Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 75 years ago

[mkmel]

BBC News - Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 75th anniversary of atomic bombings
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-53648572

[Corky]

And to think that the "Black Lancaster" were in line to drop the bombs.

[gtclaret]

I went to Hiroshima nearly 2years ago, I visited Peace Park where the bomb landed, its horrific. One of the posters on here lives there

[evensteadiereddie]

I've been to both, absolutely fascinating - you're right about the Peace Park and its museum ; hard to accept that a single act could cause such devastation and suffering.

[karatekid]

Sadly, dropping the bombs was the only viable option. The allies would have lost a reported 50,000 men just on the initial invasion of mainland Japan then many hundreds of thousands on both sides as the battle moved inland and Japan fought to the last man standing.

[JohnMcGreal]

Sadly, dropping the bombs was the only viable option. The allies would have lost a reported 50,000 men just on the initial invasion of mainland Japan then many hundreds of thousands on both sides as the battle moved inland and Japan fought to the last man standing.

I don't think there were any circumstances at that time that called for nuclear bombs to be dropped on 2 major cities, murdering and maiming hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the effects of which would span decades.

I don't think it can be justified at all, and was done mainly to exhibit US power in a new, post-war world, particularly to the Soviet Union, the other major victor and military power of the war.

Truman should have been in the dock for war crimes. It was an atrocity.

[Vino blanco]

Estimations made for Operation Downfall (the invasion and capture of all the Japanese islands) against Japan's 2.3 million highly trained and well equipped regular troops on the homeland of Japan, plus millions of other militia, were given as US losses (fatalities and casualties) of 500,000 to 1 million troops in the initial waves, rising to a possible 1,5 million in a worst case scenario. There were also estimations of up to 5 million Japanese lives being lost, both military and civilian.
Given these horrendous estimations, Truman had no choice but to use the atomic bombs to bring about a Japanese surrender. It was a terrible decision to have to make, but Truman and the Americans did the right thing.

[Silkyskills1]

Truman always had a choice. Japan was very close to surrendering and fighting to the 'last man standing' has become a myth.

[Vino blanco]

That's fine silky, you stick to your 'myth" and I'll stick to my estimations.

[Firthy]

War is horrific full stop. What the Japs and allies did to each other was truly horrendous and I won't criticise anyone for a decision that had to be made. I'm just thankful that I'll never have to make that sort of decision.

[Rowls]

BBC News - Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 75th anniversary of atomic bombings
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-53648572

But critics have said that Japan was already on the brink of surrender.

Except they were given the option to surrender and they chose not to take it. They were told they would face complete destruction and they chose to ignore the warning and fight on.

The BBC article is written to deliberately provoke horror and sympathy and only a cold-hearted imbecile would not feel these emotions. It pays a desultory lip service to the reasons why the bombs were dropped and I find that unforgivable.

As a society, our repulsion at the prospect of nuclear war and the suffering of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has clouded our wider judgment of Japanese brutality and war crimes.

If we are not to repeat the mistakes of the past it is as imperative we understand why the bomb was dropped just as much as we appreciate how terrible it was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controver ... uni_Shrine

[Rowls]

Truman always had a choice. Japan was very close to surrendering and fighting to the 'last man standing' has become a myth.

Japan was fighting a vicious and barborous rear guard action and had ignored warnings to surrender.

Truman had a choice. Thank God nobody else has had to make that choice but I am grateful he made the correct decision.

[Stayingup]

I don't think there were any circumstances at that time that called for nuclear bombs to be dropped on 2 major cities, murdering and maiming hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the effects of which would span decades.

I don't think it can be justified at all, and was done mainly to exhibit US power in a new, post-war world, particularly to the Soviet Union, the other major victor and military power of the war.

Truman should have been in the dock for war crimes. It was an atrocity.

Well they shouldn't have attacked the USA. That was the big mistake.

[mdd2]

I don't think there were any circumstances at that time that called for nuclear bombs to be dropped on 2 major cities, murdering and maiming hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the effects of which would span decades.

