THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP discussion
ARCHIVED THREADS
>
What do you think of the decision to drop the Atomic bomb?
message 1:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
Jan 09, 2010 07:37PM
Some people think the Atomic bomb should not have been used. I think otherwise as does my brother. Please tell us your thoughts.
reply
|
flag
Had to be done. An invasion of the mainland would have produced far more casualites on both sides.
I agree on dropping the bomb. The invasion loss of life on both sides would have been enormous. As for the bomb being an atrocity...well they bought that from Nanking, the Death March, and the execution of all the civilian prisoners on Wake Island, plus hundreds of thousands of other war crimes.
I also agree with the decision to drop the bomb for all the same reasons above plus one more. The extra time to prepare and launch the invasion would have led to the death of many more POW's being held by the Japanese from starvation, torture & mistreatment. The early end of the war due to the bombs being dropped not only saved untold lives within the proposed invasion force, the civilians on the mainland but also it saved untold lives within the POW camps.
I completely agree with the use of the bomb. Truman used it because he thought the American people would have resented him if he had a way to end the war without sacrificing the lives of thousands of American troops and he didn't take the opportunity. It is sad that many people died from using them, but it saved the lives of countless more.
For those interested I read a very decent book covering this subject in 1986 titled "Miracle of Deliverance: The Case for the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" by Stephen Harper.Miracle of Deliverance: The Case for the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
I'm unsure about it. One, maybe but why two? I have seen a replica of the bomb at the museum in (New Mexico?) perhaps Alamagordo? I really need to check my records. Actually, the museum was really very interesting.
Betty wrote: "I'm unsure about it. One, maybe but why two? I have seen a replica of the bomb at the museum in (New Mexico?) perhaps Alamagordo? I really need to check my records. Actually, the museum was really ..."Hi Betty, from my understanding of the books that I have read the Japanese military and government didn't really think much of the first bomb and were prepared to continue the fight. Casualties were no worse than some of the firebombing raids by B-29s on Tokyo, they didn’t respond to the Allies demands to surrender so a second bomb was required. I might be wrong but I am sure others out there will correct my statement if so.
One of the main reasons the Japanese folded was the invasion of Manchuria by the Russians the day the first bomb was dropped (I believe). The Japanese troops buckled under the Russian onslaught. The bombs did weigh on the Japanese but not as much as the Russians.
Jack wrote: "One of the main reasons the Japanese folded was the invasion of Manchuria by the Russians the day the first bomb was dropped (I believe). The Japanese troops buckled under the Russian onslaught. ..."It certainly was a big consideration, especially since the Japanese where hoping for the Russians to mediate on their behalf. I think Max Hastings in his latest book "Retribution" covers this aspect in a bit more detail than most historical accounts.
by Max Hastings
Thanks Guys! I will check out Miracle of Deliverance: The Case for the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Retribution.
The best book, in my opinion, is Richard Frank's DOWNFALL (which Hastings cites. Eminently readable and based on recently declassified information (including diplomatic ingtercepts), it essentially makes hash out of much of the Revisionist viewpoints about dropping the bomb. It also makes it quite clear that the Japanese were counting on the Soviets to be "honest brokers" in trying to gain a peace treaty on their (Japanese) terms. (Keep in mind that the Japanese did not think like their Western counterparts did). This is what made the Soviert invasion of Manchuria so devastating, rather than any actual military consequences (becasue the japanese Kwantung Army was, at that point, a mere shell, anyway)
Frank writes very well.
I think the Americans pretty much had to drop the bomb. Not only did it force the Japanese to capitulate without a costly invasion, but by 1945 the Americans had invested so much in terms of material and industrial effort to produce nuclear weapons that there was a natural inertia tending toward their use. Truman would have had a difficult time explaining to the American public why he chose to accept hundreds of thousands of American casualties rather than use a weapon already in hand, especially one produced at such a high cost.It's also important to consider US long term strategic planning when considering the decision. Truman and many in the senior military brass were expecting a postwar showdown with the USSR. US military planning by 1945 would have included the use of atomic weapons in a European war with the USSR, and was predicated on the US being the sole nuclear armed country for many years. (This aspect didn't work out.) In order for nuclear weapons to work as an effective military deterrent it was necessary to demonstrate their effects- and American willingness to use them.
