And just think - if Japan would have dropped their arrogant pride and "we'll fight until everyone is dead" attitude, these people would not have had to lose their lives.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
So is wasn't America acting like a warmongering psychopath then? Remind me, which is the only country in the whole of human history to have use a nuclear bomb in anger? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
How is 'defense' to kill hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people? Surely the fact these people were in city's and not in army camps/war zones/warships that was obvious?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The Japanese were ready to surrender anyway, due to the navel blockade. The bombs dropped didn't 'convince' them either way, it was just America showing off and slaughtering innocent people as a show of strength.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
As much as I love Wikipedia, never use it to back up an argument.
Maybe I can see past the American Propaganda unlike several people in this comments thread.
To understand why Truman dropped the bomb the second time, you have to understand what America and the Allies were facing when it came to an attack on Japan by sea invasion. The Japanese Army was infamous for never surrendering, chosing instead to fall on their own swords, or utilize suicide tactics against the Allies by order of the Emperor, a man whom every man, woman adn child in Imperial Japan had come to know as a God their entire life. This was a society that was the exact portrait of a hive-mind groupthink - what this man said was automatically the Gospel, and he was backed by generals who wanted to fight to the last man, believing in the dellusion that a victory would come when they fought down to the last child who could hold a rifle. Indeed - Japan's plan for an oversea invasion was to place anyone capable of holding a weapon in the way of an Allied advance - which would take about 100,000 - 1,000,000 Allied lives, and would have resulted in the entire destruction of the mainland japanese people as we know them today.
After the first bomb was dropped, Hirohito wanted to surrender. He realized the cause was lost and wanted to spare his people some dignity and semblance of their culture. He was prevented from relaying this message by a cabal of his generals, who actually held him in "Protective" custody, disbelieving that the Allies could do it again. They did, and history as we know it happened.
People can scream all they want about how it was just a ploy to scare the soviets, and we could have invaded them and "saved" those civilians all this horror, but once you understand that these people were prepared to march themselves into the line of fire just to slow an Allied advance - in addition to the millions that were killed during the Japanese occupations and human experimentation that occured in the Pacific, China, Korea, and the Alutians - it's a suprise that there wasn't a call for more blood.
Still, given the Soviet's track record in how they treated their "liberated" german friends, I'd still say it was a measure better than what they would have done to Tokyo, given the chance.
I assume you mean America? Because I don't live there and probably never will. You can't seem to process anyone elses view point.
I can see several good reasons as to why the Atomic Bombs were dropped, and I thank @anonymousmedic for that nice write up he/she did.
You are the reason why so many Europeans dislike America, because of an unfaltering viewpoint that everything America does is good and correct. It's why we were dragged into 2 unwinable wars in the last decade.
The US saved your ass in WWII, but you all seem to have forgotten that. And yes, I know your BS stories about how you could have won the war without our involvement. If that's true, then why did we sacrifice half a million lives for you guys?
It was arrogant pride. I don't care what BS cultural belief it is, it's stupid. That's like defending the Muslims when they hang a woman for getting raped by a prison guard:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that 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."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to noncommittal Japanese peace feelers, made no move to change the government position.[20] On July 31, he made clear to his advisor Kōichi Kido that the Imperial Regalia of Japan had to be defended at all costs."
Um, really? After the first bomb was dropped, his own Generals placed Hirohito in "protective custody", just to be sure he wouldnt' change his mind on the whole "Defend Japan to the last man" ideal.
"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."
~Eisenhower
"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."
~Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
~Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
At the time, the whole nation had mobilized for war. Dropping a few bombs killed thousands of people, but saved millions of American lives and probably millions of japanese lives too (as every single person would have fought back in an invasion of Japan).
It's tragic but sometimes the tragic way is the best way.
"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."
~Eisenhower
"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."
~Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
~Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
We don't know that for sure. Maybe starving Japanese people, the vast majority of which had no say in the decisions of their dictatorship, would have greeted the Americans or at least been placated with a basic supplies and a promise to not kill anyone?
