| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/8/2005 3:50:43 AM | I share your estimates and sentiments closely. But there are a couple of additional points I'd make as well.
Probably most important for Americans to finally learn, we cannot credit the bombs alone for Japan's final capitulation. The Japanese Supreme War Council did not decide to surrender after Hiroshima. They still couldn't agree to unconditional surrender after Nagasaki, and there are some historians who maintain that whatever you say about Hiroshima, the Nagasaki bomb meant nothing at all in terms of the decision-making outcome.
We almost always forget to recall in the calculus of events that the Russians entered the war between the two atomic-bomb explosions, and quickly overran Japan's forces in Manchuria. With the Cold War's approach, many have seen Stalin's decision to enter the war just as a opportunistic way to get some of the spoils of victory, since he knew the a-bombs were going to be dropped. But the Allies had been pleading with Stalin to enter the war in the Far East all along, and were pleased when he committed the USSR to do so within 6 months of the Allied triumph in Europe. After all, no one knew for certain if the bombs alone would bring the Japanese to finally surrender unconditionally.
The Soviet entry into the war was shattering to the position of those in Japan who hoped to continue the struggle against the Allied demand for unconditional surrender. For one thing, some of them had hoped to take the Emperor away from the dangers of Tokyo and continue resistance against the Allies from Manchuria. The Soviet sweep through that area foreclosed on that option within a couple of days. Another group, recognizing the need to surrender was pressing, had been planning to use the mediation of the USSR in negotiations with the US and UK to win more favorable surrender terms. Stalin's entry into the war made a farce of the "Soviet mediation" scheme.
Soviet Cold War historians used to claim that it was the Soviet entry into the war that finally brought Japan to surrender. We don't have to embrace that lopsided analysis, anymore than we should completely exclude the impact of the Soviet entry on Japanese decision-makers. | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/8/2005 4:14:31 AM | The projections for how many American lives would be lost if, instead of the bombs, the Americans invaded the Japanese island of Kyushu, grew steadily through the early summer of 1945. In part, the horrible losses on both sides during the Okinawa campaign were now added to the projections. And MacArthur's estimate to Truman of 250,000 US casualties in the Kyushu campaign was an understatement of intelligence estimates, because MacA desperately wanted approval for the invasion. By late July and early August, intelligence reports of a massive Japanese military buildup in Kyushu brought the projections of US casualties up to near 500,000.
Although Japan was clearly on its last legs by that time, her armed forces were still capable of inflicting terrible casualties on an invading American force. I do not think that unconditional surrender was at all a foregone conclusion without the bombs and the Soviet entry into the war. | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/8/2005 5:01:42 AM | | "Just as bad as they were?," you should pick your words more carfully.Hypothetical but; you should think about what things would be like today if the the U.S. and the Allied forces didn't win the war,in 1938 for Europe and in 1942 for us this was a "real" possibility in more ways then one, most people don't realize how close we came to loosing it,if just a few things had turned out different,I could go on with what could of been or would be but I'll just say this . If we had lost the war you wouldn't be here probably none of us. | |
|
| |
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/8/2005 6:11:34 AM | | Hmmm. If dropping an a-bomb on Hiroshima (which killed tens of thousands of peopl) saved the lives of 1 million people, is that a crime? Would it have been better to let the invasion begin, where many more people would have been killed (including many more civilian casualties)? | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/8/2005 6:28:17 AM | Good day to you all. First off I would have to say yes. Those two fellows(FatMan and Little Boy) pretty much took the fight out of Japoan. I have the utmost respect for different cultures(yes I am a french canadian). I have never beleived in violence, In my eyes, the greatest man alive was JOHN LENNON. Not only did he beleive in peace but practiced it as well. I pray that we in our lifetime and our kids lifetime that we never go through what our relatives have. The wars were all over greed right? I am only speculating because I wasnt there. We have a beautiful planet full of beautiful people and all I say is anyone up for another WoodStock? That event was world wide wasnt it? Will talk again  | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/8/2005 10:13:14 AM | coati et al
A conscious decision to terminate tens of thousands of civilian lives is a war crime, regardless of who does it and for what purpose.
While in principle I want to agree with you, such a decision during what was effectively Total War is legitimate, imo. One example: the Japanese had decentralized the operations of creating much of their war material, little mom and pop places making everything from rifles to cannon shells in their own homes, effectively making them legitimate targets. Essentially the entire society of Japan (and Germany) was involved in the war effort in some way, just as America and her allies.
