Bombing Hiroshima changed the world, but it didn't end WWII

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
President Obama’s visit to Hiroshima on Friday has rekindled public debate about the U.S. atomic bombings of Japan — one largely suppressed since the Smithsonian canceled its Enola Gay exhibit in 1995. Obama, aware that his critics are ready to pounce if he casts the slightest doubt on the rectitude of President Harry S. Truman’s decision to use atomic bombs, has opted to remain silent on the issue. This is unfortunate. A national reckoning is overdue.

Most Americans have been taught that using atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 was justified because the bombings ended the war in the Pacific, thereby averting a costly U.S. invasion of Japan. This erroneous contention finds its way into high school history texts still today. More dangerously, it shapes the thinking of government officials and military planners working in a world that still contains more than 15,000 nuclear weapons.

Truman exulted in the obliteration of Hiroshima, calling it “the greatest thing in history.” America’s military leaders didn’t share his exuberance. Seven of America’s eight five-star officers in 1945 — Gens. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry Arnold, and Adms. William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King and William Halsey — later called the atomic bombings either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both. Nor did the bombs succeed in their collateral purpose: cowing the Soviets.

Leahy, who was Truman’s personal chief of staff, wrote in his memoir that the “Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender…. The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.” MacArthur went further. He told former President Hoover that if the United States had assured the Japanese that they could keep the emperor they would have gladly surrendered in late May.

It was not the atomic evisceration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended the Pacific war. Instead, it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and other Japanese colonies that began at midnight on Aug. 8, 1945 — between the two bombings.

For months, Allied intelligence had been reporting that a Soviet invasion would knock Japan out of the war. On April 11, for example, the Joint Intelligence Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff predicted, “If at any time the USSR should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable.”


more


Bombing Hiroshima changed the world, but it didn't end WWII - LA Times
 

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.~ Part of Emperor Hirohito's Surrender Speech

It was the Atomic Bombs... not the Soviets. Sour grape revisionism.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,616
5,259
113
Olympus Mons
If the US had listened to Britain in the first place, there would have been no need to nuke Japan at all, never mind twice.


On the other hand, I sure do get sick of hearing about apologies when it comes to nuking Japan. Has Japan ever formally apologized to the US for their sneak attack on Pearl? Have they ever formally apologized to China for the rape of Nanking and a few other rather sordid adventures in China? Did they ever formally apologize for utterly rejecting the Geneva Convention when it came to combat and POWs? Did they ever formally apologize for the rape and murder of over 400 Red Cross nurses? The Bataan Death march? The list goes on.


On the other hand, the Allied bombing campaign killed more German civilians than Japanese civilians, including the two nukes. Not once have I heard Germany whining about being owed an apology. I mean holy Christ man, the US spent how much money rebuilding Japan after the war? And that wasn't good enough?
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,616
5,259
113
Olympus Mons
And what advice did the Brits give?
The Brits, having a 150 years or so more experience under their belt dealing with Asians, had a better understanding of how they think. Asians ( the "Orientals" at least) are about saving face.
Japan was willing to call it quits by May of 1945 but there was one bone of contention, the Emperor. Part of America's unconditional surrender terms was the abolition of the Emperor. This was unspeakable for the Japanese since the Emperor had been central to their culture and psyche for centuries.
The Brits said, "Look, let them keep their Emperor, just make the position a titular one and make the Emperor a figurehead." This would remove the absolute power the Emperor previously had but at the same time allowed the Japanese to save face by allowing them to maintain the illusion of not giving in completely to the unconditional surrender terms.
So the Japanese still got to surrender under the same terms they were willing to prior to being nuked.