Japan had been bombed into economic collapse in all but a few locations. The major Japanese cities had the majority of their areas bombed out, the defense infrastructure was gone and without raw goods, there was very, very little Japan could have done to resist after the European theatre had essentially been concluded. The culture of honor and defense-to-suicide are exaggerated, I think. Of course there would have been severe troop loss, but nothing to the extent estimates of "lives saved" by the bomb seem to indicate.
The decision seems primarily directed at the Soviet Union, who had, before the bomb, planned invasions of Northern Japan and former-Japanese territories in Manchuria.
Well concidering Japan was already gearing to surrender due to the blockade and losing most of its terrotories, i'd say it was unnecessary. But it did teach us one crucial lesson. A nuclear attack is BY FAR the worst thing human kind can do to one another and as such, should never be used ever again.
Its the reason countries now have the nukes, but don't use it. Mutually assured destruction has accounted for the peace we've had for the last few years with other countries, though people seem to be forgetting this (im looking at you Korea!) So i'd say it might not have saved a lot more lives in WWII compared to an invasion, but it DID indeed save people from using it in the future and saving more lives that way.
"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."
~Eisenhower
"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."
~Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
~Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
One of the most unfortunate aspects is that we would have never been in a situation to bomb Japan if Leslie Groves and the military did not lie to the scientists working on The Manhattan Project, but the US wasn't in any mood to stop the weapons research.
One of the most unfortunate aspects is that we would have never been in a situation to bomb Japan if Leslie Groves and the military did not lie to the scientists working on The Manhattan Project, but the US wasn't in any mood to stop the weapons research. Conflicts afterwards, including the demonization of Oppenheimer because of his opposition to the hydrogen bomb (and his political leanings) by Teller and the US government would seem further suggest this.
Actually, five of the six 5-star rank generals and admirals said the bombing was unnecessary to end the war.
The exact terms that were imposed on Japan were the same terms Japan agreed to when they sued for peace through Russia months earlier. You can read this is Truman's handwritten diary also.
It was an experiment to see how destructive it was and how many people could be killed. The military facilities located in Hiroshima were not damaged in the blast because it was across the bay. The cross hair of the target was the dome - the center of the populated city that was a "virgin" target, one of the requirements to be included in the list of potential targets.
The myth that Japan would never have surrender can't be true, since Japan surrendered. Japan was already beaten and Truman said in his own handwriting in his diary that Japan would surrender as soon as Russia entered the war, which it did exactly as planned a few days after the bombing.
The truth is that the US finally decided to accept the surrender after scaring the crap out of Stalin by displaying that America was just as capable of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilian women and children as he was.
Gen Curtis LeMay was angry at the use of the atomic bombs because he publicly proclaimed that he was the mastermind of the greatest slaughter in the history of the Earth - his firebombing of Tokyo had killed more people in less time than any other event in recorded history. He was trumped by uranium.
In order to regain his title, he planned to use the next 50 bombs built in a simultaneous sneak attack on the largest 50 cities and towns in Russia. He campaigned hard for this plan, but could not get enough support in the Congress.
Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima changed humanity. Humanity became inhuman and now accepted wholesale slaughter of civilians as "necessary."
Debate all you want... many far more intelligent folks on both sides have been arguing about this for decades.
What I do know, is that all hindsight is 20/20. By all accounts, the US and Japan are now strong allies, and using THAT hindsight, our two countries have obviously done something right in the last 65 years together.
So you think that bombing all nations you don't agree with will work out for the better in 50 odd years? It's almost suggesting you can't have close bonds between previously warring nations without killing thousands of their innocent citizens.
Let's look at another example, the US and Germany. Two countries which are close (arguably closer than Japan and the US) yet that relationship has developed without nuclear weapons being needed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Holy s**t! Could you have made a more retarded straw-man argument out the least contentious post here? f**king incredible! I bet if you order a sandwich and the clerk asks if you want lettuce on it, you slap their bitch ass for denying the holocaust.
