64 years ago the big boom

[pantherrob82]

That's interesting, Gil. I was just thinking the same thing. We had been using napalm for quite a while city blocks were burning, people were dying. Japan didn't care.

[houndawg]

The manhattan project cost over a billion dollars in 1940's money. We were sure as hell going to use it.

It's a shame that Germany and all the vile and despicible hun bastards didn't get the same treatment.

No one has brought up this point. Would we have dropped the bomb on the Nazi scum? Or was it easier to drop it on an inferior race?

Was the bomb ready to go in time for Germany?

[BlueHen86]

Interesting facts Gil, but they have no bearing on whether the A-Bomb was necessary to end or significantly shorten the war.

The number of people the Japanese were killing and would kill if the bomb(s) were not dropped has no bearring?

Okay

You should have just said that in the first place, instead of a wordy post that compared the Japanese to the Nazi's.

[griz37]

Did nuking Japan save even one American life? If so it was worth doing. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan all would be on my list.

[native]

Interesting facts Gil, but they have no bearing on whether the A-Bomb was necessary to end or significantly shorten the war.

The number of people the Japanese were killing and would kill if the bomb(s) were not dropped has no bearring?

Okay

NOT Okay, Gil. Your original point stands. Dead bodies and potential dead bodies are critically important factors to consider when making decisions about life and death, war and peace.

The fundamental problem with peacenicks is that they are often incapable of counting bodies.

[BlueHen86]

The number of people the Japanese were killing and would kill if the bomb(s) were not dropped has no bearring?

Okay

NOT Okay, Gil. Your original point stands. Dead bodies and potential dead bodies are critically important factors to consider when making decisions about life and death, war and peace.

The fundamental problem with peacenicks is that they are often incapable of counting bodies.

The primary reason for dropping the bomb in the first place was to save lives. As far as that goes, Gil didn't say anything new. His post got derailed when he brought in a comparison of the Japanese and the Nazi's. To much obfuscation. I prefer to eschew obfuscation when ever possible.

[AshevilleApp]

The bombs were dropped after 6 months of fire-bombing dozens of other cities, probably killing close to the same number of people, approx 220,000 people. The Japanese didn't budge after the six months, what good would another 6 months or longer of bombing have done?

The Japanese were making peace overtures well in advance of the atomic bomb drops. They balked at the term "unconditional surrender" fearing that it would cause the removal of the emperor. What they did offer was essentially what the terms of the surrender became. We left the emperor in place as a figure of authority.

What Citdog stated was true. There was no way that we weren't going to use the bombs after all the effort to develop them. And I expect that they had some sort of deterrent effect on expansionist plans from our soon to be ex-allies in the war.

[dbackjon]

The bombs were dropped after 6 months of fire-bombing dozens of other cities, probably killing close to the same number of people, approx 220,000 people. The Japanese didn't budge after the six months, what good would another 6 months or longer of bombing have done?

The Japanese were making peace overtures well in advance of the atomic bomb drops. They balked at the term "unconditional surrender" fearing that it would cause the removal of the emperor. What they did offer was essentially what the terms of the surrender became. We left the emperor in place as a figure of authority.

Certain FACTIONS in the Japanese Government had made peace overtures, and in addition to not being willing to remove the emperor, this "peace" would have left Japan militarized and in occupation of some conquered territory. In other words, unacceptable to the United States. Peace with Japan pre-bomb is a fantasy concocted AFTER the war.

The fact is, Japan had been pulling troops back to the main islands, and had 1.5 million REGULAR army troops, as well as 3 million reserves. In addition, civilians, including women and children, were being drilled in suicidal missions.

[BlueHen86]

The bombs were dropped after 6 months of fire-bombing dozens of other cities, probably killing close to the same number of people, approx 220,000 people. The Japanese didn't budge after the six months, what good would another 6 months or longer of bombing have done?

The Japanese were making peace overtures well in advance of the atomic bomb drops. They balked at the term "unconditional surrender" fearing that it would cause the removal of the emperor. What they did offer was essentially what the terms of the surrender became. We left the emperor in place as a figure of authority.

What Citdog stated was true. There was no way that we weren't going to use the bombs after all the effort to develop them. And I expect that they had some sort of deterrent effect on expansionist plans from our soon to be ex-allies in the war.

That is another good point. In April of 1941 the U.S.S.R. signed a non aggression pact with Japan. They broke this pact in the summer of 1945 and were preparing for a full attack on Japan, even though the U.S. was on the verge of winning without their help.

The sooner the U.S. could end the war, the less Japanese territory the U.S. would have to cede to the U.S.S.R. in a post war settlement.

[AshevilleApp]

The Japanese were making peace overtures well in advance of the atomic bomb drops. They balked at the term "unconditional surrender" fearing that it would cause the removal of the emperor. What they did offer was essentially what the terms of the surrender became. We left the emperor in place as a figure of authority.

Certain FACTIONS in the Japanese Government had made peace overtures, and in addition to not being willing to remove the emperor, this "peace" would have left Japan militarized and in occupation of some conquered territory. In other words, unacceptable to the United States. Peace with Japan pre-bomb is a fantasy concocted AFTER the war.

