Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Was it right?

[mimartin]

It's easy to say that sitting on this side of the pond, while having no legitimate insight on the 1940's Japanese government besides what's written in text books.

You can't tell by actions? Drop bomb, don't surrender. It is not like the two planes were 1 hour apart.

[SilentScope001]

Be warned, I'm summarizing a historical book about the US bombings.

 

The Japanese were considering surrender, but they wanted a conditional surrender, that would peserve at least parts of the Japanese empire, including the position of Emproer. That would be something the US did not want to do. The US wanted an uncondtional surrender, so that they can change Japan into a different country, and thereby ensure Japan won't wage war against the US again. In fact, general consesus in the Japanese leadership was that if America invaded Japan, Japan would defeat the Americans thanks to the kamikaize attacks and the mobilization of total war, and that defeat will force America to consider a conditional surrender.

 

That's it. It was invetible Japan was going to lose, but Japan wanted to lose gracefully, and would be willing to let millions die for that right to lose gracefully. The atomic bombs, however, along with the invasion of Manchuraia by the USSR (yes, that event occured along the same time as the atomic bombings and played a role as well), caused enough moral damage to the Japanese leadership that the Emproer decided on surrender. It also provided an escape clause, in which the Nationalists who argued for world war anyway would be able to support a negogation because of the atomic bomb, and don't have to worry about selling out Japan to a conditional surrender.

 

As for the actual bombings themselves: Have anyone considered that Japan's Emproer might actually be divine? If so, then the bombings would be morally wrong anyway, regardless if civilians died or not.

[*Don*]

Why should the Allies settle for anything less than the unconditional surrender? I don’t remember Japan allow us to set condition to start the war.

 

I'm just saying that an conditional surrender would probably have been better than the bombings.

Additionally, the conditions could have been negotiated, which might have been more beneficial.

[mimartin]

I'm just saying that an conditional surrender would probably have been better than the bombings.

Additionally, the conditions could have been negotiated, which might have been more beneficial.

Agreed, I don't know about the Emperor, but Truman, FDR, Churchill and Stalin were all too hard headed for that.

[SilentScope001]

Additionally, the conditions could have been negotiated, which might have been more beneficial.

 

Buh? Negogations would likely mean that Japan would try to get the best terms possible. Meaning continue to wage war and get victories to put pressure on the Allies.

 

And most Americans were strongly in favor of unconditional surrender, as punishment for Peral Harbor. Going against the Americans would harm American morale and make FDR/Truman rather unpopular.

 

Hack, that would likely explain why a conditional surrender is a bad idea.

 

EDIT: The atomic bomb is the simplest of all solutions to ending the war, so it's okay. However, for historical sake, there may be another way of stopping the atomic bomb: Conduct a naval blockade in which you prevent Japan from gaining supplies, slowly starving Japan to death, and thereby forcing Japan to surrender.

[Web Rider]

As I said earlier, they could have just dropped one in the sea near Japan to demonstrate their power rather than annhialate all those civilians.

 

The argument against this is two fold, one, that if the bomb didn't work, the Japanese would laugh at us and we'd look stupid and weak. It may even rally the Japanese to fight harder, thus making things worse. Or two, they dismiss it as a fluke, or slight of hand, and think we're just trying to trick them.

 

As for FDR planning America's entrance into WWII, there are plenty of evidence for that. Matter of fact, it's documented in the history books that they make us read in high school.

FDR's cabinet was looking for a way to uplift the country out of the Depression and war was the best stimulus at that time.

It is possible that we(the government at the time) wanted to get into the war to stimulate the economy, that doesn't change that our first fights against Japan were defending Australia, and that they attacked Pearl Harbor. And that our aid to Britain was because they were a close ally, and the Germans also were using unrestricted submarine warfare ...again...and sinking just about whatever they pleased, civilian, military or other.

 

Which means that the American population had a biased view against the Japanese. I'm not blaming them for it, I'm just saying that they weren't really bothered about how the Japanese felt.

And so did the Japanese, and the Germans, most people at the time were racist.

 

The Japanese didn't want to UNCONDITIONALLY surrender. If the Allies had settled for a conditional surrender, the war could have also ended sooner.

There are no records of the Japanese offering to conditionally surrender under any terms. At best it is believed that they were simply stalling for more time in order to be better prepared to attack.

 

That line of thought would end up justifying the deaths of many Allied citizens, since many of them actively participated in the war effort too.

I don't disagree. I'm not saying that only the bad-guys are the guilty ones. But the difference is in that that they started the war, and we joined it. Yes, making civilians targets, but in a different manner.

 

On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to drop the second bomb. It seems obvious that there is going to be a surrender after the first one. And really, one bomb is just as obvious as to when it comes to showcasing the devistation power.

 

Actually, no it wasn't. Also, it was a showcase of power...to Moscow, because Russia officially joined the war in the Pacific on Aug 8th.

 

As for the actual bombings themselves: Have anyone considered that Japan's Emproer might actually be divine? If so, then the bombings would be morally wrong anyway, regardless if civilians died or not.