Really, some of you people are f**king incredible trolls.
And the Japanese would have followed. However let's not get too far away from the simple fact that the Americans had a bug up their ass regarding Pearl Harbour, and were determined to show revenge at the highest level.
While that is a sentiment most if not all could understand, especially as Pearl Harbour came as a surprise, but considering the overriding advantage the Americans had at the time of Hiroshima the act of dropping the bomb on innocent civilians is one of racial dominance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
No, racial dominance was the Nanking Rape. The bombings were simply motivators for Japan to surrender to us, instead of waiting till Russia was on their ass.
It's interesting how each successive generation has judged this, and it's moved farther away from a "horrid, but necessary action" towards a "war crime that never needed to occur." - to the point where it's subject to the same amount of abstract revisionism on both sides.
From a human prospective - the one nuclear exchange not only caused humanity to stand in awe and horror of what it was capable of, but also ushered in the concept that this could not be allowed to happen again.
From a purely numbers prospective - the invasion of Japan was projected to have atleast 100,000 allied casualties in the first month of operations, with Japanese casualties projected to reach into the millions. While Japan had attempted to sue for peace, the conditions they wanted were that Japan wanted was to retain it's imperial government and culture - basically it's wartime leadership would stay in power. Even after the first bomb was dropped, members of his own government wouldn't allow Hirohito to surrender unconditionally. The Allies couldn't risk that condition occuring.
It's easy to judge what happened in World War II from the lenses we look through today - of precision missile strikes that can hit a doorknob guided by a computer orbiting the earth at 50,000 MPH, and Stealth Bombers that can drop a laser guided munition on a single insurgent - accuracy for the B-29 was being able to drop a dumb-guided 500lb iron bomb within a 1,000 foot circle from 25,000 feet with manual sighting. The reason we do what we do today is because we've had leadership that has been driven to reduce unnecessary casualties. It's why carpet bombing is a thing of the past, and the wrong building getting hit ends someone's career.
"While Japan had attempted to sue for peace, the conditions they wanted were that Japan wanted was to retain it's imperial government and culture - basically it's wartime leadership would stay in power. Even after the first bomb was dropped, members of his own government wouldn't allow Hirohito to surrender unconditionally. The Allies couldn't risk that condition occurring."
Personally, I feel the statement above belies any understanding of the Japanese psyche at the time. America used a sledgehammer to crack a nut and no amount of pontification can change that.
If the Americans really wanted to prove their power to the Japanese they could have detonated the bomb on an uninhabited island and said, "this is what we can do", rather than dropping it on a centre of civilian population.
"Personally, I feel the statement above belies any understanding of the Japanese psyche at the time. America used a sledgehammer to crack a nut and no amount of pontification can change that.
If the Americans really wanted to prove their power to the Japanese they could have detonated the bomb on an uninhabited island and said, "this is what we can do", rather than dropping it on a centre of civilian population.
2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)
Hiroshima wasn't chosen because of it's civilian population - it was chosen because of it's massive value to the Japanese war effort. Try again.
From:http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html
"This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...
Truman quoted in Robert H. Ferrell, Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman (New York: Harper and Row, 1980) pp. 55-56. Truman's writings are in the public "
I used to think that the bombing was necessary to end the war. After 40 years of study and reading of original and first-hand statements and accounts, I've changed my mind.
Actually, it turns out that five of the six 5-star rank generals and admirals said the bombing was unnecessary to end the war.
The exact terms that were imposed on Japan were the same terms Japan agreed to when they sued for peace through Russia months earlier. You can read this in Truman's handwritten diary also.
It was an experiment to see how destructive it was and how many people could be killed. The military facilities located in Hiroshima were not damaged in the blast because it was across the bay. The cross hair of the target was the dome - the center of the populated city that was a "virgin" target, one of the requirements to be included in the list of potential targets.
