Sixty years ago- Hiroshima

welsh

Junkmaster
Ok, so sixty years ago the US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.

And so perhaps this article might be of interest, and a critical argument. Was the atomic bombing necessary?

The Myths of Hiroshima
By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin
The Los Angeles Times

Friday 05 August 2005

Sixty years ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate.

The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 - just five days after the Nagasaki bombing - Radio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the US terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even "saving" a million lives that might have been lost if the US had been required to invade mainland Japan.

This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed them as a necessary act in a just war.

But although patriotically correct, the exhibit and the narrative on which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only that the bombs "caused many tens of thousands of deaths" and that Hiroshima was "a definite military target."

Americans were also told that use of the bombs "led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands." But it's not that straightforward. As Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has shown definitively in his new book, "Racing the Enemy" - and many other historians have long argued - it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, that provided the final "shock" that led to Japan's capitulation.

Downplaying casualities, yes.

But Russia's entry into the war as the "shock?" Doubtful. For one thing the Japanese held territories that were seized by the Russians were probably lost anyway. I would think the repeated destruction of every major city (each destroyed with one bomb) would be enough for the Japanese to realize the end was near. Afterall they had attempted to surrender earlier in the war.

The Enola Gay exhibit also repeated such outright lies as the assertion that "special leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities" warning civilians to evacuate. The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed.

The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary. A million lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson.

The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on "an essentially defeated enemy." President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary of State James Byrnes, quite plainly used it primarily to prevent the Soviets from sharing in the occupation of Japan. And they used it on Aug. 6 even though they had agreed among themselves as they returned home from the Potsdam Conference on Aug. 3 that the Japanese were looking for peace.

Thus the US used atomic bombs as a terror weapon not against the Japanese but against the Soviets?

These unpleasant historical facts were censored from the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit, an action that should trouble every American. When a government substitutes an officially sanctioned view for publicly debated history, democracy is diminished.

Today, in the post-9/11 era, it is critically important that the US face the truth about the atomic bomb. For one thing, the myths surrounding Hiroshima have made it possible for our defense establishment to argue that atomic bombs are legitimate weapons that belong in a democracy's arsenal. But if, as Oppenheimer said, "they are weapons of aggression, of surprise and of terror," how can a democracy rely on such weapons?

Oppenheimer understood very soon after Hiroshima that these weapons would ultimately threaten our very survival.

Presciently, he even warned us against what is now our worst national nightmare - and Osama bin Laden's frequently voiced dream - an atomic suitcase bomb smuggled into an American city: "Of course it could be done," Oppenheimer told a Senate committee, "and people could destroy New York."

Ironically, Hiroshima's myths are now motivating our enemies to attack us with the very weapon we invented. Bin Laden repeatedly refers to Hiroshima in his rambling speeches. It was, he believes, the atomic bombings that shocked the Japanese imperial government into an early surrender - and, he says, he is planning an atomic attack on the US that will similarly shock us into retreating from the Mideast.

Terrorism is a tactical use of violence, that can be used by both individuals and states.

Finally, Hiroshima's myths have gradually given rise to an American unilateralism born of atomic arrogance.

Oppenheimer warned against this "sleazy sense of omnipotence." He observed that "if you approach the problem and say, 'We know what is right and we would like to use the atomic bomb to persuade you to agree with us,' then you are in a very weak position and you will not succeed.... You will find yourselves attempting by force of arms to prevent a disaster."
 
Didn't the US have to clear out hundreds of islands in the pacific in addition to the Japanese mainland in the event of a conventional invasion of Japan? In high school, I was taught that this would have resulted in vast casualties. Was I misinformed?
 
I was going to make a thread about this, but thank you for making it first, I didn't really know what to write (and didn't find any good articles). The bomb wasn't used to shorten the war, spare American troops, or so forth. Sure, it would've, but that's not important.

It was used for two main reasons; anger and frighten the Soviets (although this was unnecessary; they already had plans for the bomb and the US knew about it), but mainly to test it. Try it out, you know. And they did. After the blast, American doctors went to the site, not to help the population, but merely to observe the effects. And so they did.