I don't think it can be justified at all, and was done mainly to exhibit US power in a new, post-war world, particularly to the Soviet Union, the other major victor and military power of the war.

Truman should have been in the dock for war crimes. It was an atrocity.

I doubt that. Japan had three days to surrender after the first bomb and they even took their time surrendering after the second one.
The question to be asked is why didn't the Japanese respond to the call of July 26th at the Potsdam conference for unconditional surrender or face prompt and utter destruction. They had 11 days to capitulate and another three days after the first bomb. True the death toll of 125-250000 was awful but around half of that may have resulted from conventional war continuing not to mention the deaths of allied soldiers.USSR was not at war with Japan until after the Nagasaki bombing and I think still occupy Japanese islands they invaded in August 1945

[Erasmus]

The problem is that these atomic attacks were based on the idea that the slaughter of civilian populations is a legitimate means of waging war. We rightly condemn terrorists for murdering civilians in order to achieve their war aims, but the dropping of atomic bombs was based on the same principle. These were not military target, the slaughter of civilians was intentional. Are we to then accept that in certain situations of war, targeting civilians is legitimate?

[Rowls]

The problem is that these atomic attacks were based on the idea that the slaughter of civilian populations is a legitimate means of waging war. We rightly condemn terrorists for murdering civilians in order to achieve their war aims, but the dropping of atomic bombs was based on the same principle. These were not military target, the slaughter of civilians was intentional. Are we to then accept that in certain situations of war, targeting civilians is legitimate?

Undoubtedly both sides during the conflict deliberately targeted civillians however I genuinely don't think this was the case in the two nuclear bombs.

There is a subtle but very important and distinct difference in accepting that your actions will entail civilian deaths and deliberately targeting civilians.

We have lots of evidence and proof of why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bo ... of_targets

The cities were chosen because of their military significance. The size of the city and the relative minimal damage in situ were also contributing factors. Cultural, architectural and historical importance were used to remove Kyoto from the list of potential targets.

The cities were certainly not chosen to deliberately target civilians.

[Rowls]

The problem is that these atomic attacks were based on the idea that the slaughter of civilian populations is a legitimate means of waging war. We rightly condemn terrorists for murdering civilians in order to achieve their war aims, but the dropping of atomic bombs was based on the same principle. These were not military target, the slaughter of civilians was intentional. Are we to then accept that in certain situations of war, targeting civilians is legitimate?

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 [Kyoto] or the new [Tokyo]. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one.

[lancastrian]

I guess the majority on this board have never lived through five years of war with all its trials and tribulations such as shortage of food amongst other things.The Japanese were no angels themselves as it proved in the far east. They were given ample warning of what would happen but they chose to ignore the message and suffered the consequences.

[Erasmus]

So, Rowls, what percentage of those killed were military personnel? The speech you quoted sounds like pure cant, an attempt to justify what was otherwise unjustifiable. Truman and all those around him knew well enough that thousands would die and the overwhelming majority would be civilians as in fact was the case. What were those military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that could only be targeted by an atomic bomb?

[Stayingup]

I guess the majority on this board have never lived through five years of war with all its trials and tribulations such as shortage of food amongst other things.The Japanese were no angels themselves as it proved in the far east. They were given ample warning of what would happen but they chose to ignore the message and suffered the consequences.

No angels. You can say that again. The Rape of Nanking. They were appalling. Not to mention the Burma railway and other examples.

[JohnMcGreal]

Nobody on this thread has claimed or even implied that the Japanese were angels during that period.

[LeadBelly]

This thread was preceded (on 6th August) by another on this same subject, I think the original thread had a generally more pro-Truman response.

The Japanese military murdered an estimated 6 million mainland Asians during their campaigns (up to 300,000 civilian prisoners of war during the "Nanking massacre" alone). They also very badly mistreated/tortured captive military.

Attacked the USA without declaring war (Pearl Harbour) - against the convention at the time and proved themselves treacherous.