The myth that Japan would never have surrender can't be true, since Japan surrendered. Japan was already beaten and Truman said in his own handwriting in his diary that Japan would surrender as soon as Russia entered the war, which it did exactly as planned a few days after the bombing.
The truth is that the US finally decided to accept the surrender after scaring the crap out of Stalin by displaying that America was just as capable of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilian women and children as he was.
Gen Curtis LeMay was angry at the use of the atomic bombs because he publicly proclaimed that he was the mastermind of the greatest slaughter in the history of the Earth - his firebombing of Tokyo had killed more people in less time than any other event in recorded history. He was trumped by uranium.
In order to regain his title, he planned to use the next 50 bombs built in a simultaneous sneak attack on the largest 50 cities and towns in Russia. He campaigned hard for this plan, but could not get enough support in the Congress.
Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima changed humanity. Humanity became inhuman and now accepted wholesale slaughter of civilians as "necessary."
America had been trying to stay out of the war; we got caught with our pants down at Pearl Harbor.
The firebombing of Dresden also was horrific.
However, Guernica had been just as deplorable. Not for nothing did the "do before you are done to" attitude develop.
Japan's Imperial War Cabinet had been deadlocked on surrender; and after the second bomb, Emperor Hirohito broke it--but even so, they were out of ammo and would literally have been fighting with sharpened chopsticks.
I grew up in the Cold War; I wish the Bomb had never been invented. Supposedly the Strategic Air Command flew provocative (but authorized) reconnaissance over Soviet airspace. LeMay had also wanted to bomb Cuba during the missile crisis in 1962.
But that military conflict never happened. Maybe something had been learned.
zetadogAug 6, 2010
These photos depress me...
usq1111Aug 6, 2010
This is a sad reminder of what humanity is capable of.
toksterjoksterAug 6, 2010
And to think, we have much more powerful stuff now. Humans will destroy themselves if we aren't careful.
itwasonlyajokeAug 7, 2010
And just think - if Japan would have dropped their arrogant pride and "we'll fight until everyone is dead" attitude, these people would not have had to lose their lives.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
streetmagixAug 7, 2010
So is wasn't America acting like a warmongering psychopath then? Remind me, which is the only country in the whole of human history to have use a nuclear bomb in anger? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
superkendallAug 7, 2010
Defense is not anger. Japan attacked first, remember?
streetmagixAug 7, 2010
How is 'defense' to kill hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people? Surely the fact these people were in city's and not in army camps/war zones/warships that was obvious?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
itwasonlyajokeAug 7, 2010
It wasn't in anger. It was the only way to get the Japanese to give up. They attacked US, remember?
streetmagixAug 7, 2010
The Japanese were ready to surrender anyway, due to the navel blockade. The bombs dropped didn't 'convince' them either way, it was just America showing off and slaughtering innocent people as a show of strength.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
itwasonlyajokeAug 7, 2010
Oh, and here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Debate_over_bombings
You people choose to stay ignorant, don't you. Is that just a way of life for you guys?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
streetmagixAug 7, 2010
As much as I love Wikipedia, never use it to back up an argument.
Maybe I can see past the American Propaganda unlike several people in this comments thread.
anonymousmedicAug 7, 2010
Revisionist history Is FUN! Isn't it?
To understand why Truman dropped the bomb the second time, you have to understand what America and the Allies were facing when it came to an attack on Japan by sea invasion. The Japanese Army was infamous for never surrendering, chosing instead to fall on their own swords, or utilize suicide tactics against the Allies by order of the Emperor, a man whom every man, woman adn child in Imperial Japan had come to know as a God their entire life. This was a society that was the exact portrait of a hive-mind groupthink - what this man said was automatically the Gospel, and he was backed by generals who wanted to fight to the last man, believing in the dellusion that a victory would come when they fought down to the last child who could hold a rifle. Indeed - Japan's plan for an oversea invasion was to place anyone capable of holding a weapon in the way of an Allied advance - which would take about 100,000 - 1,000,000 Allied lives, and would have resulted in the entire destruction of the mainland japanese people as we know them today.