There was a TV documentary with the 60 year aniversary and all. Pretty horrible images, as expected. Very stupid interviewer though, asking very naive and classic, generic questions such as "Was the bomb necessary to end the war?" and "Is the bomb a peacemaker?".

Obviously, the Americans did it for purely scientific and long-term cold war strategic reasons. The Japanese had been trying to surrender for months, but the US refused, wanting to get an opportunity to use the bomb (even though they had already eradicated most Japanese cities with firebombs: for instance, Tokyo, 100,000 dead).

Good BBC documentary about the lives of those at Hiroshima, not going into the reasons very much, which I liked, because they would've gotten it wrong. Stupid, stupid interviewer TV guy.


*edit*

calculon000 said:
In high school, I was taught that this would have resulted in vast casualties. Was I misinformed?

Blatant propaganda attempt. Close your eyes and put your hands on your ears, especially in high school history lessons.
 
Baboon said:
The bomb wasn't used to shorten the war, spare American troops, or so forth. Sure, it would've, but that's not important.
Baboon said:
Obviously, the Americans did it for purely scientific and long-term cold war strategic reasons. The Japanese had been trying to surrender for months, but the US refused, wanting to get an opportunity to use the bomb (even though they had already eradicated most Japanese cities with firebombs: for instance, Tokyo, 100,000 dead).
I really think this is just plain not correct at all. The cold war had not really started at this point in time, and densely developed Japanese cities such as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and several others had been untouched by any bomb at this point. Keeping the Soviets at bay was a bonus, after ending a war with a country they are actually at war with.

Baboon said:
Blatant propaganda attempt. Close your eyes and put your hands on your ears, especially in high school history lessons.
In a Canadian high school social studies course?

Well, I'm watching a documentary on the History channel this second, which happens to be on this exact subject, and everything they're saying is confirming what I learned in high school. Over one million estimated American casualties, ect.

Basically, there were three options:

1. Use nukes, resulting in hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians dead.

2. Conventionally invade Japan, costing the lives of one million American combatants.

3. Bomb and blockade Japan, resulting in the starvation of millions of Japanese civilians.

In the event that #1 failed, #2 was the backup plan. The navy recommended #3.
 
The key to Japanese surrender was that it had to be unconditional. Unless that was met, there was no opportunity for surrender.

Of course, this wasn't made any more easier for the Japanese by withdrawing the US embassy and essentially cutting all diplomatic ties.

The warning for the Soviets was the purpose behind Dresden. If the Allied bomber command could level an entire city in a night, they could easily do the same to any Soviet city. I think it was the main drive behind Soviet strategic bomber development (which they ended up stealing, 'sup Stratofortress?).
 
calculon000 said:
I really think this is just plain not correct at all. The cold war had not really started at this point in time, and densely developed Japanese cities such as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and several others had been untouched by any bomb at this point. Keeping the Soviets at bay was a bonus, after ending a war with a country they are actually at war with.

The Cold War started when the Soviet Civil War ended, dude.

It's a common misconception that the Cold War started whambam after WW 2. Sure, it was biggest in the post-WW 2 period, but it existed from the 20's onwards.

calculon000 said:
In a Canadian high school social studies course?

Yeah, bloody Canadians, all American agents.

calculon000 said:
1. Use nukes, resulting in hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians dead.

2. Conventionally invade Japan, costing the lives of one million American combatants.

Yes, now let's look at the moral fragment of those facts.

1. Wilfully murder thousands of innocent civilians

2. Sacrifice the lives of combatants, which is what they signed up for

A million is bloody unlikely, too. Even if it was true, that doesn't excuse the bombs, since they are simple acts of terrorism against civil targets.

Don't get me wrong, this is true for a lot of the war, including Dresden, that doesn't really excuse it, though.

Buncha terrorists

(also note that an American invasion into Japan would not have cost a million lives*)

(* then again, Americans were pretty bumbling during WW II, see the slaughter made against the Americans by the nazis in Northern France)
 
I think nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima was unnecessary, because I don't believe the use of nukes had the main intention of trying to end the war. I believe it was to test the effects of a nuclear bomb on cities and it's radiation in the years to come and to show Russia what the US was capable of "you better not mess with us". Besides before the nuclear bombs fell a part of the Japanese government was already willing to give up without any knowledge of the US planning to drop nuclear bombs on Japan. This goes to show the use of nuclear bombs wasn't necessary for Japan to give up. However the US didn't have any ear for that.
 
