Hiroshima (2 Viewers)

[lancer]

If the Japanese were ready to surrender, then why didn't they? You could find a study that says just about anything. The Japanese were not quick to surrender in any situation during the war. They were fanatics. Often preferring death to surrender. It took both bombs to end the war. It was only when it was absolutely clear that there was no other choice that the Japanese surrendered. If they had to convince the "die hards" that was their problem.

The Bomb was the lesser of the evils available. I would think that invasion, preceded by months of LeMay's 20th AF's B-29's burning Japanese cities to the ground, would about guarantee the death of the Japanese civilization. The Japanese weren't going to surrender, regardless of what some after the war intelligence reports might say. The Japanese sowed the seeds of total war, and reaped the result. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

The Bomb was the lesser of the evils available. I would think that invasion, preceded by months of LeMay's 20th AF's B-29's burning Japanese cities to the ground, would about guarantee the death of the Japanese civilization. The Japanese weren't going to surrender, regardless of what some after the war intelligence reports might say. The Japanese sowed the seeds of total war, and reaped the result. -- Al

Since no negotiations or serious negotiations were undertaken, you really don’t know, do you? I’d be more inclined to trust our military intelligence. When a different way is available, it should have been given a chance.

In addition, you speculate that an invasion of Japan would have led to the end of Japanese civilization. Did the invasion of German lead to the end of German civilization?

 

[lancer]

Since no negotiations or serious negotiations were undertaken, you really don’t know, do you? I’d be more inclined to trust our military intelligence. When a different way is available, it should have been given a chance.

Brad, I do know that our military leaders in the PTO, such as Nimitz and MacArthur, who had access to all intelligence in regards to Japanese capabilities and probable intentions, were convinced that the Japanese were not ready to surrender and that invasion would be necessary. Nimitz was so disheartened by the casualty projections that he actually withdrew his support for the invasion as planned. The whole history of the war in the PTO highlighted the Japanese code of fighting to the death, no surrender. I believe, as I said earlier, that the A-bomb was necessary to end the war without what would have been a bloodbath of an invasion, thus saving millions of casualties on all sides. -- Al

 

[lancer]

Since no negotiations or serious negotiations were undertaken, you really don’t know, do you? I’d be more inclined to trust our military intelligence. When a different way is available, it should have been given a chance.

In addition, you speculate that an invasion of Japan would have led to the end of Japanese civilization. Did the invasion of German lead to the end of German civilization?

Sorry, didn't see the addenda until after I typed the response. No, German civilization was not ended. However, it is comparing apples to oranges when discussing the differences between the German surrender and what might have happened if an invasion of the main islands of Japan had proved necessary. Obviously, I have no way of knowing that Japanese civilization would have ended, but an invasion certainly would have left their homeland ravaged and the population decimated. I'm just glad for all concerned that no invasion took place. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

Brad, I do know that our military leaders in the PTO, such as Nimitz and MacArthur, who had access to all intelligence in regards to Japanese capabilities and probable intentions, were convinced that the Japanese were not ready to surrender and that invasion would be necessary. Nimitz was so disheartened by the casualty projections that he actually withdrew his support for the invasion as planned. The whole history of the war in the PTO highlighted the Japanese code of fighting to the death, no surrender. I believe, as I said earlier, that the A-bomb was necessary to end the war without what would have been a bloodbath of an invasion, thus saving millions of casualties on all sides. -- Al

My point is that a third approach was not attempted and that we blindly accept the concept that it was a binary approach: invasion or bomb. It’s entirely possible (and maybe likely) that it might have come to that. It has to be taken into account that since Truman was a new president and had not been into confidence by FDR, he was not in a position to challenge what the military wanted to do. Let’s face it, military thinking will always go for the quick easy solution but if the last 50 years have taught us anything, what our leaders tell us cannot be accepted at face value.

 

[lancer]

My point is that a third approach was not attempted and that we blindly accept the concept that it was a binary approach: invasion or bomb. It’s entirely possible (and maybe likely) that it might have come to that. It has to be taken into account that since Truman was a new president and had not been into confidence by FDR, he was not in a position to challenge what the military wanted to do. Let’s face it, military thinking will always go for the quick easy solution but if the last 50 years have taught us anything, what our leaders tell us cannot be accepted at face value.

Understood. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

Sorry, didn't see the addenda until after I typed the response. No, German civilization was not ended. However, it is comparing apples to oranges when discussing the differences between the German surrender and what might have happened if an invasion of the main islands of Japan had proved necessary. Obviously, I have no way of knowing that Japanese civilization would have ended, but an invasion certainly would have left their homeland ravaged and the population decimated. I'm just glad for all concerned that no invasion took place. -- Al

Al, the Russian invasion was no picnic and Germany managed to survive so I think it’s all speculative.