After the first bomb was dropped, Hirohito wanted to surrender. He realized the cause was lost and wanted to spare his people some dignity and semblance of their culture. He was prevented from relaying this message by a cabal of his generals, who actually held him in "Protective" custody, disbelieving that the Allies could do it again. They did, and history as we know it happened.
People can scream all they want about how it was just a ploy to scare the soviets, and we could have invaded them and "saved" those civilians all this horror, but once you understand that these people were prepared to march themselves into the line of fire just to slow an Allied advance - in addition to the millions that were killed during the Japanese occupations and human experimentation that occured in the Pacific, China, Korea, and the Alutians - it's a suprise that there wasn't a call for more blood.
Still, given the Soviet's track record in how they treated their "liberated" german friends, I'd still say it was a measure better than what they would have done to Tokyo, given the chance.
itwasonlyajokeAug 7, 2010
If you live in this country, you need to be kicked out of it. You are a brainwashed, blind coward who won't face the facts, and I pity you.
streetmagixAug 7, 2010
I assume you mean America? Because I don't live there and probably never will. You can't seem to process anyone elses view point.
I can see several good reasons as to why the Atomic Bombs were dropped, and I thank @anonymousmedic for that nice write up he/she did.
You are the reason why so many Europeans dislike America, because of an unfaltering viewpoint that everything America does is good and correct. It's why we were dragged into 2 unwinable wars in the last decade.
itwasonlyajokeAug 8, 2010
The US saved your ass in WWII, but you all seem to have forgotten that. And yes, I know your BS stories about how you could have won the war without our involvement. If that's true, then why did we sacrifice half a million lives for you guys?
Seriously, go back to your cave and shut up.
hu99Aug 7, 2010
It wasn't arrogant pride, it was a unshakeable cultural belief. Surrender to the Japanese is unthinkable despite how we may view it.
itwasonlyajokeAug 7, 2010
It was arrogant pride. I don't care what BS cultural belief it is, it's stupid. That's like defending the Muslims when they hang a woman for getting raped by a prison guard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iOrrNY4Q-cComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
itwasonlyajokeAug 8, 2010
It bothers you guys a LOT to watch that video, so you make sure to bury me :P
Cowards.
ymegAug 7, 2010
We still retained the option not to bomb them.
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that 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."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
itwasonlyajokeAug 7, 2010
Would you link to that source please?
Btw, how do you explain this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#The_Potsdam_ultimatum
"The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to noncommittal Japanese peace feelers, made no move to change the government position.[20] On July 31, he made clear to his advisor Kōichi Kido that the Imperial Regalia of Japan had to be defended at all costs."
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
itwasonlyajokeAug 7, 2010
Oh, and here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Debate_over_bombings
You people choose to stay ignorant, don't you. Is that just a way of life for you guys?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anonymousmedicAug 7, 2010
Um, really? After the first bomb was dropped, his own Generals placed Hirohito in "protective custody", just to be sure he wouldnt' change his mind on the whole "Defend Japan to the last man" ideal.
ymegAug 7, 2010
the quote was from a bombing survey.
firewall1Aug 7, 2010
WTF? Everyone is a bleeding heart.
Do you think for *one* second, that if Japan had the bomb that they would NOT have used it against the US? And China? And the Philippines? And Korea?
Get over it. The US did what the US had to do...it ended up saving perhaps a million lives (both sides.)
ymegAug 7, 2010
"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."
~Eisenhower
"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."
~Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
~Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
ymegAug 7, 2010
but they didn't.
nmanguyAug 7, 2010
No, Japan would have never used it, because there would have been no survivors for them to rape and enslave.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
I can't masturbate to this.
superkendallAug 7, 2010
At the time, the whole nation had mobilized for war. Dropping a few bombs killed thousands of people, but saved millions of American lives and probably millions of japanese lives too (as every single person would have fought back in an invasion of Japan).
It's tragic but sometimes the tragic way is the best way.
ymegAug 7, 2010
"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."
~Eisenhower
"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."
~Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
~Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
bt100Aug 7, 2010
We don't know that for sure. Maybe starving Japanese people, the vast majority of which had no say in the decisions of their dictatorship, would have greeted the Americans or at least been placated with a basic supplies and a promise to not kill anyone?
Japan had been bombed into economic collapse in all but a few locations. The major Japanese cities had the majority of their areas bombed out, the defense infrastructure was gone and without raw goods, there was very, very little Japan could have done to resist after the European theatre had essentially been concluded. The culture of honor and defense-to-suicide are exaggerated, I think. Of course there would have been severe troop loss, but nothing to the extent estimates of "lives saved" by the bomb seem to indicate.
The decision seems primarily directed at the Soviet Union, who had, before the bomb, planned invasions of Northern Japan and former-Japanese territories in Manchuria.
rickytheriotAug 7, 2010
You are equating thousands of well armed and prepared soldiers lives to those of innocent civilians living in houses made out of wood and paper.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
Well concidering Japan was already gearing to surrender due to the blockade and losing most of its terrotories, i'd say it was unnecessary. But it did teach us one crucial lesson. A nuclear attack is BY FAR the worst thing human kind can do to one another and as such, should never be used ever again.
Its the reason countries now have the nukes, but don't use it. Mutually assured destruction has accounted for the peace we've had for the last few years with other countries, though people seem to be forgetting this (im looking at you Korea!) So i'd say it might not have saved a lot more lives in WWII compared to an invasion, but it DID indeed save people from using it in the future and saving more lives that way.
ymegAug 7, 2010
"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."
~Eisenhower
"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."
~Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
~Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
rickytheriotAug 7, 2010
Pretty much what I was going to post.
There was no "need" for the bomb to be dropped other than to prove a point to the Russians.
ymegAug 7, 2010
One of the most unfortunate aspects is that we would have never been in a situation to bomb Japan if Leslie Groves and the military did not lie to the scientists working on The Manhattan Project, but the US wasn't in any mood to stop the weapons research.
ymegAug 7, 2010
One of the most unfortunate aspects is that we would have never been in a situation to bomb Japan if Leslie Groves and the military did not lie to the scientists working on The Manhattan Project, but the US wasn't in any mood to stop the weapons research. Conflicts afterwards, including the demonization of Oppenheimer because of his opposition to the hydrogen bomb (and his political leanings) by Teller and the US government would seem further suggest this.
fullbackAug 7, 2010
Actually, five of the six 5-star rank generals and admirals said the bombing was unnecessary to end the war.
The exact terms that were imposed on Japan were the same terms Japan agreed to when they sued for peace through Russia months earlier. You can read this is Truman's handwritten diary also.
It was an experiment to see how destructive it was and how many people could be killed. The military facilities located in Hiroshima were not damaged in the blast because it was across the bay. The cross hair of the target was the dome - the center of the populated city that was a "virgin" target, one of the requirements to be included in the list of potential targets.
The myth that Japan would never have surrender can't be true, since Japan surrendered. Japan was already beaten and Truman said in his own handwriting in his diary that Japan would surrender as soon as Russia entered the war, which it did exactly as planned a few days after the bombing.
The truth is that the US finally decided to accept the surrender after scaring the crap out of Stalin by displaying that America was just as capable of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilian women and children as he was.
Gen Curtis LeMay was angry at the use of the atomic bombs because he publicly proclaimed that he was the mastermind of the greatest slaughter in the history of the Earth - his firebombing of Tokyo had killed more people in less time than any other event in recorded history. He was trumped by uranium.