(also note that an American invasion into Japan would not have cost a million lives*)

A million American lives, no. And the status of Japanese civilians as "innocents" is debatable as well, since the Japanese policy concerning home defense would have made them all potential combatants. That or they would have just killed themselves like they did on Okinawa.

That said, though, the bombs were only unnecessary because the Japanese couldn't surrender in time to avoid their usage. A key factor being that the Americans cut off all diplomatic ties with Japan.
 
Here is an article on the subject. Excerpts (my emphasis in bold, original emphasis in italics):

Historian dude said:
By any rational calculation Japan was a beaten nation by the summer of 1945. /../ Rational calculations did not determine Japan's position. Although a peace faction within the government wished to end the war--provided certain conditions were met--militants were prepared to fight on regardless of consequences. They claimed to welcome an invasion of the home islands, promising to inflict such hideous casualties that the United States would retreat from its announced policy of unconditional surrender. The militarists held effective power over the government and were capable of defying the emperor, as they had in the past /../ Okinawa provided a preview of what invasion of the home islands would entail. Since April 1 the Japanese had fought with a ferocity that mocked any notion that their will to resist was eroding. They had inflicted nearly 50,000 casualties on the invaders, many resulting from the first large-scale use of kamikazes.

/../

In his memoirs Truman claimed that using atomic bombs prevented an invasion that would have cost 500,000 American lives. Other officials mentioned the same or even higher figures. Critics have assailed such statements as gross exaggerations designed to forestall scrutiny of Truman's real motives. They have given wide publicity to a report prepared by the Joint War Plans Committee (JWPC) for the chiefs' meeting with Truman. The committee estimated that the invasion of Kyushu, followed by that of Honshu, as the chiefs proposed, would cost approximately 40,000 dead, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500 missing in action for a total of 193,500 casualties. /../ The notion that 193,500 anticipated casualties were too insignificant to have caused Truman to resort to atomic bombs might seem bizarre to anyone other than an academic, but let it pass. Those who have cited the JWPC report in countless op-ed pieces in newspapers and in magazine articles have created a myth by omitting key considerations: First, the report itself is studded with qualifications that casualties "are not subject to accurate estimate" and that the projection is admittedly only an educated guess." /../ And indeed, subsequent Japanese troop buildups on Kyushu rendered the JWPC estimates totally irrelevant by the time the first atomic bomb was dropped.

/../

Some have claimed that Togo's overture to the Soviet Union, together with attempts by some minor Japanese officials in Switzerland and other neutral countries to get peace talks started through the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), constituted clear evidence that the Japanese were near surrender. /../ If only the United States had extended assurances about the emperor, according to this view, much bloodshed and the atomic bombs would have been unnecessary. A careful reading of the MAGIC intercepts of subsequent exchanges between Togo and Sato provides no evidence that retention of the emperor was the sole obstacle to peace. What they show instead is that the Japanese Foreign Office was trying to cut a deal through the Soviet Union that would have permitted Japan to retain its political system and its prewar empire intact. Even the most lenient American official could not have countenanced such a settlement.

