drawn line?

Walrus said:

Hundreds of atrocities are committed in war. Where exactly do you draw the line, and whose decision is that to make?

Without having read as much on the subject of the bombings as I probably should have (although my general WW2 knowledge is decent), millions had already died. Poison gas attacks, bombing (by planes) of civilian cities/factories etc, kamikaze bombers...the list goes on. Obviously the A-Bombs was the largest in scale and scope of these atrocities, but realistically, a war is two or more nations potentially seeking to destroy or subdue one another through force. Typically whichever side has the most/best forces and uses them more effectively, will win. America's A-Bombs obviously were the largest/best force (best in the sense of pure killing power), and after they had been deployed, the war ended shortly after.

In an ideal world there would be no war, no guns, no bombs or anything else. But again, who exactly can choose where to draw the line? And what if the other side disagrees with that drawn line?

Click to expand...

We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So lets start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
Its true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

The only question that will probably remain unanswered or not fully answered in this topic would be this: If Franklin D. Roosevelt was still alive by the time the Trinity nuclear test was completed and by the time the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa were finished, would he have made the call to drop the bomb on the basis of the same information Truman received?

This is a big question because although Roosevelt approved the nuclear project, we have to remember that he was also a man with principles of his own. The last thing he probably wanted to avoid was to see the Allies of the time end up turning against one another (which ended up happening through the Cold War). Perhaps he knew some of the further implications if the nuclear bomb was used to win the war, especially an arms race on an unprecedented scale. Perhaps he would have kept it as a very last resort. Perhaps he would have made the same call as Truman's. We don't know, but it's worth debating.

JPRouve said:

We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So lets start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
Its true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

Click to expand...

feck off with that bs

JPRouve said:

We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So lets start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
Its true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

Click to expand...

some comedy in this heavy thread

Kakeru said:

The only question that will probably remain unanswered or not fully answered in this topic would be this: If Franklin D. Roosevelt was still alive by the time the Trinity nuclear test was completed and by the time the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa were finished, would he have made the call to drop the bomb on the basis of the same information Truman received?

This is a big question because although Roosevelt approved the nuclear project, we have to remember that he was also a man with principles of his own. The last thing he probably wanted to avoid was to see the Allies of the time end up turning against one another (which ended up happening through the Cold War). Perhaps he knew some of the further implications if the nuclear bomb was used to win the war, especially an arms race on an unprecedented scale. Perhaps he would have kept it as a very last resort. Perhaps he would have made the same call as Truman's. We don't know, but it's worth debating.

Click to expand...

Can only guess but I think he would have come to the same decision as Truman. he would have faced the same facts, the same concerns about ongoing casualties, the same war-weariness from his people, the same economic pressures, etc etc etc.

As far as the Cold War goes, well it was not the A-bomb that drove it, the Soviets were already establishing their puppet governments in Eastern Europe and North Korea. Vietnam was being divided. Even without being dropped the Soviets already knew of their existence and were making plans for their own versions.

AkaAkuma said:

My grandfather flew liberators and Wellingtons during the war. he was shot down while on a mission flying over Chiang Mai and had to crash land in the bay of bengal. 5 of the 8 onboard died. 1 of the 3 remaining was seriously injured. Im not sure how long they spent at sea, but attempts to rescue them failed and they were captured by Japanese forces and interned in the Rangoon PoW camp. The injured man died soon after. I believe they were interned for just over a year.

I might not be here if the war lasted longer.

Fate determined that I came to Japan - It wasnt something I felt compelled to do, but looking at it now, I see that coming here may have resolved any issues my family may have still harboured. My grandfather had passed away by that time, but my grandmother was still alive, we spoke a lot about the country and she ultimately was alive to meet my Japanese wife and see us married. My Mum and Dad have both visited Japan a few times now - I think that was important for my dad, he sees what I saw in my wife, shes incredibly sweet natured, but he needed to meet 'the Japanese'.

On the whole, Ive found Japanese people, particularly the women to be very kind, sensitive people. Have you met and spent time with many Japanese people Naturalised?

Click to expand...