The Japanese military were NOT about to surrender in 1945 and wanted to fight to the last for every piece of Japan (as per kami kaze pilots and the lone jungle soldiers still being found in remote parts many years after 1945). Even after the two bombs, there was an attempted military coup (Kyujo incident) 14th August when hardline military tried to thwart the surrender and arrest The Emperor.

Invading Japan conventionally wouldve cost a huge number of allied soldier lives as well as Japanese military/civilian lives (probably 1,000,000 plus in total (eg 300,000 Japanese civilians had already been killed in conventional air-raids before any invasion had got underway)). The defence plan had something like 6,000 kamikaze pilots and 5,000 suicide boats ready to attack invaders.

The Japanese military had its own atomic bomb programmes. What would've happened if they had developed first?

The bombs inflicted terrible suffering to many civilians in the two cities but none of the estimates of deaths I've seen come anywhere close to the estimated number for continued conventional warfare.

Correct decision by Truman, even in retrospect.

[BennyD]

I don't think there were any circumstances at that time that called for nuclear bombs to be dropped on 2 major cities, murdering and maiming hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the effects of which would span decades.

I don't think it can be justified at all, and was done mainly to exhibit US power in a new, post-war world, particularly to the Soviet Union, the other major victor and military power of the war.

Truman should have been in the dock for war crimes. It was an atrocity.

Utter sh!te. The Japanese waged war with different standards to everyone else. The routinely killed POWs through hard work, starvation and executions. They created the Kamikazi, or suicide bombers. They would rather die than be taken prisoner and didn’t know when enough was enough. Even after the first bomb was dropped they were all for carrying on and it wasn’t until the second one was dropped that they decided to surrender. If America had invaded, and they would have had to in order to end the war, they would have flushed the lives of tens of thousands of US troops and after their losses in the European Theatre of Operations they couldn’t justify it to the American people, especially if there was an alternative. Only a rabid communist would support the notion that the Americans were merely flexing their muscles; they did what had to be done and no amount of revisionism can change the fact.

[Erasmus]

The Japanese were certainly an awful, brutal, warmongering fascist regime who had committed terrible atrocities and invading Japan would have been costly in many ways. But given those circumstances, is the deliberate killing of civilians justified? The morality of warfare, such as it is, and the various conventions, have always asserted that deliberate targeting of civilians is unacceptable. Are we then saying that in extreme circumstances it is legitimate to massacre civilians?

[karatekid]

The bombs took lives and saved lives at the same time. The Japanese should have surrendered when they were warned of what would happen. It is the Japanese regime that is to blame not Truman. They knew their people would suffer but they didn't have the honour to surrender to save them.

[BennyD]

The Japanese were certainly an awful, brutal, warmongering fascist regime who had committed terrible atrocities and invading Japan would have been costly in many ways. But given those circumstances, is the deliberate killing of civilians justified? The morality of warfare, such as it is, and the various conventions, have always asserted that deliberate targeting of civilians is unacceptable. Are we then saying that in extreme circumstances it is legitimate to massacre civilians?

Of course it is, war is war. A lot of those innocent civilians are underpinning the military by working in munitions, in agriculture, in infrastructure, in offices, in Government etc. Whilst the killing of children is abhorrent, it can be argued that those are the soldiers of the future and are, therefore, legitimate targets. Even the old folk in Germany were rounded up and pressed into service as the Volksturm. Whatever your opinion is regarding this is largely irrelevant, at the time total war was exactly that, total war. You can’t fight a regime like the Japanese or the Nazis by half assing it; by safeguarding civilians all you are doing is limiting your options available for going on the offensive, which will, inevitably, cost many more lives on your own side and maybe even victory.

[tarkys_ears]

So, Rowls, what percentage of those killed were military personnel? The speech you quoted sounds like pure cant, an attempt to justify what was otherwise unjustifiable. Truman and all those around him knew well enough that thousands would die and the overwhelming majority would be civilians as in fact was the case. What were those military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that could only be targeted by an atomic bomb?