The fact that no country has used nuclear weapons on another since 1945 clearly illustrates just how effective that demonstration was, even if it seems rather cold-blooded.
And don't forget the very important point that so many overlook: that the dropping of the bombs very likely prevented the loss of millions of Japanese lives! We would have undoubtedly continued our fire bombing of Japanese cities plus the military government of Japan had the populace whipped up into a frenzy of suicidal dedication. School girls were being trained to attack soldiers with bamboo sticks.
'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Betty wrote: "I'm unsure about it. One, maybe but why two? I have seen a replica of the bomb at the museum in (New Mexico?) perhaps Alamagordo? I really need to check my records. Actually, the muse..."Aussie Rick, I'm sure you are right, I do recall that the Japanese were still not ready to surrender. Thanks.
I'm sure everyone agrees that war stinks. But not learning the history or histories and the whys & wherefors, or simply ignoring they ever occurred is to negate the very people who fought for what they believed to be right or in some cases what they were told was right. My husband collects mostly Canadian war memorabilia WWI & WWII, mostly gas masks, helmets and army vehicles. He sets up a display every Remembrance day as an educational display in town, and talks to many schools. This is the first year he has also taken a truck under restoration. He called his earlier talks "Protection from Weapons of Mass Destruction". The reason for that is he couldn't bring it into the schoolroom as a gas mask display, believe it or not. Every year there are some people that don't understand why he does this. It is history, not glorifying war. Veteran's Affairs in Canada send him a bunch of handouts especially geared to children on animals in the war and he has horse gas masks as well as photos of dog masks, pigeon gas carriers, goat and camel. He also has a fair sized collection of children's gas masks right down to babies, and these are international rather than just Canadian. Some can be seen on his webpage Gas Masks, Uniforms, and Vehicles of the World Wars if anyone is interested.
Betty wrote: "I'm sure everyone agrees that war stinks. But not learning the history or histories and the whys & wherefors, or simply ignoring they ever occurred is to negate the very people who fought for what ..."Hi Betty,
I enjoyed your husband's web page and I'm sure many people appreciate his efforts in trying to educate a new generation about the horrors of armed conflict.
'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Betty wrote: "I'm sure everyone agrees that war stinks. But not learning the history or histories and the whys & wherefors, or simply ignoring they ever occurred is to negate the very people who fo..."Thank you on his behalf, I just issued him an invitation to join GoodReads and specifically the World War 2 buffs, as he reads a lot of wartime books.
Betty wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Betty wrote: "I'm sure everyone agrees that war stinks. But not learning the history or histories and the whys & wherefors, or simply ignoring they ever occurred is to negate ..."Lets hope he takes up your invitation, I'm sure he would have a lot of fun here discussion good books and pivotal moments in history.
Interesting that the debate thus far seems mostly atomic bomb vs invasion.The question is whether the Japanese would've surrendered without either. I haven't read "Downfall" yet, but from what I have otherwise seen over the years it seems like the Soviet attack (the loss of them as peace brokers as well as fear of the Soviets themselves) coupled with a clear statement by the US that they would allow the Emperor to remain on the throne would've prompted a surrender by the Emperor and the non-military members of the Japanese gov't as in our history.
from what I have otherwise seen over the years it seems like the Soviet attack (the loss of them as peace brokers as well as fear of the Soviets themselves) coupled with a clear statement by the US that they would allow the Emperor to remain on the throne would've prompted a surrender by the Emperor and the non-military members of the Japanese gov't as in our historyIt's been awhile but what Frank makes clear, from intercepted diplomatic messages, is that the Japanese would not have surrendered based on just this. The Japanese knew that victory, in the conventional military sense (as we know it in the West) was not possible. But the Japanese didn't measure "victory" in the sense that the US did.
While the japanese knew that they probably couldn't keep the Allies out of Japan, proper, what they could do was make it incredibly expensive; so expensive, in fact, that the Allies would think twice about invading Honshu (the main Japanese island). The best estimate by intelligence analysts was that the Allies would have incurred a minimum of 500,000 casualties (among combatants) and more like a million. (If you read some of the preparations the Japanese had made, this would not be anunreasonable guess) In point of fact, although plans had been made for an invasion, nobody really wanted to make it.