 

That depends on how you define "divine", if you mean like an omnipotent God, then the acts were done by his will, and he did nothing to stop them. If you mean "divine" in just really amazingly supernaturally powerful, then he may have simply lacked the ability or the power to stop it.

 

Also, one would question why a being of such great and terrible power would NOT use their power to make things good for their side?

[Inyri]

And Americans are strongly in favor of unconditional surrender

Speak for yourself and/or use the past tense if you're talking about the past. Quantifiers such as "many" make you not sound like you're making such sweeping generalizations.

[SilentScope001]

Speak for yourself and/or use the past tense if you're talking about the past. Quantifiers such as "many" make you not sound like you're making such sweeping generalizations

 

Okay, I edited. But there was polls that indicated that a vast majority wanted unconditional surrender.

 

That depends on how you define "divine", if you mean like an omnipotent God, then the acts were done by his will, and he did nothing to stop them. If you mean "divine" in just really amazingly supernaturally powerful, then he may have simply lacked the ability or the power to stop it.

 

Also, one would question why a being of such great and terrible power would NOT use their power to make things good for their side?

 

Well, the Emproer was divine in that he got his power from the Sun God. And then that Sun God gained its power from another God, etc., etc. It's the infinite succession of power that makes the Emproer rather holy, as he is the medium by which the Sun God conveys his power and message.

 

And while the Emperor is a living God, the reason he was unable to prevent the bombings was because he's not omiprescent, like the Judeo-Chrisitan God. But he's still God, according to Shintoism. Always had been, always will be. Even when the Emperor 'recanted' his divinitiy after the war, claiming not to be God at all, he still claimed he was descended from the Sun God, so he's still got some power and lots of loyalty regardless.

 

Though I am not a Shintoist. So we need a Shintoist follower here, perferably one who was for Japan during WWII.

[Inyri]

But there was polls that indicated that a vast majority wanted unconditional surrender.

You mean like those wonderfully accurate news polls that poll about 100 people and claim that the populous all feels a certain way?

 

The problem with 'the public' is that they're more often than not very uninformed. That's why we have a government; they're meant to do what's right/appropriate, not what the people want (especially if they deem it unnecessary for the public to know the details).

[Arcesious]

It was wrong, but what's done is done. We can't really do much about it now, and it was not our generations' mistake, it was Truman's.

[Marius Fett]

It was wrong, but what's done is done. We can't really do much about it now, and it was not our generations' mistake, it was Truman's.

 

What does it matter WHEN it happened?

 

It was still wrong.

[mimartin]

It was wrong, but what's done is done. We can't really do much about it now, and it was not our generations' mistake, it was Truman's.

It was Truman’s? How do you figure that? If anything, I would say it was Franklin D. Roosevelt, J Robert Oppenheimer and General Leslie R. Groves along with more than 130,000 other people share in the blame. That is not counting our allies that also made anything short of unconditional surrender unacceptable (again FDR and Churchill’s decision, not Truman). Not our generations? You are correct our generations would not do such a thing after a surprise attack on our nation. No, today we go attack a nation that was not even involved in the surprise attack on us. You really think Mr. Bush would not save his legacy by ending the war in Iraq tomorrow if the means presented itself the way it did for Truman.

[Marius Fett]

Bush COULD end the war in Iraq using the same means Truman stopped the war in Japan.

 

Thankfully, despite his other faults, Bush won't nuke the Iraqis.

 

(Though this is likely due to American soldiers being out there)

[mimartin]

Bush COULD end the war in Iraq using the same means Truman stopped the war in Japan.

That would not end the war in Iraq, only start a bigger one.

 

@ *Don* Wait, America still has some international respect from any nation besides England? That is very good to know.

[*Don*]

^^^

I gotta agree wit u on that.

 

America would loose all the Middle Eastern support it has (with the possible exception of Israel) and then loose whatever respect it has left in the international community.

[Totenkopf]

Right or wrong, the silver lining to the atomic bombings that ended the war was that most people (including our leaders) were genuinely scared of what what would happen in the event that nuclear war was ever waged. In spite of close calls (we're still imperfect, afterall), we've managed to avoid exterminating ourselves so far. Based on everything I've ever read, Truman made the right call in the end. The only thing that spared the Nazis was their collapse. As to the whole hypocritical thing, I'd have to say that I basically agree with Sam. The US has had nuke technology for over 60 years now and has only used the bomb in anger to end the second world war. Hell, MacArthur was sacked in part b/c he pushed too hard to nuke the PRC when they didn't yet have a bomb.

Actually, no it wasn't. Also, it was a showcase of power...to Moscow, because Russia officially joined the war in the Pacific on Aug 8th.

 

More likely an attempt to get Japan to surrender before the Russians could make an serious claims to territory in the Pacific. It was already obvious that Russia was an ally of convenience only and the next security threat to American interests.

[Tommycat]

Should the US have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes.