This idea was the same as with Sherman, destroy everything and they will submit. When cultures are fighting for their very existence, when as Clausewitz says 'war is simply a continuation of politics by other means', then centers of gravity are legitimate targets. The Will of the people is a legitimate target, and hence the bombs were legitimate weapons.
This is the reality of modern warfare, however unfortunate it might be to those involved.
I pray to God that another will never be used against Mankind.
MajMike | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/8/2005 4:56:36 PM | I agree with all well written, probably the majority of world opinion (including the Japanese) is that the dropping the Atomic Bomb was the right thing to do, I will yield this however.
It would have been better to have it recorded in history that the allied forces aired on the side of caution and righteous judgment;that we could have at least we made an attempt to show the Japanese what there where up aginst, more then likely it would have come to nothing; but the people, the country ,who developed such a thing could say we tried. | |
|
| |
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/8/2005 6:35:33 PM |
Your ok man
That's not what the mole people in the white hospital gowns tell me...but then again, between the blue and the red pills they feed me, can't really say I'm coherant enough to discern much of anything...
That being said...I admire the person who can go to places like Auschwitz, Nanjing, Normandy, USS Arizona, and Hiroshima...and maintain an "rational/objective" view of the world...as for myself...it was catching a brief and horrid glance at the end of existence. There was nothing rational about it, and no amount of rationalizing can truely do justice to the lives lost.
But between the ideology of war--Geneva Convention--and the realities of war--Nagasaki, Dresden, London, Shanghai, Savannah, Somalia...etc--lay the balance which not only entertains the idea of survival for the person who makes the decisions, but all those s/he's responsible for...Ideally, there are non-combatants and combatants....ideally, there would be no wars...ideally, rational thinking should supercede fight or flight...ideally, all political ends lead to life, liberty and the pursue of happiness for those who supported such politics...ideally, we should never lose sight of those ideals... | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/8/2005 9:38:03 PM | Mike, as always, well-written... Props, but I have to disagree.
the Japanese had decentralized the operations of creating much of their war material, little mom and pop places making everything from rifles to cannon shells in their own homes, effectively making them legitimate targets.
Does this mean that the women staying at home working in the munitions factories in America were legitimate targets too? What about the folks working in non-weapons related but otherwise essential industries. (ex. The men and women sewing warm clothes for the troops, the farmers and cannery operators supplying the rations.)
Without these people, the war effort could not exist. Does that make them legitimate targets?
IMHO, the only real legitimate targets in combat should be the combatants. Bombing industry, while strategic, is going to result in collateral damage and innocent lives lost. However I can see the need for this to end the war.
Purposely targeting civilians, however, is a war crime.
Just to take a provocative tack, by your argument some could view the men and women of the World Trade Center as legitimate targets. Obviously none on this site would (myself included) because we did not consider the US to be at war. However, there are those out there in the world that do. And using your logic is how they legitimize what happened on September 11th.
I'm not saying it's right. (I disagree to the point of calling those who believe that to be crazy.) I'm just pointing out how that particular argument can be used in ways that we don't like... | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/8/2005 9:58:39 PM | | Honestly.... When one looks at how the war ended... Japan in complete collapse... Russia destroying their army in Asia and coming at them on one side while we'd defeated them on the other... I really don't think the bombs helped end the war. Japan had to be ready to surrender anyway and I think the intent was more to scare Russia than to end the war. | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 88 | |
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/9/2005 2:47:01 AM | It was my understanding that ONLY legitimate gov'ts of a country could declare a state of war between itself and another country. (This does NOT exclude civil uprisings in ONE country), therefore the comparison of Binny and the boys taking out the WTC and bombing so-called 'civilian targets' is a fallicious argument. Just what counrtry was Binny heading at the time?? IF, say, Hassan had done it, I could perhaps see the WTC as a legitimate target...but he didn't....some terrorist did who had no business attacking the US. That is like saying some super-rich guy can declare war on a country, finance it, and attempt to force said country to bend to his will. (Gee....isn't that exactly what Bin Laen did???...hmmm...egotistical little bugger, huh??) There is a difference between a "war" and terrorism.....
I see not one person has had the nards to give me a low number estimate of how many dead were acceptable to them, in lieu of using the bomb. It was the right decision, at the right time, and saved a lot of lives.