At that point, had they inflicted 500,000 - one million casualties on the invaders, that would have qualified, in their eyes, as a sufficient victory because they effectively could have said, give us an honorable peace or we'll inflict three million casualties (insert your own number, here). As it happens, they were planning on using the Soviets as their information conduit.
Once the atomic bombs were dropped, the Japanese realized that the Allies no longer had to invade because they could effectively turn the entire homeland into a pyre without expendin many lives at all. In other words, even victory as they defined it, was no longer possible. As Frank makes clear, the Japanese had started the procedure to sue for peace even before the Soviets invaded Manchuria. What that did was remove their conduit to the West and the chance of employing an honest broker.
I think one should draw a distinction between the Japanese people who knew the war was lost and wanted it over and their leaders. I get the impression that Japan was a police state and the leaders were in a position that to even suggest surrender could lead to assination. Their policies had created a cadre of fanatics that were willing to kill the leaders who had created them if the policy changed.
I have this debate with a friend CONSTANTLY. My view is simple. Had the bombs not been dropped at least as many, if not more, people would have been killed by an extensive saturation bombing campaign that would have only sped up and certainly devestated both Hiroshima and Nagasaki in due time. It's not to say that it "saved lives" dropping them or anything ridiculous like that; just to say that the killing was going to continue from the skies no matter what.
Reviving this topic from 2 years ago since I am in a college history class where I will be writing a 15 page term paper on this topic.Last year I read Richard Frank's Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (which is excellent).
Further books I have on my to read list for this topic:
I'm particularly curious about that last one.
Besides the books listed in this post, are there any other "must read" books on this topic?
If you've read more than one book on this subject, which one do you think makes the best argument?
Truman's decision was inevitable. If you believe you have a superior weapon, you use it. "Morality" has nothing to do with it. In fact, they weren't even sure the bombs would work. Fears of American casualties given the tenacious defense of Pacific Islands made anything that *might* shorten the war look benevolent. Some have suggested that the bombs saved Japanese lives by ending the war sooner and preventing horrendous Japanese losses from famine and carpet bombing. Unfortunately, by 1945 incendiary raids on both Japanese and German (Dresden and Hamburg spring to mind) with the idea of devastating the civilian population for morale destruction was a generally accepted policy. (See Curtis LeMay biographies and Bomber Command by Max Hastings.) The Tokyo fire bombing of March 1945 killed more than 100,000 people (considered a low estimate), more than immediate losses from the atomic bombs, and leveled 16 sq. miles. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been chosen as targets because they were virtually the only cities left after massive B-29 incendiary raids. Some books worth looking at include: Among the Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan, A Torch to the Enemy and Richard Rhodes The Making of the Atomic Bomb.
I'm reading
by John Hersey about the moment of the detonation and the after affects on the city and the people. Interesting perspective of the people who went through the event. While devastating to the citizens and city of Hiroshima, I believe it was a necessary event that without which the war may not have ended as soon as it did. I feel it is good to understand both sides of the bombing to know the climate of the war at the time and why the Allies dropped the bomb, as well as to know the affects of this bombing on people so it hopefully will never have to be used again.
It was through this and the bombing at Nagasaki that the Emperor of Japan urged his people at the time to shift their focus to one of peace.
message 27:
by
Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces
(last edited Jan 30, 2012 12:59PM)
(new)
My view is that the bombs had to be dropped to end the war. It certainly ensured many British and Commonwealth (and of course US) troops en-route or slated for deployment to theatre never needed to go into action.The loss of life and the catastrophic injuries and illnesses are a dreadful price to pay and so I look from that event nearly 70 years ago to today's Japan: a free democratic nation that is now a leader in world commerce and a G8 nation.
I would recommend this as an excellent account of the race to develop the bomb that has led to this thread:
by Jim Baggott
One factor frequently overlooked in discussions of this type is the fate of hundreds of thousands of Allied POWs held by the Japanese. The Japanese High Command had already issued an order that all POWs were to be executed upon invasion of any of the home islands. The original order is in the U.S. National Archives. An example of what would probably have happened occurred on Palawan Island in the Phillipines in 1944. Upon sighting U.S. warships, the island commander had over a hundred POWs herded into an underground bunker, poured in aviation gasoline, and burned them alive. No Allied POW would have disagreed with dropping the Bomb.Warren Bell
A very valid point Warren. One book that I read many years ago that I think covers this subject was; "Miracle of Deliverance" by Stephen Harper.
