Hiroshima: Harry Truman on Trial

[Curiosity]

My god...

This is one of the best discussions I have ever seen on a forum...

So much to read and absorb - and thanks to all the contributors.

WC

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

Holy cow! A slew of posts since yesterday

Anyway, after reading all the posts I get the sense that the bomb was dropped because it was the quickest way to end the war at the time... although not the most ethical. But, I have learned that ethical values change over time. This leads me to believe that "in the context of that time (ie. 1945)" it may have been justified to drop the bomb. Presently, it is certainly not justified by any means.

Consider this, back in the early 1900's, the British and Americans (among other countries), all wanted to trade with China. So bad, in fact, that they basically forced their way into the country through the most rediculous means (ie. Opium addiction). When China resisted, they punished the country by opening up more ports for trade and demanding outrageous indemnities. Where is the ethics in this?

As another example, there are the slaves that were imported from lessor developed countries and forced to do manual labour.

Now consider the current war in Iraq. The Americans, having to uphold certain ethical standards to avoid negative repercussions, only targetted strategic locations to minimize civilian casualties. They must uphold these standards to the point where they are clearly having trouble accomplishing their goals. Why? because they can't distinguish friend from enemy and are taking casualties as a result. They cannot fire on anyone unless they are fired upon in fear that they may be shooting an innocent civilian (at least, in theory. But in war, sh!t happens). Heck, just read the crap that is going down with the treatment of Iraqi POW's.

So what changed? How come they aren't going into Iraq "Wild West" style with all barrels blazing and get the job done in a month? Why aren't they falling back to the "we are going to lose too many American soldiers, so we're gonna have to nuke ya" story?

The reason, I believe, is that ethics now plays a major role in politics and what was considered "OK" in the past may not be "OK" now. If this were not the case, then Iraq would have been wiped off the map by now.

Just another twist to the argument. :wink:

Sorry for the long post.

 

[I think not]

there is a very big difference between unintentional civilian casualties or civilian casualties caused by rogue agents and INTENTIONAL targeting of civilian areas to maximize death and carnage. The Nuclear bombings were intentional targetting of civilian area which did not have large troop stationed or infrastructure that supported the military of Japan.

The surrender terms publicly demanded by the American government could only be achieved by the atomic bombings. The bitter-enders in the Japanese military who controlled the government were unwilling to accept America's surrender terms. And, the courage and tenacity of Japanese soldiers, as exhibited in the battle for Okinawa, meant that a final ground assault on the home islands would be devastatingly bloody. This is an episode either ignored or downplayed in most revisionist writings, and obviously constitutes a gaping hole in their arguments. The peace feelers sent out by the Japanese, which are usually inflated and put on the same level as a waving white flag, are shown to be half-hearted attempts by largely impotent civilian leaders to negotiate favorable terms that were thoroughly opposed by the military who fully controlled the country. Japanese plans to repel the planned U.S.invasion are historically documented in detail. Even Japanese historians ackowledge this, I don't see why you are even arguing these points.

there is no fog of war that blinded american planners, they targetted a civilian compound. ALso fog of war actually is a term applied to soldiers on teh ground not military planners far away in america. they knew what they were doing, they showed a callous disregard for human life and a willingness to shed civilian blood to achieve their aims, notably an end to hostilities.we can relegate the actions of a single soldier and companies of men who have engaged in known human rights violations to the fog of war but not military planners or expresident Truman. They are all responsible.

The term "The Fog of War"" has been loosely and incorrectly used as you described, whereas it does to a certain degree refer to soldiers, it's only meaning would be the chaos it creates within one's own forces. It's meaning [The Fog of War] is meant to convey the uncertainty of each enemies actions, in turn creating events, reactions to events, and reactions to reactions which become too complex and disconnected for any person or any decision-making body to know definitively what the right step to take at that moment. In the end however, and I agree with you, they are all responsible, but that does not negate the concept of "The Fog of War".

Just because previous conflicts employed barbarous and cruel methods does not mean the US needed to do so. Thats a black and white approach to history. Even though I would not have condoned it, bombing a military target such as the IJN headquarters with nuclear weapons holds more legitimacy than what the americans did. Its is similar to "he did it so why cant I?" sort of thinking.

My point either escaped you or you're just grasping for air. Throughout the history of warfare, civilians, military personnel, women, children, cats and roaches, have all died UNNECESSARILY, due to the fog of war for the explanations I gave above. The only approach to history is black and white taking under consideration that war in and of itself is inherently immoral, hence there can be no "levels" or "thresholds" of morality.