First, that's a lovely story. Thank you for sharing it, sincerely. Second, your grandfather is a hero - the world owes him gratitude for his service. Third, I know the grand total of one Japanese dude, from uni. Brilliantly talented mechanical engineer, bit socially diffident, completely apolitical whatsoever.

I'm not sure, however, what the relevance of this is? I've said that I don't hold any lingering animosity towards the modern state of Japan or its inhabitants. Hell, I don't even hold any animosity towards Imperial Japan or its inhabitants. Why would I? They didn't do anything to me. I don't doubt that nearly everyone underneath that bomb didn't "deserve" to be there.

But deserve's got nothing to do with it.

JPRouve said:

We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So lets start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
Its true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

Click to expand...

The question i've always asked, why detonate over a city. Why not on a nearby coastal region where the US can "flex their muscle" but refrain from unecessary loss of life to innocent people. I think both would have had the same impact.

mariachi-19 said:

The question i've always asked, why detonate over a city. Why not on a nearby coastal region where the US can "flex their muscle" but refrain from unecessary loss of life to innocent people. I think both would have had the same impact.

Click to expand...

In war body count is the only stat that makes an impression, probably.

mariachi-19 said:

The question i've always asked, why detonate over a city. Why not on a nearby coastal region where the US can "flex their muscle" but refrain from unecessary loss of life to innocent people. I think both would have had the same impact.

Click to expand...

It probably has been explained a few times on this thread. Here another one.

The US wanted to finish the war immediately. They didn't want to flex their muscle and show that they are stronger, they had already done that and Japan was going to be defeated anyway. Both the US and Japan knew that. However, Japan was not planning to surrender, and that was causing problems. The casualty rates in the Battle of Okinawa for the US were too high (and for Japanese far higher). Too many US soldiers were killed. And while an afterthought to the US, too many Japanese (both soldiers and civilians) were getting killed. At that stage, the US had the way of finishing the war ASAP, instead of having hundreds (or even thousands) of their soldiers being killed every day. There was the option of continuing it indefinitely, and at some stage, Japan going into guerrilla warfare. There were estimates about it, probably half a million US soldiers, and I think up to 7-12m Japanese. To further complicate things, the Soviet Union had already reached Manchuria, overthrown the Japanese-backed government, and was planning their grand invasion in Japan. Not only this would have made things worse (even more people killed) but could have put the US and Soviet Union against each other and cause another war.

And here come the atomic bombs. Sure, the US could have threatened Japan with them and detonate them in the ocean or in some coastal region without people. The problem though is that the US didn't have many of them to 'waste'. In fact, they had only 3 nukes (the third one was planned to be used too if Japan doesn't surrender). A historian might correct me, but from what I remember when reading about this, the next set of nukes wouldn't be ready until October or so, potentially delaying the end of the war for another 2 months (on numbers, that would be tens of thousands of US soldiers, and as an afterthought, a shitload of Japanese people, far more than from nukes). So yep, strategically speaking, wasting one of your three aces to threaten Japan was not a good idea. The second problem was that the Japanese were extremely stubborn, they had no intention whatsoever to surrender. While people ask 'why the US used the second nuke', not many ask 'Why Japan did not surrender after the first nuke'. They knew what was happening and still continued. Then, the US used the second nuke. Did Japan immediately surrender? Well, the Emperor and a part of the government wanted so. The other part didn't want to and did a coup d'etat to imprison the Emperor and continue the war. Luckily for them, the coup d'etat failed, and Japan surrendered. So to answer your questions, even after the usage of the two nukes, there was a non-trivial chance that Japan was going to continue the war.

People see the nuke destruction and say bad, but the war was bad too. More people died from Tokyo bombing (or from Okinawa battle) than in either Nagasaki or Hiroshima. More would have died if the war didn't end. Japan's infrastructure was destroyed a lot, causing people to die from starvation even after 2 years after the war ('Grave of the Fireflies' treats that topic), many more would have died if the war continued, and Japan's resurrection would have needed far more time.