I think we've found Turtles new posting name

[evensteadiereddie]

[BennyD]

So, Rowls, what percentage of those killed were military personnel? The speech you quoted sounds like pure cant, an attempt to justify what was otherwise unjustifiable. Truman and all those around him knew well enough that thousands would die and the overwhelming majority would be civilians as in fact was the case. What were those military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that could only be targeted by an atomic bomb?

IMO, it would have been entirely justifiable to have dropped the first one on Kyoto and the second one on Tokyo. That way they would have decapitated the military and potentially ended the war there and then. They chose not to do so in order to spare many civilian lives, but they did not reasonably expect the Japanese to carry on fighting. The dropping of the second bomb can therefore, be laid at the feet of the Japanese military and political classes who made it necessary. Whichever City was chosen would have suffered many civilian casualties, but that is the nature of war.

[evensteadiereddie]

Kyoto was spared because of its cultural importance, wasn't it ?
And it's said Nagasaki wasn't because, as bad luck would have it, the thick clouds parted and the US bomber crew decided to drop the second bomb there and then rather than return to base having failed to find the original target.

[Erasmus]

I just think it is a big leap to say that in certain circumstances targeting civilians is a justifiable means of waging war. Of course, where military targets are located close to civilian areas, non-combatants will be killed. That is one thing, but to drop atom bombs with the deliberate intention of killing civilians is something rather different. Perhaps it is acceptable in certain circumstances, but an honest discussion is needed without trying to pretend these were military targets and civilian casualties were just an unfortunate and unwanted side effect.

[bfcjg]

They could have bombed an unoccupied area or island to warn them of the potential to be anialated if they didn't surrender.

[dsr]

Kyoto was spared because of its cultural importance, wasn't it ?
And it's said Nagasaki wasn't because, as bad luck would have it, the thick clouds parted and the US bomber crew decided to drop the second bomb there and then rather than return to base having failed to find the original target.

I doubt that the pilot was given authority to drop their last (I believe) atom bomb at random subject to whim. His orders would have been very specific, surely.

[Rowls]

I doubt that the pilot was given authority to drop their last (I believe) atom bomb at random subject to whim. His orders would have been very specific, surely.

There is a good degree of truth to this story. Kokura was the primary target, Nagasaki was a secondary target in the event of cloud cover.

The story of cloud cover has become famous but a fuller version of events available here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bo ... f_Nagasaki

[BennyD]

I just think it is a big leap to say that in certain circumstances targeting civilians is a justifiable means of waging war. Of course, where military targets are located close to civilian areas, non-combatants will be killed. That is one thing, but to drop atom bombs with the deliberate intention of killing civilians is something rather different. Perhaps it is acceptable in certain circumstances, but an honest discussion is needed without trying to pretend these were military targets and civilian casualties were just an unfortunate and unwanted side effect.

Why is an ‘honest’ discussion needed? What will it change? The fact no others have ever been used as a weapon shows that the lesson was learned. Revisionism is not the way forward; they were dropped, people were killed, the war ended now move on. Sure, remember the victims, and ALL of the victims of wars around the world and try and make sure such wars don’t happen ever again. Rehashing the reasons why and wherefore is pointless as most of those that made the decisions died many years ago.

[lancastrian]

Posters on here dicussing this as though it happened recently. It was in 1945 after five long years of wartime conditions People just wanted the war to end and a return to normality and if, dropping two atomic bombs, ended the war then so be it. Most of you cannot inagine what it was like. We have just had three months of lochdown this was a picnic in the park compared to what happened between 1939 and 1945. Just to highlight one aspect I was seven or eight years of age before I saw, let alone tasted, a banana

[karatekid]

They could have bombed an unoccupied area or island to warn them of the potential to be anialated if they didn't surrender.

They had been warned but chose to ignore it. Atomic weapons were being developed by a few countries at the time with the Manhattan project ,as were japan and germany who thankfully were far away from success, so they were fully aware of the devastation they could cause.

[Rowls]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53751773

A moving and thoughtful piece concerning Jack Ransom, a prisoner of war of the Japs, who weighed 6 stones when when he was freed.