The Allies were supposed to have something called the moral superiority in this war, the only thing that makes them different than the nazis and japanese. If you want to use "fog of war" to defend such a barborous action as nuclear bombing then the japanese can just as easily defend the torture of Allied POWs and thus the military tribunals for japan war criminals are illegal in nature.

No, the allies had something called self-preservation against an aggressor. There is no such thing as moral superiority, morality or any other contemporary revisionist theory seeking to sway the causes of the war into a game of "acceptable moral levels". War, in and of itself, is inherently immoral as I mentioned before. Consider the age when the cannon was created, at that moment in history, it was considered a weapon of mass destruction.

The whole concept of war crimes gets thrown out the window with such arguments as the ones you are using. All of what your saying goes to defend ppl like Herman Georhing, Albert Speer and the like who were simply fighting to defend the german ppl.

Actually it doesn't get thrown out the window, it is common knowledge that the victors charge the enemy with war crimes not the other way around.

In terms of the race the germans had been neutralized in Norwary a while back and intelligence reports showed that they had marginal access to chemical weapons at most. I applaud the combined, dane/british/american and french response to germany's attempts at aquiring nuclear weapons, they went directly ot the source and destroyed it.

Dont forget that we condemned admiral Donitz commander in chief of Kriegsmarine to death for "intentionally attacking civilian vessels, administering offical policy for such actions, showing negligence in complying with international standards and disregard for human life by not picking up survivors" The arguments ITN make simply go to show the hypocrisy of the war crimes court in charging any of the nazi and imperial japanese military for their actions.

Here's a news flash for you nitzomoe, are we disgussing the moralities of war, or the causes of the atomic bomb? Here's some more news for you, those who win conduct war crimes against the enemy, is it hypocrisy? Sure it is, and how would you go about dragging the leaders of the allied nations into court for crimes? Who would do that? Start a thread on morality and I will probably agree with you.

and as a minor aside: What was thinkable back then is just as thinkable rite now. The US army is in gross of violation of many if not all Geneva conventions.

Even if we are to disregard the geneva conventions, they are in gross violations of the policies that they have used to condemn Saddam Hussein for.There has been no increase in civility whatsoever especially in a thing as uncivilised as Aggressive and illegal warfare, of which america is jsut as guilty as UK, France and Russia.

Like you mentioned above in regards to 9/11, I will not get drawn into an argument about the current war in Iraq, there are plenty of other threads on this board on that topic, practice what you preach.

you can say my arguments are revisionist history(there not in anyway) but yours is blatant falsification of history. It is the sort of actions colonial powers take to defend their horrible crimes. The facts on the ground are very different from what american historians like to believe or for that matter teach american children.

Your arguments are revisionist in every way because you use morality as a basis for your argument, which in turn diminishes the entire concept to a game of numbers. In addition you will have to cite where I have blatantly given false information regarding history as opposed to you which has only provided an opinion of the bombing in Japan and have offered no other source of information to make it a wrong decision. What American historians believe and what the American children are taught, is that the Japan and Germany and the rest of the dictators around the world, ganged up on the rest of us. What apparently you have been taught is that we are actually instructed to believe differently than the actual events, it will surprise perhaps to know that mock trials of the bombing of Japan are very common in American schools, to give the students an angle of morality, then again you probably won't believe that because it's not in the best interests of the evil empire to do so.

If the allies (including america) truly had the high ground as we all like to believe, that high ground was demolished by the usage of the nuclear weaponry on civilian targets, that high ground was levelled by the bombing of nurembourg and other CIVILIAN cities using incendiary weaponry to burn and kill as many civlians as possible and finally that high ground collapsed in on itself when they hung nazi/japanese war criminals for the same activities the allies were themselves guilty of!

hypocrisy at its highest level, this is why I have always condemned the international war crimes tribunal as nothing more than a tool of neocolonialist powers.

The allies were attacked and invaded, you seem to forget that, the allies were gassed to death, you seem to forget that, the axis was committing genocide against the allies (and I don't mean the loosely used term nowadays, I mean actually wiping out an entire race or nation of people), you seem to forget that, the allies (human beings) were used as experimental pigs, you seem to forget that, the allies were used as human shields, you seem to forget that, the axis wanted to create a supreme race with the allies as their slaves, you seem to forget that. That nitzomoe is hypocrisy at its highest level, not struggling with the morality of self-preservation.