A lot of people think 'nukes are bad', and in recent time 'the US is bad' (Caf has pathological hate about the US), add 2+2=10 concluding that the US detonated the nukes for shit and giggles and it was morally the wrong thing to do. Sad as it was, it was by far the best option. Any other option would have caused significantly more deaths and pain, with Japan needing far longer to get back to normal life. And a president who would have signed the death of tens of thousands of his people (many more, if the US refused to use nukes and decided to conventionally defeat Japan) would have been morally wrong, and in my book, a traitor. Fortunately, Truman wasn't buying that shit, and fortunately (for Japan too), he ended the war. Yes, up to a quarter of a million people died and that was horrendous. Bear in mind, that another 60 million were killed during that war (that is close to 250 people dying in the war for every person getting killed by the nukes). And in China alone, Japan caused the deaths of near 20 million people, which is far worse than whatever nukes did.

adexkola said:

It definitely saved more American lives, Okinawa and Iwo Jima were bloodbaths, and those were just minor prizes compared to the Japanese mainland. Maybe the second bomb was unnecessary, but considering the atrocities they committed in East and Southeast Asia... I can"t be arsed

Click to expand...

Jesus, what a cnut you are

(I know you apologized a few posts later, but what the shit)

adexkola said:

Jesus, what a cnut you are

(I know you apologized a few posts later, but what the shit)

Click to expand...

Why did you change your opinion?

mariachi-19 said:

The question i've always asked, why detonate over a city. Why not on a nearby coastal region where the US can "flex their muscle" but refrain from unecessary loss of life to innocent people. I think both would have had the same impact.

Click to expand...

We didn’t have camera phones and various other media then, so that wouldn’t have had the same impact. As noted above, thousands upon thousands had already died from other forms of horrific bombing which did not change the situation.

Also even after the second bomb they did not immediately surrender, and you could argue it was the Soviets blowing the doors down on their other front in combination with the US actions that forced Japan to concede.

Kaos said:

If it's long term effects are to deter anyone from initiating a nuclear war then in a strange way it might have paid off, somehow I doubt it though.

Click to expand...

Personally I'd prefer a nuclear blast compared to atrocity war like stalingrad.

I read you're dead in milliseconds. No pain. Nothing. But that's me.

Sky1981 said:

Personally I'd prefer a nuclear blast compared to atrocity war like stalingrad.

I read you're dead in milliseconds. No pain. Nothing. But that's me.

Click to expand...

What about being far away from the blast to not die from it but rather die from ARS days later?

Snow said:

What about being far away from the blast to not die from it but rather die from ARS days later?

Click to expand...

Any options that provides a quicker less painful death is preferable to me, if death was the end result.

Sky1981 said:

Any options that provides a quicker less painful death is preferable to me, if death was the end result.

Click to expand...

Quicker for some, not all. Then there's all the later in life cancers and birth defects.

On the topic about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki itself here's my 2cents

It was a logical move, tactical move, but it was never the right move. This sort of things is like playing "minority report" on what could have, would have, should have. This sort of train thoughts would open a can of worm, do we kill "X" first to Potentitally saves "y"?

Snow said:

Quicker for some, not all. Then there's all the later in life cancers and birth defects.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying which is right / wrong, just saying that if I have an options I would choose a nuclear blast on my place, rather than a city wide firebombing with Atrocities like Rape/pillage/plunder from the victor.

Snow said:

Quicker for some, not all. Then there's all the later in life cancers and birth defects.

Click to expand...

Those things are caused also by conventional warfare, malnutrition, etc.

There was no other option that would have had a better endgame for Japan and that part of the world.

Went to Hiroshima last year and spent a day in the Peace Memorial Museum. It's surprising that the Japanese doesn't hold a grudge against the US. They are actually thankful that the US helped in their reconstruction and their emphasis is the importance of peace. I really like their education.

Revan said:

Why did you change your opinion?

Click to expand...

1. I was 20, what the feck did I know then?

2. I was a bit cnuty at the end there, there were casualties unrelated to Japan's atrocities elsewhere. One of my favorite quotes by General Sherman... "War is hell. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it..." drives home the futility of trying to figure out the humane way of ending a war that for all intents and purposes stopped being humane a long time ago.