 

Was there another means? Yes. Japan, the agressor in the war could have surrendered unconditionally. If they had done that, then the bombs wouldn't have been dropped. The second bomb could have been avoided as well had they accepted defeat and surrendered after the first bomb.

 

Japan may have been planning to surrender. The real question was how much longer would it have been. 300000 lives is still less than a third of the predicted AMERICAN lives. In fact if you tally the expected Japanese lives 300,000 is still far less than a full scale invasion would cost. Especially when you consider that preceeding an invasion would be greater than 5 days of heavy bombardment and shelling from the battleships.

[Bee Hoon]

It is truly a tragic byproduct of the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the tragic byproduct of war. Maybe we should strive to eliminate the truly immoral thing, war.

QFT.

 

As for the actual bombings themselves: Have anyone considered that Japan's Emproer might actually be divine? If so, then the bombings would be morally wrong anyway, regardless if civilians died or not.

What?? I understand every word in that sentence, but put them together and my brain is boggled.

 

Re:Nanking, I've always wondered why governments refuse to apologise for mistakes of the past...

 

Edit:

The real question was how much longer would it have been. 300000 lives is still less than a third of the predicted AMERICAN lives.

From a nationalistic point of view, I can understand why you make that distinction,but I still find it hard to swallow how one human life is given more value than another.

[Tommycat]

Edit: From a nationalistic point of view, I can understand why you make that distinction,but I still find it hard to swallow how one human life is given more value than another.

No, it was a distinction of it only being one side of the numbers equasion. As opposed to the total number of lives combined which exceeded 4million or so.

 

Additionally, just the cost in lives of having the entire country's infrastructure destroyed would have exceeded even the initial blast's death toll.

 

Something else that popped into my head:

Bearing in mind that had the two countries began talking about a surrender, the fighting would have continued until an agreement could be reached. When you make note that we were losing more than our total losses in Iraq in 3 days of fighting, How many lives is acceptable to keep dickering back and fourth?

[Jae Onasi]

Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

If we'd known x, y, and z about the Japanese, things would have gone differently. If FDR, Truman, Churchill, and Stalin had not been the men they were, things would have gone differently. They could only work with the information they had at their disposal at that time.

[Arcesious]

Mimartin- I never in my post intended to justify theIraq war with my post. I said it was not our generaton's fault and that we couldn't do much about it now because of this: It happened in the past, was the fault of our government, not ourselves, and cleaning up all nuclear radiation from an A-bomb is really hard to do. I would help the japanese clean up this residual radiation if I could, but I'm in no position to do so.

[*Don*]

@ *Don* Wait, America still has some international respect from any nation besides England? That is very good to know.

 

Lol, yea: Israel.

 

But I get ur point.

America lost alot of it's backers when it invaded Iraq.

 

The bright side is: Bush is finally gonna get outta office.

Maybe we can earn some respect back...

[Tommycat]

Lol, yea: Israel.

 

But I get ur point.

America lost alot of it's backers when it invaded Iraq.

 

The bright side is: Bush is finally gonna get outta office.

Maybe we can earn some respect back...

Or maybe you'll see that the lack of respect isn't tied to Bush.

[Totenkopf]

Frankly, the world is too amoral and craven to give respect where it might be due and it is therefore extremely illogical to seek such respect. No matter what you do, there will always be other interests, both domestic and global, that will disapprove due to their own agendas. World opinion is a fickle thing and best ignored. A nation has to define its own interests and sometimes act alone or with a small group of others in order to achieve its goals. Life is often like that at the personal level too. If you always worried about who'd respect you before you did anything.....you'd probably end up doing nothing your entire life (except sit on Pete's couch and watch the world go by ).

 

Recall reading somewhere that the planning for a potential invasion of Japan would have put it somewhere between late '46/'47 and might have included the use of atomic weapons to soften up the resistance. An actual invasion of Japan would have been far more horrific in cost of life than merely dropping those two bombs.

[Tommycat]

Frankly, the world is too amoral and craven to give respect where it might be due and it is therefore extremely illogical to seek such respect. No matter what you do, there will always be other interests, both domestic and global, that will disapprove due to their own agendas. World opinion is a fickle thing and best ignored. A nation has to define its own interests and sometimes act alone or with a small group of others in order to achieve its goals. Life is often like that at the personal level too. If you always worried about who'd respect you before you did anything.....you'd probably end up doing nothing your entire life (except sit on Pete's couch and watch the world go by ).

QFE

 

Recall reading somewhere that the planning for a potential invasion of Japan would have put it somewhere between late '46/'47 and might have included the use of atomic weapons to soften up the resistance. An actual invasion of Japan would have been far more horrific in cost of life than merely dropping those two bombs.

Those were estimates for just the ground invasion. The actual end of the war could easily have been as bad as Germany which still had skirmishes 10 years after Hitler died. Basically the late 46 early 47 projections would be about the equivalent of when we saw the "Mission Accomplished" banner during the Iraq war. IE we won the war, now we have to win the peace.