In addition, the Germans and Japanese were making an effort to develop their own version of an atom bomb, in the end, thanks to the allies, be thankful Ottawa or New York were'nt bombed first, otherwise we would probably not be having this conversation.

 

[Curiosity]

Didn't the U.S.....

....smuggle the original German scientists who were working on the bomb out to create it in Nevada?

I am reaching here, but I always heard the bomb was created by the advances of the German group.... who were willing to be
moved to the U.S. in secret.

 

[I think not]

It is true that the possibly several dozen scientists employed in Germany and Japan to develop the bomb were nothing compared to the thousands involved under the Manhattan Project, but all this is in hindsight, at the time it was widely believed it they were close, and at the very least were certainly trying to obtain one first!

 

[nitzomoe]

The surrender terms publicly demanded by the American government could only be achieved by the atomic bombings. The bitter-enders in the Japanese military who controlled the government were unwilling to accept America's surrender terms. And, the courage and tenacity of Japanese soldiers, as exhibited in the battle for Okinawa, meant that a final ground assault on the home islands would be devastatingly bloody. This is an episode either ignored or downplayed in most revisionist writings, and obviously constitutes a gaping hole in their arguments. The peace feelers sent out by the Japanese, which are usually inflated and put on the same level as a waving white flag, are shown to be half-hearted attempts by largely impotent civilian leaders to negotiate favorable terms that were thoroughly opposed by the military who fully controlled the country. Japanese plans to repel the planned U.S.invasion are historically documented in detail. Even Japanese historians ackowledge this, I don't see why you are even arguing these points.

Im arguing this as it hasnt been as heavily documented as you'd like to believe in your favour. The japanese were domestically saying one thing and to the US saying another, as stated by another forumers there did exist a distinct possibility of peace without dropping the bomb(s).

The term "The Fog of War"" has been loosely and incorrectly used as you described, whereas it does to a certain degree refer to soldiers, it's only meaning would be the chaos it creates within one's own forces. It's meaning [The Fog of War] is meant to convey the uncertainty of each enemies actions, in turn creating events, reactions to events, and reactions to reactions which become too complex and disconnected for any person or any decision-making body to know definitively what the right step to take at that moment. In the end however, and I agree with you, they are all responsible, but that does not negate the concept of "The Fog of War".

okay we agree here, no point continuing this point.

My point either escaped you or you're just grasping for air. Throughout the history of warfare, civilians, military personnel, women, children, cats and roaches, have all died UNNECESSARILY, due to the fog of war for the explanations I gave above. The only approach to history is black and white taking under consideration that war in and of itself is inherently immoral, hence there can be no "levels" or "thresholds" of morality.

again i agree that this does happen but the targets of nuclear annahilation were completely civilian in nature. The american war planners eflt this was of NECESSITY and thus if they were wrong as I and other believe they (and Truman) are guilty.

on a secondary note there have been nations which upheld certain moral codes at the expense of casualties. I for one do believe in a higher power and thus I believe it is in a nation's and its leader's best interest to fight at a higher moral standard. If you want disregard it.

in terms of examples of nations and armies that have fought with higher moral standards one might look to the armies of the ayyuibids specifically under Salah AL din, im sure there exist better examples.

No, the allies had something called self-preservation against an aggressor. There is no such thing as moral superiority, morality or any other contemporary revisionist theory seeking to sway the causes of the war into a game of "acceptable moral levels". War, in and of itself, is inherently immoral as I mentioned before. Consider the age when the cannon was created, at that moment in history, it was considered a weapon of mass destruction.

I disagree with the idea that war is inherently immoral as it contradicts self preservation against an aggressor. If the latter is legitimate then defending oneself is inherently moral and thus war can be inherently moral. But thats a more philsophical disagreement that I wont get into.

Actually it doesn't get thrown out the window, it is common knowledge that the victors charge the enemy with war crimes not the other way around.

Given that we are arguing whether truman is guilty of a war crime I think such a statement should be rethought.

Here's a news flash for you nitzomoe, are we disgussing the moralities of war, or the causes of the atomic bomb? Here's some more news for you, those who win conduct war crimes against the enemy, is it hypocrisy? Sure it is, and how would you go about dragging the leaders of the allied nations into court for crimes? Who would do that? Start a thread on morality and I will probably agree with you.

theres no legitmacy to such actions and we both agree on that point so its also moot.