Miracle Of Deliverance: The Case For The Bombing Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki (no cover) by Stephen Harper
I don't think there is any doubt that dropping the bomb saved millions of lives. Not only US lives but lives around the world. To see the horror of a nuclear bomb has made, I'm sure, leaders since that time think twice, three and four times before using that power. If just the threat of the bomb was used and we didn't really see the human cost, I believe even more powerful bombs would have been used since then at a much higher cost.
Just met an old Marine last night. Jim was a pleasure to talk with and shared some of his
stories. This one fits right in with this thread:
His battalion was designed to be the first wave of landings. They were then assigned to different Marine or Army Divisions.
He landed on the Marshalls, Guam and Okinawa.
His Mother wouldn't let him enlist at 17, so he figures that saved him from being at Tarawa.
After Okinawa the unit went to Saipan to prepare for the next mission. They had a meeting to be briefed for the invasion of Japan. This was odd because their briefings always took place on the
ship just before a landing.
Also odd was that it wasn't their officers doing the talking, there were all kinds of gold stars and bars and officials at this event. They were told they were going to land on the southern island of Japan and that their unit was going to be in the first wave and that - they were expendable. With the first 3 waves 150,000 Allied casualties were expected.
With that we joked about 'What were they trying to do
cheer you up?'
I've heard it repeatedly mentioned that the US military had 500,000 purple hearts made in preparation for the invasion of Japan. The military still has 100,000+ purple hearts left today.Problem is neither Frank or Hastings mentions this in their books about the end of the war and Frank cites quite a range of different casualty projects for the invasion.
A quick internet search turns up lots of references to this trivia, but its all blogs and message boards and unofficial WW2 history sites - nothing cited.
Anyone know if the "500k Purple Hearts" thing is fact or fiction? If you say fact and can cite a reliable source, I greatly appreciate it!
I think anybody that has studied the issue in any depth (witness the people on this thread) agree that dropping the bomb was the right decision--both times. I won't repeat the many valid reasons given here. But I think it's interesting to speculate on the opposite question, a reality where this thread would be entitled "Why in hell didn't we drop the bomb?" I suspect Truman would have been vilified if people discovered that he had a method likely to end the war with far fewer casualties. And one thing is certain: If Japan had managed to develop the bomb, they would have used it without hesitation on any US city.
I have no doubt that if roles were reversed and the bomb had been dropped on a British or American city by the Germans or Japanese, we'd be going on and on about what an awfully heinous act it was. But since we did it to them, it's OK.
I have just finished reading
by Paul Ham which gave me a fresh view on this matter. Why the dropping of the bomb was a significant event it was not pivotal in the overall Allie victory. Japan was already a spent force with the conventional bombing campaign of the Allies already destroying a significant percentage of the Japanese major cities and Japans already starved of resource. It may have expedited their surrender but the writing was already on the wall.
Michael wrote: "I have just finished reading by Paul Ham which gave me a fresh view on this matter. Why the dropping of the bomb was a significant event it w..."Thanks for posting that cover, Michael. I'll have to get a copy of that one. I don't believe that the Japanese were capable of waging a serious war at the time the bombs were dropped. People talk about how many people would have died taking the island. Why take the island at all? If they are willing to retreat to the island as a defeated people, leave them there. I personally believe the bombs were more an act of vengeance than a viable strategic military maneuver.
Besides the home islands, the Japanese had something like a million soldiers in China plus many more outposts scattered around the East Indies and misc Pacific islands.Realistically, they were defeated. But after how Germany and Hitler played up the "we weren't really defeated in WW1" angle to gear up for WW2 the Allies weren't willing to let anyone off that easy.
Josh wrote: "Besides the home islands, the Japanese had something like a million soldiers in China plus many more outposts scattered around the East Indies and misc Pacific islands.Realistically, they were de..."
I know it's hard to feel sorry for them after the atrocities, but the majority of those we incinerated were guiltless. I know they had fair warning and the opportunity to surrender, but I can never agree with warring on children and non-combatant women. I read about one poor fellow who survived the bombing at Hiroshima and subsequently travelled to Nagasaki just in time to be bombed there as well. Talk about your bad luck!