/../

Reliance on MAGIC intercepts and the "peace feelers" to gauge how near Japan was to surrender is misleading in any case. The army, not the Foreign Office, controlled the situation. Intercepts of Japanese military communications, designated ULTRA, provided no reason to believe the army was even considering surrender. Japanese Imperial Headquarters had correctly guessed that the next operation after Okinawa would be Kyushu and was making every effort to bolster its defenses there. General Marshall reported on July 24 that there were "approximately 500,000 troops in Kyushu" and that more were on the way. ULTRA identified new units arriving almost daily. MacArthur's G-2 reported on July 29 that 44 this threatening development, if not checked, may grow to a point where we attack on a ratio of one (1) to one (1) which is not the recipe for victory." By the time the first atomic bomb fell, ULTRA indicated that there were 560,000 troops in southern Kyushu (the actual figure was closer to 900,000), and projections for November 1 placed the number at 680,000. A report, for medical purposes, of July 31 estimated that total battle and non-battle casualties might run as high as 394,859 for the Kyushu operation alone. This figure did not include those men expected to be killed outright, for obviously they would require no medical attention. /../ The thirty-day casualty projection of 31,000 Marshall had given Truman at the June 18 strategy meeting had become meaningless. It had been based on the assumption that the Japanese had about 350,000 defenders in Kyushu and that naval and air interdiction would preclude significant reinforcement. But the Japanese buildup since that time meant that the defenders would have nearly twice the number of troops available by "X-day" than earlier assumed. The assertion that apprehensions about casualties are insufficient to explain Truman's use of the bombs, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.

/../

Some historians have argued that while the first bomb might have been required to achieve Japanese surrender, dropping the second constituted a needless barbarism. The record shows otherwise. American officials believed more than one bomb would be necessary because they assumed Japanese hard-liners would minimize the first explosion or attempt to explain it away as some sort of natural catastrophe, precisely what they did. The Japanese minister of war, for instance, at first refused even to admit that the Hiroshima bomb was atomic.

/../

Some writers have argued that the cumulative effects of battlefield defeats, conventional bombing, and naval blockade already had defeated Japan. Even without extending assurances about the emperor, all the United States had to do was wait. /../ What often goes unremarked is that when the bombs were dropped, fighting was still going on in the Philippines, China, and elsewhere. Every day that the war continued thousands of prisoners of war had to live and die in abysmal conditions, and there were rumors that the Japanese intended to slaughter them if the homeland was invaded. Truman was Commander in Chief of the American armed forces, and he had a duty to the men under his command not shared by those sitting in moral judgment decades later. Available evidence points to the conclusion that he acted for the reason he said he did: to end a bloody war that would have become far bloodier had invasion proved necessary.

The last paragraph especially carries two very important points. Firstly, the war was not taking a break while American decision-makers smoked cigars and contemplated high moral issues; there were thousands of civilians and soldiers dying every day throughout several countries, and there was no end in sight. If you go strictly by the death count, then, even with hindsight the bombings could have been well justifiable - we cannot know. Secondly, hindsight and righteous outrage are our luxuries. It's easy to trace hidden motives decades later, but they are in fact unnecessary to explain how the decision could have been reached with the knowledge at the time. Questioning the latter-day moral indignation over the bombings should not be met as applause for the incineration of women and children.
 
I think the reason....was mostly revenge, and desire to test a weapon in combat too.

Revenge by politicians and army top, and desire to test it for real from army top.

You know, they dared to strike U.S. - in Pearl harbor....what a shock....what fear...what hate..

But the main reason why that was a simple war atrocity is that they dropped it on civilians, not on some military base.

there was no reason why it really had to be dropped on civilians.

Except revenge. And hate.

It would produced the same effect if it erased military installations or just a part of country.
 
About the '1 milion death count'

I really think a milion casualties are very unlikely for the US Army, but if the Red Army (hypothetically) invaded, it would be extreme. In the Red Army, a standard tactical situation with let's say, a machine gun mounted 100 meters away, which is flanked by forest starting near you, resulted in great casualties, as officers usually ordered a fully-fledged charge on the positions, with the enemy MG moving down countless Red Armists. Only then they'd THINK and order a sneak attack through the forest...

As for the bombing, a question bugged me, why did they choose two populated cities instead of a deserted military proving ground and THEN demand surrender?
 
Terror bombing. Of course, if terror bombing was the only reason, then they could have just firebombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki like they did Tokyo, but they were also key factors in the Japanese war effort. Hiroshima for instance, was one of the biggest ship manufacturors on the Home Islands. It was also the headquarters for Japanese defense in the region.

Picking out a purely military target is difficult to do on an island as crowded as Japan, because people are simply all over the place. No matter where you drop the bomb there's going to be a high civilian death toll.

I suppose they could have dropped a bomb on Truk, but that would have taken awhile for news to reach the mainland, and policy makers wouldn't have had first-hand accounts.
 