3. I still maintain most of my original opinion that a conventional landing would have cost America way more casualties, and conventional bombing took many more lives, and the impact of a previously unseen way of bombing (along with the Soviets invading Japan) forced the Japanese to the table. That being said, I can now admit that the bombing was more than a calculated decision to end the war early with minimal loss to American life. It was a stunt on Europe and the Soviets as to America's expertise in this area. There were possible racial undertones in the way the bombing got greenlighted so fast. It's more complicated than our history books make it out to be and I'm willing to admit that, even if I still think it was the best out of a bunch of shitty options.

Ok now I went to dig out my copy of "A People's History of the United States" which throws a different spin on things. I'll post the excerpts once I figure out the imgur thing.

adexkola said:

Ok now I went to dig out my copy of "A People's History of the United States" which throws a different spin on things.

Click to expand...

I can imagine!

Sky1981 said:

Personally I'd prefer a nuclear blast compared to atrocity war like stalingrad.

I read you're dead in milliseconds. No pain. Nothing. But that's me.

Click to expand...

I don't remember posting this, till I realised it was 10 years ago!

Sky1981 said:

Personally I'd prefer a nuclear blast compared to atrocity war like stalingrad.

I read you're dead in milliseconds. No pain. Nothing. But that's me.

Click to expand...

You're dead in milliseconds if you're within a specific, relatively small area. The people who survived the initial blast, which is a large majority, suffered quite horribly in the hours and days to follow. '

Stalingrad sucked, but I think Leningrad would be worse. More civilians, less of a battle and more of a brutal siege. At least the survivors of Stalingrad got the catharsis of immediately obliterating the 6th Army.

As a man with strong ties to Japan(married to a Japanese and has lived there for years), this is a very difficult topic for me. The Japanese are most definitely haunted to this day and almost everyone I know, Japanese or otherwise, who has visited the Hiroshima museum has come out crying and been affected for life.

But looking at the facts it's very hard to disagree with Truman's decision. @Revan's post is a good summary of the events. The Japanese simply would not surrender. The bombs, as gruesome as they were, still saved millions of lives in the end.

OleBoiii said:

As a man with strong ties to Japan(married to a Japanese and has lived there for years), this is a very difficult topic for me. The Japanese are most definitely haunted to this day and almost everyone I know, Japanese or otherwise, who has visited the Hiroshima museum has come out crying and been affected for life.

But looking at the facts it's very hard to disagree with Truman's decision. @Revan's post is a good summary of the events. The Japanese simply would not surrender. The bombs, as gruesome as they were, still saved millions of lives in the end.

Click to expand...

About ten years or so ago, I attended a lecture at a local college where one of the survivors from Hiroshima was the guest speaker. Her story was both riveting and gut wrenching. The horror she and others must have gone through is just unfathomable.

nimic said:

You're dead in milliseconds if you're within a specific, relatively small area. The people who survived the initial blast, which is a large majority, suffered quite horribly in the hours and days to follow. '

Stalingrad sucked, but I think Leningrad would be worse. More civilians, less of a battle and more of a brutal siege. At least the survivors of Stalingrad got the catharsis of immediately obliterating the 6th Army.

Click to expand...

Don't know much about Nuclear and how it kills, but you get my gist. If they're gonna kill in scores at least something quick and painless is preferable.Just saying.

Oh yeah, Leningrad was worse, I read that the siege last for months, starvation, winter, and gangrene some even eat rats and resorted to god knows what.

This article reflects my thoughts on the bombs...

https://www.wagingpeace.org/were-the-atomic-bombings-necessary/

My grandfather was captured by the Japanese in Singapore and died building the railway. They only recently found his grave in Burma.

hmchan said:

Went to Hiroshima last year and spent a day in the Peace Memorial Museum. It's surprising that the Japanese doesn't hold a grudge against the US. They are actually thankful that the US helped in their reconstruction and their emphasis is the importance of peace. I really like their education.

Click to expand...

Back in the day the US knew you had to change a culture to win a war. What they did with Japan and the Germany in that regard was impressive. That US, with that strength and the ability to wield it wisely, is long gone.

nickm said:

Back in the day the US knew you had to change a culture to win a war. What they did with Japan and the Germany in that regard was impressive. That US, with that strength and the ability to wield it wisely, is long gone.

Click to expand...

True, but let's not forget they let a lot of Nazis of the hook, particularly scientists. The Soviets did the same.