Like you mentioned above in regards to 9/11, I will not get drawn into an argument about the current war in Iraq, there are plenty of other threads on this board on that topic, practice what you preach.

Of course I will:wink: I wont drag anyone into an argument about 9/11. the iraq war on the other hand is very important as Iraq faced a similar situation as the us on defcember 7 1941, a unilateral and illegal act of aggression on a sovereign nation, teh similarities are quite telling. But for the sake of civility i shall speak no more of iraq.

Your arguments are revisionist in every way because you use morality as a basis for your argument, which in turn diminishes the entire concept to a game of numbers. In addition you will have to cite where I have blatantly given false information regarding history as opposed to you which has only provided an opinion of the bombing in Japan and have offered no other source of information to make it a wrong decision. What American historians believe and what the American children are taught, is that the Japan and Germany and the rest of the dictators around the world, ganged up on the rest of us. What apparently you have been taught is that we are actually instructed to believe differently than the actual events,

i will have to disagree that Japan and Germany did not gang up on the rest of the world but merely were flexing its muscles in a manner similar to nations with colonialistic aims such as Britain, France and Amercia (in the case of the filipino war) unfortunately for germany the current leader was an insane psychopath who wanted to wipe of several different peoples of the face of the earth. Otherwise the qualm France and England had was that they were threatening european nations isntead of nations with ppl not caucasian, since those ppl were okay to attack, massacre, destroy and generally enslave.

it will surprise perhaps to know that mock trials of the bombing of Japan are very common in American schools, to give the students an angle of morality, then again you probably won't believe that because it's not in the best interests of the evil empire to do so.

if that is so then its opened my eyes and I thank you.

The allies were attacked and invaded, you seem to forget that, the allies were gassed to death, you seem to forget that, the axis was committing genocide against the allies (and I don't mean the loosely used term nowadays, I mean actually wiping out an entire race or nation of people), you seem to forget that, the allies (human beings) were used as experimental pigs, you seem to forget that, the allies were used as human shields, you seem to forget that, the axis wanted to create a supreme race with the allies as their slaves, you seem to forget that. That nitzomoe is hypocrisy at its highest level, not struggling with the morality of self-preservation.

In addition, the Germans and Japanese were making an effort to develop their own version of an atom bomb, in the end, thanks to the allies, be thankful Ottawa or New York were'nt bombed first, otherwise we would probably not be having this conversation.

In terms of the gassing, genocide, and experimentation, I will be quite frank. ALL the allies are responsible for genocide and experimentation, the US to a lesser extent. Britain and France are well known for the genocidal tendancies in the colonies and Russia is well known for the exploits of the chechen ppl(too mention just one), which include but are not limited to genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleaning, cultural destruction, torture(goes without saying really) and experimentation, so to trying to make the allies out to be the victims of such activities i disagree, if anything the allies paived the way for this sort of thing to happen by ACTIVELY engaging in similar policies. Britain, France and Russia are well known for their treatment of colonialist nations with great emphasis on implicit slavery. France is actually well known for their activities in Algeria AFTER THE WAR! But I digress as this is becoming less and less on topic

in terms of making their own bombs, japan had disregarded real experimentationas they had long since run out of material to do so after 1944(they couldnt even replenish their tanks and aircraft) and England and America had great knowledge to Hitler's secret laboratories since all german secret codes had been broken in 1943(or 1942 the detail escapes me but a canadian destroyer was involved!) plus they ahd already destroyed the major experimentation lab in 1944.

in one area you are quite right in condemning me for and that is a lack of sources, unfortuantely I read books more than i read whats on the web and thus i will venture to rectify that, sorry ITN. :lol:

 

[I think not]

Egad nitz! You pick 11:30 to respond? :lol:

Anyways I appreciate the effort you put into your response, I will respond in kind, but not tonight. Just one quick comment, I RESPECT the fact you read books to get your history information, the internet unfortunately has distorted data on the subject of WWII. I do the same btw

 

[jimmoyer]

You know this is quite an unbelievably civil thread
about an issue that is gigantic.

Everyone in this thread is to be congratulated on the
civility of their discourse here.

Really.

Because this is the kind of issue that people can't
stand to be civil about to discuss.


And now here's a real compliment to a person
who hit a subtle point the best.

cdn_bc_ca.