Ok...using that line of argument...Bataan Death March....if POW's broke rank to try and drink ditch water, they were shot. The Japanese didn't have enough fresh water for themselves, nor enough drugs, food, etc, as it was. They forced these people to march a long ways, many dying enroute....in the camps, hundreds died of typhoid. Did the Japanese actually "save lives" by killing those who would probably have caught typhoid and spread it to hundreds of others by killing them on the trail?? | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/9/2005 3:35:20 AM | Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Think it did. I think it sent a shockwave through every Country demonstrating what the U.S. is capable of in the event of Non-Settlement or Failure to 'Surrender of Terms'.
The same Fears that near the end of the 70's got the ball rolling towards Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaties and Disarmaments.
| |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/9/2005 5:24:44 AM |
Think it did.
There has been much evidence that Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped, but just wanted to protect the status of their emperor. This was discussed at length in a similar thread a few month back.
I think it sent a shockwave through every Country demonstrating what the U.S. is capable of in the event of Non-Settlement or Failure to 'Surrender of Terms'.
And that is supposed to be a good thing?
The same Fears that near the end of the 70's got the ball rolling towards Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaties and Disarmaments.
Unfortunately, these treaties and disarmaments have been struck a serious blow in the past few years. | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/9/2005 6:43:28 AM |
Does this mean that the women staying at home working in the munitions factories in America were legitimate targets too? What about the folks working in non-weapons related but otherwise essential industries. (ex. The men and women sewing warm clothes for the troops, the farmers and cannery operators supplying the rations.)
Yes. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/9/2005 10:34:44 AM |
Stop trolling.
That's an accusation.
You've made very clear both in this thread and in others how you would feel if American civilians were injured or killed through acts of terrorism or war. For you to simple turn around now and answer my question with a simple "Yes" goes against all this past history of yours.
For me to call you on it isn't trolling. | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/9/2005 11:51:23 AM | Germany was working on a nuclear program but was way behind. had they got one they whould have hit london not with bombers but with the V-2 rocket making it a balistic nuclear missile. every nation who faught against germany and japan whould tell you that the war needed to be ended as quick and decisive as possible.
many say japan was preparing to surrender but that does not cut it. when the united states demands immediate surrender it means somthing and in no way did japan surrender before or after the first bomb dropped. | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/9/2005 1:54:38 PM | Dropping the bomb was necessary to make sure it worked but not to end the war.
Japan is an island, all that was necessary was a blockade just as McArthur had done throughout the southpacific. He was the "American Ceasar | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/9/2005 2:48:38 PM | Blockade, just like you tried to blockade Cuba? Did that work?
I would say it would be OK to lose 500,000 US troops in lieu of dropping the A bomb. Who else would say that these numbers would be acceptable?
Likewise if the numbers of troops lost should exceed the above number in Afganistan and Iraq the bomb should be dropped. Collateral damage is what forces an enemy to stop making war upon you. Kill his wife and family, destroy his home and he will lose hope, become maddened and become an easier target for you to kill. War is the art of making death! Death observes no rules. In making war only complete ruthlessness is acceptable. Somalia taught this truth, Viet Nam taught this truth. Why haven't you learnt it? | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/9/2005 3:09:37 PM | | 500,000 would not be acceptable, imo. that would be a significant portion of total servicemen in our armed forces. I don't think any country would (outside Stalinist Russia, or perhaps the CHinese) would even consider that. | |
|
| Did the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki help end WW11??
Posted: 6/9/2005 3:17:35 PM | as i read through this thread, one thing becomes blindingly apparent (at least to me...)
the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki may or may not have saved soldiers' lives. but war is not about saving combatants - it's about victory at all costs to maintain an ideal. for the allies it was about saving democracy and their independence. in attaining victory, you expect casualties and justify numbers based on statistical analysis - sometimes flawed and sometimes accurate.
more importantly, what seems to have come from the discussion (which has been really quite interesting to read, btw) is the the fact that we maintain the idea of a code of conduct when it comes to war. trying to keep enemies to maintain a code of conduct like the geneva convention, while filled with good intentions, is like trying to say war is illegal and policing it.
war is a hateful business where the things that are allowed to be done would never ever be considered acceptable in a civilized society. to try and police the methods and conduct of war can't be done. there are some who might say they play by the rules but circumvent them surreptitiously...then there are those who break the rules outright. war mongers are war mongers who will not be punished unless they are the losers...then part of the spoils of the victors is the punish the vanquished. | |
|
Home
login 