In order to regain his title, he planned to use the next 50 bombs built in a simultaneous sneak attack on the largest 50 cities and towns in Russia. He campaigned hard for this plan, but could not get enough support in the Congress.
Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima changed humanity. Humanity became inhuman and now accepted wholesale slaughter of civilians as "necessary."
lcworldAug 7, 2010
Great post. @Ymeg. Thumbs up.
timedoutAug 7, 2010
Debate all you want... many far more intelligent folks on both sides have been arguing about this for decades.
What I do know, is that all hindsight is 20/20. By all accounts, the US and Japan are now strong allies, and using THAT hindsight, our two countries have obviously done something right in the last 65 years together.
rickytheriotAug 7, 2010
So you think that bombing all nations you don't agree with will work out for the better in 50 odd years? It's almost suggesting you can't have close bonds between previously warring nations without killing thousands of their innocent citizens.
Let's look at another example, the US and Germany. Two countries which are close (arguably closer than Japan and the US) yet that relationship has developed without nuclear weapons being needed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nmanguyAug 7, 2010
No, there was no need to drop a bomb on Germany because they SURRENDERED.
timedoutAug 7, 2010
Holy s**t! Could you have made a more retarded straw-man argument out the least contentious post here? f**king incredible! I bet if you order a sandwich and the clerk asks if you want lettuce on it, you slap their bitch ass for denying the holocaust.
Really, some of you people are f**king incredible trolls.
rickytheriotAug 7, 2010
@manguy
And the Japanese would have followed. However let's not get too far away from the simple fact that the Americans had a bug up their ass regarding Pearl Harbour, and were determined to show revenge at the highest level.
While that is a sentiment most if not all could understand, especially as Pearl Harbour came as a surprise, but considering the overriding advantage the Americans had at the time of Hiroshima the act of dropping the bomb on innocent civilians is one of racial dominance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nmanguyAug 7, 2010
No, racial dominance was the Nanking Rape. The bombings were simply motivators for Japan to surrender to us, instead of waiting till Russia was on their ass.
anonymousmedicAug 7, 2010
It's interesting how each successive generation has judged this, and it's moved farther away from a "horrid, but necessary action" towards a "war crime that never needed to occur." - to the point where it's subject to the same amount of abstract revisionism on both sides.
From a human prospective - the one nuclear exchange not only caused humanity to stand in awe and horror of what it was capable of, but also ushered in the concept that this could not be allowed to happen again.
From a purely numbers prospective - the invasion of Japan was projected to have atleast 100,000 allied casualties in the first month of operations, with Japanese casualties projected to reach into the millions. While Japan had attempted to sue for peace, the conditions they wanted were that Japan wanted was to retain it's imperial government and culture - basically it's wartime leadership would stay in power. Even after the first bomb was dropped, members of his own government wouldn't allow Hirohito to surrender unconditionally. The Allies couldn't risk that condition occuring.
It's easy to judge what happened in World War II from the lenses we look through today - of precision missile strikes that can hit a doorknob guided by a computer orbiting the earth at 50,000 MPH, and Stealth Bombers that can drop a laser guided munition on a single insurgent - accuracy for the B-29 was being able to drop a dumb-guided 500lb iron bomb within a 1,000 foot circle from 25,000 feet with manual sighting. The reason we do what we do today is because we've had leadership that has been driven to reduce unnecessary casualties. It's why carpet bombing is a thing of the past, and the wrong building getting hit ends someone's career.
rickytheriotAug 7, 2010
"While Japan had attempted to sue for peace, the conditions they wanted were that Japan wanted was to retain it's imperial government and culture - basically it's wartime leadership would stay in power. Even after the first bomb was dropped, members of his own government wouldn't allow Hirohito to surrender unconditionally. The Allies couldn't risk that condition occurring."
Personally, I feel the statement above belies any understanding of the Japanese psyche at the time. America used a sledgehammer to crack a nut and no amount of pontification can change that.