Yes, there were realy military geniuses around in those days now, werent they.

And im afraid, it was dropped on civilians to simply- make "them" suffer, as it was in Dresden. Revenge without realy knowing what are they doing.
 
That one million figure comes not just from the invasion of mainland Japan, but all of those little islands between Japan and Australia that had to be cleared out as well.
 
Sina said:
Yes, there were realy military geniuses around in those days now, werent they.

And im afraid, it was dropped on civilians to simply- make "them" suffer, as it was in Dresden. Revenge without realy knowing what are they doing.

Yeah the allies started WW2 just to torment the peace loving people of Germany and Japan :roll:

You may not know but there were more things in WW2 than just Dresden and the A-bombs and , not to make a to big of a point of it, but the agresors in that war came from those cites. You live by the sowrd and die by it.
 
Yes there were, uncountable atrocities commited by many degenerated Germans (no, I dont say that Germans as a whole are degenerated, but those that commited war crimes were), such as Auschwitz, Birkeneau, Dachau and many others (the concentration camps), quelling the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto, quelling the Warsaw uprising, killing off most Jews in Poland, executing Poles etc., and that's Poland only.

The point is, while those crimes were commited in the name of Nazi ideology, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden etc. were exterminated by military order, and as such people responsible for it have joined the ranks of Nazi war criminals, as mass murderers themselves. Why didnt they stood trial? Simple - history is written by the winners.

Atomic bombs caused suffering that could've been avoided. Period.
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
About the '1 milion death count'

I really think a milion casualties are very unlikely for the US Army, but if the Red Army (hypothetically) invaded, it would be extreme. In the Red Army, a standard tactical situation with let's say, a machine gun mounted 100 meters away, which is flanked by forest starting near you, resulted in great casualties, as officers usually ordered a fully-fledged charge on the positions, with the enemy MG moving down countless Red Armists. Only then they'd THINK and order a sneak attack through the forest...

Invasions are never a simple matter. Even tough the US marines were experinced in naval invasions the attack on Okinawa was not one would call light on casualties. Even a very broad reading on the Japanise military/civilan mind set would show that an invasion on the Japanise home lend would have made Normandy look like a walk in the park. The prep work for the invasion alone would have killed more civilans than the 2 bombs.




As for the bombing, a question bugged me, why did they choose two populated cities instead of a deserted military proving ground and THEN demand surrender

If the fire bombings on Tokio didin't impress them how would using the weapon in a deserted are have the desired efect? Also there were only very limited number of them on hand not like they could just sumon A-bombs out of their arses or sume such.
 
istec said:
Sina said:
Yes, there were realy military geniuses around in those days now, werent they.

And im afraid, it was dropped on civilians to simply- make "them" suffer, as it was in Dresden. Revenge without realy knowing what are they doing.

Yeah the allies started WW2 just to torment the peace loving people of Germany and Japan :roll:

You may not know but there were more things in WW2 than just Dresden and the A-bombs and , not to make a to big of a point of it, but the agresors in that war came from those cites. You live by the sowrd and die by it.

Yes i know.

You misunderstood me.

-edit- horribly -end edit-
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
Yes there were, uncountable atrocities commited by many degenerated Germans (no, I dont say that Germans as a whole are degenerated, but those that commited war crimes were), such as Auschwitz, Birkeneau, Dachau and many others (the concentration camps), quelling the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto, quelling the Warsaw uprising, killing off most Jews in Poland, executing Poles etc., and that's Poland only.

The point is, while those crimes were commited in the name of Nazi ideology, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden etc. were exterminated by military order, and as such people responsible for it have joined the ranks of Nazi war criminals, as mass murderers themselves. Why didnt they stood trial? Simple - history is written by the winners.

Atomic bombs caused suffering that could've been avoided. Period.

Moral relativism at its best. I canot know the motivations of the ones that orderd the bombings on the Axis cities. But to compare their actions to waht the Germans and Japanise did from 36 to 45 is bewond stupid.

Tough i would like to know, how would you stop the agresion whit out using overwhelming agresion?
 
Back
Top