A shame the BBC didn't publish this when they posted their articles from the Japanese perspective.

[italianclaret88]

This thread was preceded (on 6th August) by another on this same subject, I think the original thread had a generally more pro-Truman response.

The Japanese military murdered an estimated 6 million mainland Asians during their campaigns (up to 300,000 civilian prisoners of war during the "Nanking massacre" alone). They also very badly mistreated/tortured captive military.

Attacked the USA without declaring war (Pearl Harbour) - against the convention at the time and proved themselves treacherous.

The Japanese military were NOT about to surrender in 1945 and wanted to fight to the last for every piece of Japan (as per kami kaze pilots and the lone jungle soldiers still being found in remote parts many years after 1945). Even after the two bombs, there was an attempted military coup (Kyujo incident) 14th August when hardline military tried to thwart the surrender and arrest The Emperor.

Invading Japan conventionally wouldve cost a huge number of allied soldier lives as well as Japanese military/civilian lives (probably 1,000,000 plus in total (eg 300,000 Japanese civilians had already been killed in conventional air-raids before any invasion had got underway)). The defence plan had something like 6,000 kamikaze pilots and 5,000 suicide boats ready to attack invaders.

The Japanese military had its own atomic bomb programmes. What would've happened if they had developed first?

The bombs inflicted terrible suffering to many civilians in the two cities but none of the estimates of deaths I've seen come anywhere close to the estimated number for continued conventional warfare.

Correct decision by Truman, even in retrospect.

Totally agree...for “Erasmus” in war there are no rules so we can’t talk about if kill civilians is ok...obv is not ok but everything during war all decision and situations are completely out of mind....

[keith1879]

I just think it is a big leap to say that in certain circumstances targeting civilians is a justifiable means of waging war. Of course, where military targets are located close to civilian areas, non-combatants will be killed. That is one thing, but to drop atom bombs with the deliberate intention of killing civilians is something rather different. Perhaps it is acceptable in certain circumstances, but an honest discussion is needed without trying to pretend these were military targets and civilian casualties were just an unfortunate and unwanted side effect.

Agree wholeheartedly. To be honest i think that dropping the bombs was probably the right thing to do because it led to fewer civilian deaths than the alternatives but we cannot know for certain.

[keith1879]

Why is an ‘honest’ discussion needed? What will it change? The fact no others have ever been used as a weapon shows that the lesson was learned. Revisionism is not the way forward; they were dropped, people were killed, the war ended now move on. Sure, remember the victims, and ALL of the victims of wars around the world and try and make sure such wars don’t happen ever again. Rehashing the reasons why and wherefore is pointless as most of those that made the decisions died many years ago.

Perhaps an honest discussion will help to make sure that such wars will never happen again?

[Paul Waine]

Posters on here discussing this as though it happened recently. It was in 1945 after five long years of wartime conditions

Hi lancastrian, just a couple of my thoughts on the "five long years" timeline. From US perspective Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour took place in Dec-1941. US was only in the 4th year of their "second world war." More importantly, from Asian perspective, Japan invaded Manchuria, part of China in 1931 and extended into rest of China in 1937. So, we can say, at least 8 years and, for some, 14 years.

[lancastrian]

Hi lancastrian, just a couple of my thoughts on the "five long years" timeline. From US perspective Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour took place in Dec-1941. US was only in the 4th year of their "second world war." More importantly, from Asian perspective, Japan invaded Manchuria, part of China in 1931 and extended into rest of China in 1937. So, we can say, at least 8 years and, for some, 14 years.

You are probably correct with your timeline. I was just looking at it from a British prospective ie World War 2

[Lowbankclaret]

The Japanese were certainly an awful, brutal, warmongering fascist regime who had committed terrible atrocities and invading Japan would have been costly in many ways. But given those circumstances, is the deliberate killing of civilians justified? The morality of warfare, such as it is, and the various conventions, have always asserted that deliberate targeting of civilians is unacceptable. Are we then saying that in extreme circumstances it is legitimate to massacre civilians?

Yes