If the Americans really wanted to prove their power to the Japanese they could have detonated the bomb on an uninhabited island and said, "this is what we can do", rather than dropping it on a centre of civilian population.
anonymousmedicAug 7, 2010
"Personally, I feel the statement above belies any understanding of the Japanese psyche at the time. America used a sledgehammer to crack a nut and no amount of pontification can change that.
If the Americans really wanted to prove their power to the Japanese they could have detonated the bomb on an uninhabited island and said, "this is what we can do", rather than dropping it on a centre of civilian population.
From: http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html
2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)
Hiroshima wasn't chosen because of it's civilian population - it was chosen because of it's massive value to the Japanese war effort. Try again.
From:http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html
"This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...
Truman quoted in Robert H. Ferrell, Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman (New York: Harper and Row, 1980) pp. 55-56. Truman's writings are in the public "
rickytheriotAug 7, 2010
Just a side note, there is a flame (called the Peace Flame) kept alive that was ignited by the bomb. It's part of the memorial park.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_Peace_Memorial_Park#Peace_Flame
It sometimes goes on "travels" normally accompanied by monks..
http://peacehq.tripod.com/page1/id77.html
I was lucky enough to see it at the Glastonbury Music Festival (UK) in 2000.
fullbackAug 7, 2010
I used to think that the bombing was necessary to end the war. After 40 years of study and reading of original and first-hand statements and accounts, I've changed my mind.
Actually, it turns out that five of the six 5-star rank generals and admirals said the bombing was unnecessary to end the war.
The exact terms that were imposed on Japan were the same terms Japan agreed to when they sued for peace through Russia months earlier. You can read this in Truman's handwritten diary also.
It was an experiment to see how destructive it was and how many people could be killed. The military facilities located in Hiroshima were not damaged in the blast because it was across the bay. The cross hair of the target was the dome - the center of the populated city that was a "virgin" target, one of the requirements to be included in the list of potential targets.
The myth that Japan would never have surrender can't be true, since Japan surrendered. Japan was already beaten and Truman said in his own handwriting in his diary that Japan would surrender as soon as Russia entered the war, which it did exactly as planned a few days after the bombing.
The truth is that the US finally decided to accept the surrender after scaring the crap out of Stalin by displaying that America was just as capable of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilian women and children as he was.
Gen Curtis LeMay was angry at the use of the atomic bombs because he publicly proclaimed that he was the mastermind of the greatest slaughter in the history of the Earth - his firebombing of Tokyo had killed more people in less time than any other event in recorded history. He was trumped by uranium.
In order to regain his title, he planned to use the next 50 bombs built in a simultaneous sneak attack on the largest 50 cities and towns in Russia. He campaigned hard for this plan, but could not get enough support in the Congress.
Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima changed humanity. Humanity became inhuman and now accepted wholesale slaughter of civilians as "necessary."
ciliciousAug 7, 2010
America had been trying to stay out of the war; we got caught with our pants down at Pearl Harbor.
The firebombing of Dresden also was horrific.
However, Guernica had been just as deplorable. Not for nothing did the "do before you are done to" attitude develop.
Japan's Imperial War Cabinet had been deadlocked on surrender; and after the second bomb, Emperor Hirohito broke it--but even so, they were out of ammo and would literally have been fighting with sharpened chopsticks.
I grew up in the Cold War; I wish the Bomb had never been invented. Supposedly the Strategic Air Command flew provocative (but authorized) reconnaissance over Soviet airspace. LeMay had also wanted to bomb Cuba during the missile crisis in 1962.
But that military conflict never happened. Maybe something had been learned.
assassyn360Aug 7, 2010
It's scary I spent 100 of hours playing fallout 3 and it looks just like these disturbing photos.
bobadobalinaAug 8, 2010
A small price to pay for the millions of lives- American and Jap anese- thatwere saved