Everyone has alluded to it, but cdn_bc_ca put it
to words.

"This leads me to believe that "in the context of that time (ie. 1945)" it may have been justified to drop the bomb. Presently, it is certainly not justified by any means."

That, my friends, quite sums it up.

Because ever since those two bombs landed on Japan,
the powers to be thought over many times to ever
do it again.

And no matter what politics, believers of all stripes
have held themselves in check over this threshold.


May we be
blessed forever this globe of such discretion.

And I firmly believe that ITN and Wednesday's Child
have quite eloquently explained the CONTEXT OF THAT TIME, but it was cdn_bc_ca who explains the
CONTEXT OF THIS TIME.

We are probably blessed in more ways than one
that Nazi Germany and the Japanese rapers of Manchuria
and the Russians did not win the race to the BOMB
in WWII, but now America is to be judged for what it
has done since then, and all of its actions rightly
or wrongly because of its actions during the COLD WAR
(which in my opinion was another righteous war that
most people little understand nor respect) will
be judged harshly.

But I want to repeat one time more:

I firmly believe that ITN and Wednesday's Child
have quite eloquently explained the CONTEXT OF THAT TIME, but it was cdn_bc_ca who explains the
CONTEXT OF THIS TIME.

 

[Curiosity]

Jim Moyer

Isn't this a great thread??? It is one of the best I have seen on a general conversational forum. Even the dedicated political forums get so dry I need water to read them...

The people here have passion and make a person want to go and look things up. I spent an hour last nite reading about the Manhattan Project as I knew so little about the men who made atomic power possible.....so much history and we seem to settle for little vignettes which we have learned in school or from our family discussions (or complaints)....instead of really getting into our own opinion to hold in validation.

You are spot on with kudos to CDN_BC_CA.....it is in the context of the days in which that ugly decision was made.

In retrospect it is good we now see it as unacceptable....perhaps we are evolving as a society? In a positive way? I hope so.

We must stop dragging the chains of criticism around with us. They were different times and do not apply in the here and now.

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

Thanks Jim and Wednesday for your praises. It took me quite a while to write up that post as I found it hard to put my thoughts into words.

 

[Colpy]

This has been a wonderful thread.

I've read every word, although not posted since I expressed my opinion early on. It hasn't changed.

Thanks people.

 

[I think not]

Im arguing this as it hasnt been as heavily documented as you'd like to believe in your favour. The japanese were domestically saying one thing and to the US saying another, as stated by another forumers there did exist a distinct possibility of peace without dropping the bomb(s).

The Japanese continue to this day to hide history from the Japanese, you can see clear evidence of this with the current tensions between China and Japan. This isn’t an “American” perspective nitzomoe, this is black and white history, Bamba Nobuya describes his fellow countrymen as follows:

“According to the Marxist interpretation of imperialistic war, the “people” should have been innocent, but they were not. The Japanese populace did not [just] passively support the nation’s military expansion, nor did they back the government simply because they feared the police. On the contrary, most people competed to get front seats on the fascist bandwagon, as the then common saying “Basu ni noriokureruna” (Don’t miss the bus) vividly suggests. It was rather the people that agitated for tough diplomacy” – End quote

I have a question here, is it not true that the people and factories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the rest of Japan, armed Tojo's butchers and sent them forth on their campaigns of pillage, rape and murder? I'll answer that, YES! However the passage of time has slowly but surely loosened lips of Japanese historians and the revisionists have to constantly come up with new refreshing ideas.

I would also like to note that Kyoto was one of the original targets of the atom bomb and consideration was given to its cultural history and was stricken as a target.

again i agree that this does happen but the targets of nuclear annahilation were completely civilian in nature. The american war planners eflt this was of NECESSITY and thus if they were wrong as I and other believe they (and Truman) are guilty.

on a secondary note there have been nations which upheld certain moral codes at the expense of casualties. I for one do believe in a higher power and thus I believe it is in a nation's and its leader's best interest to fight at a higher moral standard. If you want disregard it.

in terms of examples of nations and armies that have fought with higher moral standards one might look to the armies of the ayyuibids specifically under Salah AL din, im sure there exist better examples.