The main factor contributing to Japan's surrender in the end was the Russians attack on them in China it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Russia was in Japan’s mind their last hope in brokering an honourable surrender. The land attack on the Japan mainland was never in my opinion a viable option the projected casualty rates by the US at the time was too high a price to pay. As for that poor unlucky man Jim he is mentioned in the Paul Ham's book, unlucky indeed.
Michael wrote: "The main factor contributing to Japan's surrender in the end was the Russians attack on them in China it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Russia was in Japan’s mind their last ..."You've sold me on this one. I'll be scouring the bookshops for it...NOT! Good ol' Amazon will have a copy for me. I love Amazon.
Jim wrote: "Michael wrote: "I have just finished reading by Paul Ham which gave me a fresh view on this matter. Why the dropping of the bomb was a signif..."while leaving them there was an option, it would probablly have resulted in far more deaths from starvation and exposure than the atomic bombings did. While I agree Japan was defeated before the A-bombs where dropped, the problem was convincing the Japanese of that. The bombs plus the Russian entry into the war finally gave them a reason to accept defeat and allow the peace process to start.
Patricrk wrote: "Jim wrote: "Michael wrote: "I have just finished reading by Paul Ham which gave me a fresh view on this matter. Why the dropping of the bomb ..."That's an interesting point of view, and one I hadn't considered before. It puts me in mind of the old Vietnam war rationale of having to bomb a village in order to save it. But you may have something here, although I personally might have tried an embargo first.
An interesting article on Foreign Policy's website today:The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan... Stalin Did
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles...
Jerome wrote: "An interesting article on Foreign Policy's website today:The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan... Stalin Did
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles...?..."
Technically I would say it was a combination of the two. Japan thought we had more Bombs and were worried about where the next target would be. They were also worried about the fact that the US was getting ready to invade, and they had a fairly good idea where that would be. With the Russians going on the offensive as well, It was a nightmare scenario in which they feared that they would not be able to exist after the war was over.
Interesting but......unconvincing. The comments after the article show this event still has the capability to stir opinion.
M-dawg wrote: "Some people think the Atomic bomb should not have been used. I think otherwise as does my brother. Please tell us your thoughts."The bomb should have been dropped earlier if possible. Unforunately, it was not.
I know the bomb was important to the finish of the war, but every time I look at pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I am saddened by the terrible destruction.It is always the innocent who suffer because of war.
Agreed, but governments have the responsibility to protect their citizens, under both Geneva and hague Conventions. The Japanese were given fair warning, and ignored it at their own peril.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unique only in the devastation caused by a single bomb. The fire raids that were being conducted were doing as much if not more damage to the cities of Japan. If the Atomic bomb dropping did anything to save lives by shortening the war than it was worth it.
Consider the loss of life on both sides if the war had drug on. Japan would have continued to be starved by the Naval blockade with the Carriers launching strikes inland and the Battleships ranging along the coast blasting away at anything remotely resembling a military target. The Air Force would have continued to pick targets down the line like a a game of whack-a-mole. With the Russians entering the war the Japanese that were still in Northern China weren't going to have any way to get home or to stay on the sidelines. The planned assault was thought to have enough casualties that the purple hearts that were struck in preparation weren't all used up until the Vietnam War.
Sometimes the best solution is the one that looks the worst in hindsight. It is easy to sit back 70 years after the fact and make judgements, however the truth is that the combination of things that were going on at the time was what finally caused the Japanese to surrender. While the Atomic Bombs probably aren't the reason for that surrender in and of themselves, they are a part of the piece of the puzzle that did end the war.
And set in motion something odd and unique in the future.
THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP
Books mentioned in this topic
Mission to Tokyo: The American Airmen Who Took the War to the Heart of Japan (other topics)The Rising Sun: The Decline & Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-45 (other topics)
A Torch to the Enemy: The Fire Raid on Tokyo (other topics)
Inferno: The Firebombing of Japan, March 9-August 15,1945 (other topics)
Whirlwind: The Air War Against Japan, 1942-1945 (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Paul Ham (other topics)Paul Ham (other topics)
Paul Ham (other topics)
Paul Ham (other topics)
Stephen Harper (other topics)
More...