The fact is, Japan had been pulling troops back to the main islands, and had 1.5 million REGULAR army troops, as well as 3 million reserves. In addition, civilians, including women and children, were being drilled in suicidal missions.

This following information was admittedly taken from the internet. However, I have read the same thing in other books.

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

* Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
* Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
* Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
* Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
* Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
* Surrender of designated war criminals.

Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

[Gil Dobie]

The primary reason for dropping the bomb in the first place was to save lives. As far as that goes, Gil didn't say anything new. His post got derailed when he brought in a comparison of the Japanese and the Nazi's. To much obfuscation. I prefer to eschew obfuscation when ever possible.

I attempted to show the actual magnatude of Japanese brutality, 30 Million deaths and counting, compared to 220,000 death from 2 atomic blasts. Maybe I should have added that in the first statement, but I'm not withdrawing that stats.

[dbackjon]

And again, whether authetic or not, the ones that leaked that did not have the power in Japan. The Emperor supported the war until after Nagasaki. Only then did he agree to surrender. And, there was almost a military coup, but in the end, most of the military stayed loyal to the emperor.

[AshevilleApp]

And again, whether authetic or not, the ones that leaked that did not have the power in Japan. The Emperor supported the war until after Nagasaki. Only then did he agree to surrender. And, there was almost a military coup, but in the end, most of the military stayed loyal to the emperor.

From the same article.


On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."

By early July the US had intercepted messages from Togo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato, showing that the Emperor himself was taking a personal hand in the peace effort, and had directed that the Soviet Union be asked to help end the war. US officials also knew that the key obstacle to ending the war was American insistence on "unconditional surrender," a demand that precluded any negotiations. The Japanese were willing to accept nearly everything, except turning over their semi-divine Emperor. Heir of a 2,600-year-old dynasty, Hirohito was regarded by his people as a "living god" who personified the nation. (Until the August 15 radio broadcast of his surrender announcement, the Japanese people had never heard his voice.) Japanese particularly feared that the Americans would humiliate the Emperor, and even execute him as a war criminal.

On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that "it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay," the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him "to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity."

[dbackjon]

Different perspective here...

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... asion.aspx

[AshevilleApp]

Different perspective here...

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... asion.aspx

Good read. And certainly more of the traditional take on the situation. This is an issue that obviously will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.


Pretty much like any political or historic debate.

[JoltinJoe]

Why?

All reputible evidence shows that Japan would have fought to the death, including women and children. The bombs saved millions of American casulties and tend of millions of Japanese

I've followed another vein of thought on that, Jon, and I don't believe that would have happened. What you suggest is a common myth, my opinion only, that we Americans use to justifying all that killing. The fact is that, much like the Soviet Union in the 1980's, Japanese society had been collapsing for more than two years before the bombs. There was little or no will to fight among the people and industry. People were starving and dying, there was no fuel, and no reliable infrastructure, due to the fact that all resources were utilized for the war effort. Because it was a closed society dedicated to that emperor, the truth that the war had been going badly for the Japanese since early 1943 never reached the people. In the face of exhortations from their emperor and military leaders to sacrifice more, the people gave up. So did thousands of military personnel all over. And, because it was such a closed society (and a heavily guarded island nation), American intelligence could not get enough operatives into Japan to ferret out what was reality. All we had was Tokyo Rose and wild megaphoned data dump propaganda from hysterical Japanese military.

How do we know this? Lots of books have been written about the phenomenon since then. The best I've come across is called, Embracing Defeat: Japan In The Wake Of World War II, which chronicled the period from the war in China in the 1930's until the time the Americans finally left Japan in what, 1954, or something? The author interviewed hundreds of Japanese who lived through that period, from government officials and soldiers to simple moms and dads.

In sum, I think it would have been worth it to take the time to gain some more intelligence before doing what we did. Also, if you read deeply into the time around Truman's decision to go or no-go, there was considerable and heated debate about dropping those bombs in administration circles. The "tens of millions will die" contingent won.

One thing I'm troubled with, though, is the fact that, had we not dropped those bombs and exposed to the world the horrors of atomic warfare, someone else woulda dropped a much more powerful one at a later date, not knowing what they would unleash. Imagine a 1962 vintage bomb (100 times more powerful than Hiroshima) detonating as a result of the Cuban Missile dispute. We'd have much bigger problems now than we did.

All of what you say may well be true; however, do you think we made the right decision given the information we had available to us at the time? Because I don't know whether we had the time to "investigate further" and wait for better information. (1) Japan's leadership was brutal and authorized the slaughter of innumerable people in territories that it occupied (were we supposed to let this continue?); (2) Many of our leaders understood and believed that it would cost, at least, hundreds of thousands of American lives to decisively end Japanese hostilities; and (3) after the euphoria of V-E Day, by August 1945, America was again itself a war-weary nation (we didn't really have the stomach for another invasion like the one at Normandy).

Personally -- my dad was an 18-year-old who graduated from hig school in June 1945, enlisted in the Navy, and was in basic training in Chicago -- within weeks of being deployed to the South Pacific -- when the war ended. Many of us here today may never have existed if that bomb had not been dropped.

All in all, a very difficult moral question...