The legitimacy of wars and the means by which they are fought, have long been concerns of moralists. The killing of innocent civilians or noncombatants At the beginning of WWII, both Churchill and Roosevelt endorsed the principle of civilian immunity, and for a while, allied bombers attempted “precision” bombing of military and industrial targets. But the power of the German Wehrmacht, and the losses of the air crews in day-light precision bombing made it seem the only way to injure the Nazis was by way of strategic or area bombing. By 1942 the allied forces were bombing cities. The history of bombing escalation is long and complicated to discuss here, but it is pertinent to point out that Harry Truman was in no way involved.

I disagree with the idea that war is inherently immoral as it contradicts self preservation against an aggressor. If the latter is legitimate then defending oneself is inherently moral and thus war can be inherently moral. But thats a more philsophical disagreement that I wont get into.

I will only add that self-preservation is instinctive in nature for all living things and bares no question of morality as opposed to wars most common arguments which are those that assert wars are necessary to preserve or achieve "moral justice." You can never raise the question of self-preservation you can however raise a myriad of questions about the morality of war.

Of course I will:wink: I wont drag anyone into an argument about 9/11. the iraq war on the other hand is very important as Iraq faced a similar situation as the us on defcember 7 1941, a unilateral and illegal act of aggression on a sovereign nation, teh similarities are quite telling. But for the sake of civility i shall speak no more of iraq.

I disagree with one or two comments you made but again will not touch this subject as it will defeat the topic of this thread.

i will have to disagree that Japan and Germany did not gang up on the rest of the world but merely were flexing its muscles in a manner similar to nations with colonialistic aims such as Britain, France and Amercia (in the case of the filipino war) unfortunately for germany the current leader was an insane psychopath who wanted to wipe of several different peoples of the face of the earth. Otherwise the qualm France and England had was that they were threatening european nations isntead of nations with ppl not caucasian, since those ppl were okay to attack, massacre, destroy and generally enslave.

This is the general problem I have when one attempts to place other wars as a comparison with WWII. We have to take the WWII and look at it for its own “reasons”, the colonial powers you mentioned (Britain, France and America) did not aspire to wipe out what the axis powers deemed “a lesser form of human life”. The qualm Britain had with Germany was the defense treaty it had with Poland, when Poland was attacked, Britain had to declare war on Germany. Let’s face it, history is replete with atrocities by nations that later pointed the finger to others, but the part that escapes many, is that you cannot condemn the actions of one generation over an other, or the leaders of the past with the leaders of the present, if that were the case, Greece deserves no compassion for trying to survive simply because Alexander the Great wanted to spread “Greek Culture” throughout the world.

if that is so then its opened my eyes and I thank you.

You’re welcome, I suggest you Google : Hiroshima Mock Trials, you’ll bump into quite a few websites that have assignments for students.

In terms of the gassing, genocide, and experimentation, I will be quite frank. ALL the allies are responsible for genocide and experimentation, the US to a lesser extent. Britain and France are well known for the genocidal tendancies in the colonies and Russia is well known for the exploits of the chechen ppl(too mention just one), which include but are not limited to genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleaning, cultural destruction, torture(goes without saying really) and experimentation, so to trying to make the allies out to be the victims of such activities i disagree, if anything the allies paived the way for this sort of thing to happen by ACTIVELY engaging in similar policies. Britain, France and Russia are well known for their treatment of colonialist nations with great emphasis on implicit slavery. France is actually well known for their activities in Algeria AFTER THE WAR! But I digress as this is becoming less and less on topic

Again, let’s not condemn the reaction of Churchill and other leaders simply because their predecessors were scumbags. Britain, France, America, Canada are just names given to political boundaries and do not reflect each generations perceptions and moral compasses as each change with time.

in terms of making their own bombs, japan had disregarded real experimentationas they had long since run out of material to do so after 1944(they couldnt even replenish their tanks and aircraft) and England and America had great knowledge to Hitler's secret laboratories since all german secret codes had been broken in 1943(or 1942 the detail escapes me but a canadian destroyer was involved!) plus they ahd already destroyed the major experimentation lab in 1944.

This historical account is inaccurate and very much revisionist in nature. The most important foundation for the attacks on Hiroshima has been the combination of a naval blockade and bombing would eventually bring Japan to surrender. The naval blockade being the turning point in which Japan had no resources to continue fighting thus all the US had to do was wait it out and the eventual surrender of Japan would be forthcoming. Japan had their atomic labs in Northern Korea in the city of Konan. I would suggest to try and find something on the internet as a quick reference for yourself, try Googling: genzai bakudan