Japan: We'll surrender if we can keep our Emperor.
America: Nope. We want unconditional surrender.
Japan: We agree with all the other terms, just let us keep our Emperor.
America: Nope. We want unconditional surrender.
Japan: Be reasonable, we're giving you everything else you want.
America: BOOOOM!
Japan: What the hell?
America: BOOOOOM!
Japan: OK fine we give up.
America: Ok, and guess what? We decided to let you keep your Emperor after all.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,844
93
48
Japan was willing to call it quits by May of 1945 but there was one bone of contention, the Emperor. Part of America's unconditional surrender terms was the abolition of the Emperor. This was unspeakable for the Japanese since the Emperor had been central to their culture and psyche for centuries.
The Brits said, "Look, let them keep their Emperor, just make the position a titular one and make the Emperor a figurehead." This would remove the absolute power the Emperor previously had but at the same time allowed the Japanese to save face by allowing them to maintain the illusion of not giving in completely to the unconditional surrender terms.
So the Japanese still got to surrender under the same terms they were willing to prior to being nuked.
Got a link for this BS?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
The Brits, having a 150 years or so more experience under their belt dealing with Asians, had a better understanding of how they think. Asians ( the "Orientals" at least) are about saving face.
Japan was willing to call it quits by May of 1945 but there was one bone of contention, the Emperor. Part of America's unconditional surrender terms was the abolition of the Emperor. This was unspeakable for the Japanese since the Emperor had been central to their culture and psyche for centuries.
The Brits said, "Look, let them keep their Emperor, just make the position a titular one and make the Emperor a figurehead." This would remove the absolute power the Emperor previously had but at the same time allowed the Japanese to save face by allowing them to maintain the illusion of not giving in completely to the unconditional surrender terms.
So the Japanese still got to surrender under the same terms they were willing to prior to being nuked.


Japan: We'll surrender if we can keep our Emperor.
America: Nope. We want unconditional surrender.
Japan: We agree with all the other terms, just let us keep our Emperor.
America: Nope. We want unconditional surrender.
Japan: Be reasonable, we're giving you everything else you want.
America: BOOOOM!
Japan: What the hell?
America: BOOOOOM!
Japan: OK fine we give up.
America: Ok, and guess what? We decided to let you keep your Emperor after all.

The Allies (including Britain) demanded an Unconditional Surrender. The Japanese refused, they wanted to save face and not have to face the humiliation of their first defeat. The Allies demanded it and they got it and it took two big BOOOOMS to get it.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,639
7,099
113
Washington DC
Actually, the OP is correct. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945 respectively did not end the war.

The signature of the surrender aboard the Missouri on 12 August 1945 did.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Actually, the OP is correct. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945 respectively did not end the war.

The signature of the surrender aboard the Missouri on 12 August 1945 did.

Oh yeah... the Unconditional Surrender.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
Actually, the OP is correct. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945 respectively did not end the war.

The signature of the surrender aboard the Missouri on 12 August 1945 did.



That's true, and I don't think anyone has been taught that the bombings ended the war, at least not for many many decades. They helped bring the end sooner.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,639
7,099
113
Washington DC
Oh yeah... the Unconditional Surrender.
Yep, the "OK, that was pretty impressive" surrender.

That's true, and I don't think anyone has been taught that the bombings ended the war, at least not for many many decades. They helped bring the end sooner.
Interestingly, everybody likes to get all cranked up about the atomic bombings, when the firebombing of Tokyo killed about twice as many people as both atomic bombings put together.

I guess most folk don't know the history behind Dresden and Tokyo and the connection to Peshtigo.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
That's true, and I don't think anyone has been taught that the bombings ended the war, at least not for many many decades. They helped bring the end sooner.

The signing of the Unconditional Surrender was done on the USS Missouri BECAUSE of the atom bombs. The Japanese Emperor and the Japanese Diet finally realized there was no way to save face and no way to make it look like they did not lose the war to the Japanese people. They had to accept the terms of Unconditional Surrender and they had to let their people know.

Interestingly, everybody likes to get all cranked up about the atomic bombings, when the firebombing of Tokyo killed about twice as many people as both atomic bombings put together.

I guess most folk don't know the history behind Dresden and Tokyo and the connection to Peshtigo.

Because they didn't have one big mushroom cloud.