Hiroshima and Nagasaki... Was it necessary?
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
fftheair:Juan, im surprised at you..that is the most ridiculous set of "proof" ever. It wouldn't hold up in any court of law if the bomb droppings were a crime.
Its all heresay and hindsight. It ignores crucial facts (like if Japan was using USSR as a mediator, which it was, and the USSR went for a landgrab, what makes you think it would still surrender?)
Its literally bunk.
Its all heresay and hindsight. It ignores crucial facts (like if Japan was using USSR as a mediator, which it was, and the USSR went for a landgrab, what makes you think it would still surrender?)
Its literally bunk.
No, it wasn't "bunk.
It is well known that senior U.S. military leaders, almost to a man, opposed the use of the A-bomb. Here is another link about those times.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
Big words? No. In coherent thought patterns? No. Snort another line, goof!
With all due respect....
Wolf
The second world war was over sixty years ago. What do we have but hearsay and hindsight?
http://tinyurl.com/2erymc
What fascinates me in a world where we measure success by wealth - why nations who can afford it continue to pour money into killing and war when the money would be better spent - enriching the poor - bringing enlightenment and as much equity to all humans - rather than pouring all our resources and our sons/daughters into a killing field.
I would love to live in a world where nobody could afford to be in a war - because the people were enjoying peace and comfort and nobody could be found to fight for whatever 'tinpot dictator' came forward with mad schemes.
And with reference to the opening topic - why Pearl Harbor? For all the fingerpointing and blame laying - they came uninvited and killed. There was no declared war with Japan until that date. No matter what the 'afterburners' write in their 'historical records'.
I would love to live in a world where nobody could afford to be in a war - because the people were enjoying peace and comfort and nobody could be found to fight for whatever 'tinpot dictator' came forward with mad schemes.
And with reference to the opening topic - why Pearl Harbor? For all the fingerpointing and blame laying - they came uninvited and killed. There was no declared war with Japan until that date. No matter what the 'afterburners' write in their 'historical records'.
This is all you could muster?
Are you on medication or are you just a little slow?
Feel free to show where it is I'm wrong, if your able, if not, just keep going with the insults.
I would imagine that all the peoples who suffered under Japanese rule would not ask the OP's question...
Its easy to be all "insightful" and "compassionate" now, 60 years later, but at the time the US leadership was faced with an enemy that usually fought to the last man with everything they had.
The Japanese understood things like Honor, and they understood respect for an enemy.
However they had none for anyone that was not Japanese. That is why conquered people and POW's were treated terribly.
They understood one thing only: Victory at any cost.
When you live by that, you die by it too.
Were the bombings necessary? Maybe not
Were they justified? Ask the Phillipines, the Residents of Nanking, and every surviving POW who was held by the Japanese.
Course, some of you won't like their answers...
Its easy to be all "insightful" and "compassionate" now, 60 years later, but at the time the US leadership was faced with an enemy that usually fought to the last man with everything they had.
The Japanese understood things like Honor, and they understood respect for an enemy.
However they had none for anyone that was not Japanese. That is why conquered people and POW's were treated terribly.
They understood one thing only: Victory at any cost.
When you live by that, you die by it too.
Were the bombings necessary? Maybe not
Were they justified? Ask the Phillipines, the Residents of Nanking, and every surviving POW who was held by the Japanese.
Course, some of you won't like their answers...
Not to mention that there was a measure of collective ego involved and showing just how hard you can hit, often goes a lot further down the road.
The personal insults and attacks in this thread will stop, or it will be locked.
It is a topic worth discussing, and bears plenty of facets to do so without resorting to flaming.
*please note... not all participants will hit this post at the same time when progressing through the thread. let any further retaliatory comments drop after you have read this*
It is a topic worth discussing, and bears plenty of facets to do so without resorting to flaming.
*please note... not all participants will hit this post at the same time when progressing through the thread. let any further retaliatory comments drop after you have read this*
I agree, but Hearsay and Hindsight does not equate proof, it equates "Could-a-bins". US military leaders did not (Despite the myth) oppose the A-Bomb to a man, those who did oppose mostly opposed it on tactical (not humanitarian grounds). Why give away your big secrets to the communists when you want to attack them next and conventional bombing will cause a higher death toll with a bit more patience.
It is on record, from the time, that many US generals wanted to invade the USSR next (notably Patton who was , stupidly, vocal about it). They wanted to save the bombs for Russia for one big Blitz.