I was watching an HBO program last night, originally made in 2007, about the bombings and they made the point that 75% of the present Japanese population was born after 1945. When they asked some millennial looking people in Hiroshima about the significance of August 6, no one could answer. I know this has nothing to do with what we are talking about but I thought it revealing nonetheless.

 

[lancer]

Al, the Russian invasion was no picnic and Germany managed to survive so I think it’s all speculative.

I was watching an HBO program last night, originally made in 2007, about the bombings and they made the point that 75% of the present Japanese population was born after 1945. When they asked some millennial looking people in Hiroshima about the significance of August 6, no one could answer. I know this has nothing to do with what we are talking about but I thought it revealing nonetheless.

That is something I would like to see but I don't get HBO anymore. I did see several shows today on the Dawn of the Nuclear Age and a good show on the Enola Gay and Bock's Car with a lot of interviews with the actual crews, including quite a bit on Tibbets. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

You might be better off not having it. In the latter part of the program they showed some of the injuries people suffered, including some of the interviewees, and it was grisly. Hard to watch. I had to turn away.

 

[Desertkiwi]

Brad, I do know that our military leaders in the PTO, such as Nimitz and MacArthur, who had access to all intelligence in regards to Japanese capabilities and probable intentions, were convinced that the Japanese were not ready to surrender and that invasion would be necessary. Nimitz was so disheartened by the casualty projections that he actually withdrew his support for the invasion as planned. The whole history of the war in the PTO highlighted the Japanese code of fighting to the death, no surrender. I believe, as I said earlier, that the A-bomb was necessary to end the war without what would have been a bloodbath of an invasion, thus saving millions of casualties on all sides. -- Al

Would have to agree Al, the Japs track record was never surrender and that was in line with their culture.

Given what the Allies would face trying to land an invasion force on Jap soil the casualties would have been horrendous.

The Japanese were the aggressor and had shown themselves as being particularly cruel and unrelenting in their pursuit of dominance of Asia and the Pacific.

I have no sympathy what so ever for their demise or bombing.

 

[The Military Workshop]

Brad mentioned "military thinking will always go for the quick easy solution".

In this case the balance was American and allied lives v Japanese lives. The question is would more Allies have died in the invasion than those that died by the bombs. I think the answer is significantly more. Then factor in Japanese military and civilian deaths caused by defending the invasion.

Truman made the right decision based on what the situation was at the time. I am sure Truman and his advisers did not think it was an easy decision.

 

[uksubs]

My point is that a third approach was not attempted and that we blindly accept the concept that it was a binary approach: invasion or bomb. It’s entirely possible (and maybe likely) that it might have come to that. It has to be taken into account that since Truman was a new president and had not been into confidence by FDR, he was not in a position to challenge what the military wanted to do. Let’s face it, military thinking will always go for the quick easy solution but if the last 50 years have taught us anything, what our leaders tell us cannot be accepted at face value.

Brad he may have a point as they killed more people with fire bombing there city’s then dropping the atom bomb ?

 

[OzDigger]

It’s not the availability of nuclear weapons that helped avoid a war because many countries have them but the effects of nuclear war that made decision makers think twice and for that we have, in part, John Hersey to thank because his articles publicized the effects of nuclear war. It is one thing to be killed or injured by conventional weapons and quite another to be killed or maimed by nuclear weapons.

You also have to wonder where we would be as a world if this particular genie had not been let out of the bottle.

As I said earlier, to me it's academic if you were killed or injured by Conventional bombs or the low yield Atom bombs used in WW2. Those early Atom bombs/Nuclear Fission weapons should not be confused with later Thermonuclear Fussion weapons (Hydrogen bombs) that have far greater destructive capability.

 

[jazzeum]

As I said earlier, to me it's academic if you were killed or injured by Conventional bombs or the low yield Atom bombs used in WW2. Those early Atom bombs/Nuclear Fission weapons should not be confused with later Thermonuclear Fussion weapons (Hydrogen bombs) that have far greater destructive capability.

The difference is radiation. People at Hiroshima continued to die after the bombings. There were cases of people who had survived the bombings apparently healthy who then died. In addition, the soil was irradiated and women were sterile. It is true the effects with later weapons will be more severe but there is a difference between the two, not to mention that the destructive capacities of an atomic weapon are far greater than conventional weapons. That’s why they are called weapons of mass destruction.