But the Generals who after the war, when public opinion swung (allied and axis) decided NOW they were going to surrender and didnt' need to be bombed, and NOW they were objecting to the death toll (but had no problem with carpet firebombing) is not "proof" its "Maybe" at best and obvious scapegoating at worst.
The contempt between Stalin and the Allies was clear. Britain was in no position for a strong Eastern front, but Uncle Sam had Russia's exposed west - and that's where Russia had moved her industry to keep it out of German hands. Hiroshima and Nagasaki told the Soviet Union America had the bomb - but infiltration at Los Alamos told them they'd be a while putting together another.
Wolf
Wolf
I agree... memoirs of men after the war and when they are looking back as old men and thinking that it may have been a bad idea is not a consensus of what was going on at the time. You bash Truman and quote MacArthur. However it was Truman that told MacArthur "NO" when Mac wanted to use A-Bombs on the Chinese during the Korean War.
You picked a few quotes and said "All leaders were against it".
You picked a few quotes and said "All leaders were against it".
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Robert Freeman [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Few issues in American history - perhaps only slavery itself - are as charged as the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Was it necessary? Merely posing the question provokes indignation, even rage. Witness the hysterical shouting down of the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit that simply dared discuss the question fifty years after the act. Today, another eleven years on, Americans still have trouble coming to terms with the truth about the bombs. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But anger is not argument. Hysteria is not history. The decision to drop the bomb has been laundered through the American myth-making machine into everything from self-preservation by the Americans to concern for the Japanese themselves-as if incinerating two hundred thousand human beings in a second was somehow an act of moral largesse. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yet the question will not die, nor should it: was dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a military necessity? Was the decision justified by the imperative of saving lives or were there other motives involved? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian or a leftist writer. They are certainly not the words of an America-hater. They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States. Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After the Japanese fleet was destroyed at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, the U.S. was able to carry out uncontested bombing of Japan's cities, including the hellish firebombings of Tokyo and Osaka. This is what Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, meant when he observed, "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air." Also, without a navy, the resource-poor Japanese had lost the ability to import the food, oil, and industrial supplies needed to carry on a World War. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, reflected this reality when he wrote, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, said the same thing: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Civilian authorities, especially Truman himself, would later try to revise history by claiming that the bombs were dropped to save the lives of one million American soldiers. But there is simply no factual basis for this in any record of the time. On the contrary, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported, "Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped." The November 1 date is important because that was the date of the earliest possible planned U.S. invasion of the Japanese main islands. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In other words, the virtually unanimous and combined judgment of the most informed, senior, officers of the U.S. military is unequivocal: there was no pressing military necessity for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But if dropping the bombs was not driven by military needs, why, then, were they used? The answer can be discerned in the U.S. attitude toward the Russians, the way the War ended in Europe, and the situation in Asia. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]U.S. leaders had long hated the communist Russian government. In 1919, the U.S. had led an invasion of Russia - the infamous "White Counter Revolution" - to try to reverse the red Bolshevik Revolution that had put the communists into power in 1917. The invasion failed and the U.S. did not extend diplomatic recognition to Russia until 1932. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Then, during the Great Depression, when the U.S. economy collapsed, the Russian economy boomed, growing almost 500%. U.S. leaders worried that with the War's end, the country might fall back into another Depression. And World War II was won not by the American laissez faire system, but by the top-down, command and control over the economy that the Russian system epitomized. In other words, the Russian system seemed to be working while the American system was plagued with recent collapse and a questionable self-confidence. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In addition, to defeat Germany, the Russian army had marched to Berlin through eastern Europe. It occupied and controlled 150,000 square miles of territory in what is today Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. At Yalta, in February 1945, Stalin demanded to keep this newly occupied territory. Russia, Stalin rightly claimed, had been repeatedly invaded by western Europeans, from Napoleon to the Germans in World War I and now by Hitler. Russia lost more than 20,000,000 lives in World War II and Stalin wanted a buffer against future invasions. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At this point, in February 1945, the U.S. did not know whether the bomb would work or not. But it unquestionably needed Russia's help to end both the War in Europe and the War in the Pacific. These military realities were not lost on Roosevelt: with no army to displace Stalin's in Europe and needing Stalin's support, Roosevelt conceded eastern Europe, handing the Russians the greatest territorial gain of the War. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Finally and perhaps most importantly, Stalin agreed at Yalta that once the War in Europe was over, he would transfer his forces from Europe to Asia and within 90 days would enter the War in the Pacific against Japan. This is where timing becomes critically important. The War in Europe ended on May 8, 1945. May 8 plus 90 days is August 8. If the U.S. wanted to prevent Russia from occupying territory in east Asia the way it had occupied territory in eastern Europe, it needed to end the war as quickly as possible. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This issue of territory in east Asia was especially important because before the war against Japan, China had been embroiled in a civil war of its own. It was the U.S.-favored nationalists under General Chiang Kai Shek against the communists under Mao Ze Dong. If communist Russia were allowed to gain territory in east Asia, it would throw its considerable military might behind Mao, almost certainly handing the communists a victory once the World War was ended and the civil war was resumed. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Once the bomb was proven to work on July 15, 1945, events took on a furious urgency. There was simply no time to work through negotiations with the Japanese. Every day of delay meant more land given up to Russia and, therefore, a greater likelihood of communist victory in the Chinese civil war. All of Asia might go communist. It would be a strategic catastrophe for the U.S. to have won the War against the fascists only to hand it to its other arch enemy, the communists. The U.S. needed to end the War not in months, or even weeks, but in days. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So, on August 6, 1945, two days before the Russians were to declare war against Japan, the U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. There was no risk to U.S. forces then waiting for a Japanese response to the demand for surrender. The earliest planned invasion of the island was still three months away and the U.S. controlled the timing of all military engagements in the Pacific. But the Russian matter loomed and drove the decision on timing. So, only three days later, the U.S. dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki. The Japanese surrendered on August 14, 1945, eight days after the first bomb was dropped. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Major General Curtis LeMay commented on the bomb's use: "The War would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the War at all." Except that it drastically speeded the War's end to deprive the Russians of territory in east Asia. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The story of military necessity, quickly and clumsily pasted together after the War's end, simply does not hold up against the overwhelming military realities of the time. On the other hand, the use of the bomb to contain Russian expansion and to make the Russians, in Truman's revealing phrase, "more manageable," comports completely with all known facts and especially with U.S. motivations and interests. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Which story should we accept, the one that doesn't hold together but that has been sanctifiied as national dogma? Or the one that does hold together but offends our self concept? How we answer says everything about our maturity and our capacity for intellectual honesty. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is sometimes hard for a people to reconcile its history with its own national mythologies - the mythologies of eternal innocence and Providentially anointed righteousness. It is all the more difficult when a country is embroiled in yet another war and the power of such myths are needed again to gird the people's commitment against the more sobering force of facts. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But the purpose of history is not to sustain myths. It is, rather, to debunk them so that future generations may act with greater awareness to avoid the tragedies of the past. It may take another six or even sixty decades but eventually the truth of the bomb's use will be written not in mythology but in history. Hopefully, as a result, the world will be a safer place. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Robert Freeman writes on economics, history, and education. He can be reached at robertfreeman10@yahoo.com. [/FONT]
The author of this last piece Robert Freeman - originally composed for Common Dreams - has a doubtful group of friends... especially org.19 - and its link to the Quran...
http://19.org/index.php?id=73,408,0,0,1,0
http://19.org/index.php?id=73,408,0,0,1,0
generate_mainitems()
::
"...the greatest thing in history."
- Harry S. Truman
President of the United States during the Atomic Bombing
"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman
"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Printer FriendlySee Also
More on the Web
A Personal Exploration of Our Tragic Cold War Affair With the Atom
by Stewart L. Udall
- Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."
- John McCloy
"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."
- President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945
"Some of my conclusions may invoke acorn and even ridicule.
"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.
"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
- Stewart L. Udall
US Congressman and
Author of "Myths of August"
"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study
"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
"on the verge" or "near collapse", etc. etc.
Japan was given the ultimatum... surrender unconditionally... they refused... they were nuked... they surrendered unconditionally. Pretty simple.
"... Despite the best that has been done by everyone — the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people — the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. 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, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. ... The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable." That is what the Japanese Emperor had to say.
Japan was given the ultimatum... surrender unconditionally... they refused... they were nuked... they surrendered unconditionally. Pretty simple.
"... Despite the best that has been done by everyone — the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people — the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. 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, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. ... The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable." That is what the Japanese Emperor had to say.