 

[jazzeum]

Here is a good profile of John Hersey:

John Hersey and the Art of Fact

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...frm_act_Daily_subs&utm_term=TNY_SundayArchive

 

[OzDigger]

The difference is radiation. People at Hiroshima continued to die after the bombings. There were cases of people who had survived the bombings apparently healthy who then died. In addition, the soil was irradiated and women were sterile. It is true the effects with later weapons will be more severe but there is a difference between the two, not to mention that the destructive capacities of an atomic weapon are far greater than conventional weapons. That’s why they are called weapons of mass destruction.

All the so called radiation injuries you see in documentaries about both bomb attacks were caused by heat radiation. Actual atomic radition killed less than 1% of the population over subsequent years. Both cities were soon occupied with little residual radiation present. This may be a surprise to some but these were early days and only a small portion of the Uranium 235 (about 2 pounds) in the Hiroshima bomb and a similar amount of Plutonium as used over Nagasaki actually underwent nuclear fission.

Compare that to the tons of Uranium 238 and Plutonium used in nucleur reactors which can cause large amounts of radiation damage over many years when things go wrong. People are scared of nuclear power stations exploding in atomic reactions however that is impossible as Uranium 238 is not as critical as 235. The explosions at these stations over the years were caused by Hydrogen etc.

And don't forget that radiation is used to treat cancers etc. Scientists have discovered that people exposed to the low level radiation but escaped much of the effect of the bomb blast and heat had longer lives, strange but true.

 

[jazzeum]

It is indisputable that exposure to radiation at H & N led to cancer (by causing mutation in DNA of living cells). The most deadly effect that victims of H & N suffered was leukemia, which appeared between two and six years after the attacks. Other cancers showed up more than 10 years after the attacks. In addition, children of women who were pregnant at the time of the attacks had issues such as slightly larger heads, mental problems and other problems. Fortunately, children conceived after the bombings did not, as a rule, suffer from these problems. So, there is a significant difference between the types of weapons.

See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907953/, for example.

 

[Combat]

My point is that a third approach was not attempted and that we blindly accept the concept that it was a binary approach: invasion or bomb. It’s entirely possible (and maybe likely) that it might have come to that. It has to be taken into account that since Truman was a new president and had not been into confidence by FDR, he was not in a position to challenge what the military wanted to do. Let’s face it, military thinking will always go for the quick easy solution but if the last 50 years have taught us anything, what our leaders tell us cannot be accepted at face value.

There was a very vocal and political anti-nuke movement in the US for many decades. I believe they created a revisionist history of what happened in Japan to support their political narrative. Not unlike the segregationist Southerners of the early 20th Century who tried - and succeeded for a while - in arguing that the Civil War was a conflict over "state rights" instead of slavery. The Japanese were free to communicate their desire to surrender at any time prior to the dropping of either bomb. They did not do so. Even after Hiroshima. That is not the fault of anyone other than the Japanese. It seems likely that the losses among allied forces and the Japanese themselves would have been much greater had there been an invasion. Thus, as terrible as the consequences, the decision to drop the bombs likely saved American and Japanese lives.

 

[Terp152]

There was a very vocal and political anti-nuke movement in the US for many decades. I believe they created a revisionist history of what happened in Japan to support their political narrative. Not unlike the segregationist Southerners of the early 20th Century who tried - and succeeded for a while - in arguing that the Civil War was a conflict over "state rights" instead of slavery. The Japanese were free to communicate their desire to surrender at any time prior to the dropping of either bomb. They did not do so. Even after Hiroshima. That is not the fault of anyone other than the Japanese. It seems likely that the losses among allied forces and the Japanese themselves would have been much greater had there been an invasion. Thus, as terrible as the consequences, the decision to drop the bombs likely saved Post a reply to the thread: Hiroshima

Your Message

Title: American and Japanese lives.

Accurately and simply stated.

That the Jap(anese) wanted to surrender prior to the nuclear bombing is just revisionist history. Chris

 

[jazzeum]

This is conventional wisdom that we, as a people, have accepted hook, line and sinker for many years but is not simply the case or, at least, not the entire story. As the following article shows, the Soviet Union’s entry into the war was a significant reason for the Japanese to end WW II.

Five Myths About the Atomic Bomb

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...dbc15c-3620-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html

This is probably my last post about the debate since it’s one that’s been going on for many years (and will probably continue indefinitely) and it seems fruitless to continue the debate here.

As I learn about new books (at least new to me), I will continue to post them.

I’m halfway through the Blume book and it’s a worthwhile read.