Hiroshima (1 Viewer)

[theBaron]

Victor Davis Hanson's essay on the topic, posted yesterday:

https://townhall.com/columnists/vic...-annual-august-debate-over-the-bombs-n2573760

He concludes with this, which is sober and appropriate:

"In the terrible arithmetic of World War II, the idea that such a nightmare might end in a day or two was seen as saving millions of lives rather than gratuitously incinerating tens of thousands.​

It was in that bleak context that Harry Truman dropped the two bombs -- opting for a terrible choice among even worse alternatives."
​

Prost!
Brad

 

[jazzeum]

Saying it was an either or decision is a neat and comforting way to tie it all up but history seldom works that way. The decision to bomb was influenced by many factors which, among them, included the desire to end the war. However, as a recent book, Unconditional (by Marc Gallicchio) shows, domestic politics was a consideration. In addition, even as Hanson concedes (and this is well known), the decision to drop the bomb was influenced by the beginning of the postwar world. Truman wanted to show Stalin he had this weapon. Of course, Truman had no way of knowing that Stalin already knew we had this weapon; when Truman told him in Potsdam he was nonplussed as if he already knew, which he did.

If a bomb on Hiroshima was justified, it’s arguable whether the one on Nagasaki was, which was Truman’s way of showing Stalin that we had more than one; we had two or three at the most, despite Truman’s statements. That is what motivated Hersey to write his article. Hersey had no love for the Japanese, having been a correspondent on Guadalcanal, but he was repelled by the use of a second one, and wanted to show, despite the efforts US government to prevent anyone from going to these cities, that this was no ordinary bomb. His articles and eventual book showed this was just not another weapon in the arsenal (but one that could end human existence) and has acted as a deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons, although the risk that one might be used has become fraught with risk. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists believes we are closer to doomsday than we have ever been.

 

[jazzeum]

Here are a couple of reviews of the Gallicchio book for those who may be interested. Marc Gallicchio is Chairman of the History Department at Villanova and an acknowledged expert on the war in the Pacific.

Naval Historical foundation review, https://www.navyhistory.org/2020/06/unconditional-the-japanese-surrender-in-world-war-ii/

New York Times review, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/...te=1&user_id=7033185eeb1cc866170552396b1d8f77

 

[nysoldiers]

This is one of those historical decisions I can never pass judgment on. Kill hundreds of thousands to save possibly millions!
An excruciating moral dilemma that only those making the decision with the intelligence available to them at the time could make.

The added tragedy is that it started an arms race with the destructive power to end our civilization and it still goes on.

 

[uksubs]

Saying it was an either or decision is a neat and comforting way to tie it all up but history seldom works that way. The decision to bomb was influenced by many factors which, among them, included the desire to end the war. However, as a recent book, Unconditional (by Marc Gallicchio) shows, domestic politics was a consideration. In addition, even as Hanson concedes (and this is well known), the decision to drop the bomb was influenced by the beginning of the postwar world. Truman wanted to show Stalin he had this weapon. Of course, Truman had no way of knowing that Stalin already knew we had this weapon; when Truman told him in Potsdam he was nonplussed as if he already knew, which he did.

If a bomb on Hiroshima was justified, it’s arguable whether the one on Nagasaki was, which was Truman’s way of showing Stalin that we had more than one; we had two or three at the most, despite Truman’s statements. That is what motivated Hersey to write his article. Hersey had no love for the Japanese, having been a correspondent on Guadalcanal, but he was repelled by the use of a second one, and wanted to show, despite the efforts US government to prevent anyone from going to these cities, that this was no ordinary bomb. His articles and eventual book showed this was just not another weapon in the arsenal (but one that could end human existence) and has acted as a deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons, although the risk that one might be used has become fraught with risk. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists believes we are closer to doomsday than we have ever been.

Brad here a podcast on what you just been talking about http://ww2podcast.com/. It worth a listen

 

[tdubel]

One thing my Grandfather told me about World War 2 that I believe in is that he was trained for fighting, it was not a surgical strike or any of the stuff we read about today. The goal was to use overwhelming force where available to end the War. In Europe, it was personnel and tanks, same for my Grandfather in the Philippines, it was landing after landing of troops to kill the enemy. If you think about your history, it was not much different from the Roman Legions, The Mongol Horde of Khan, Alexander, Egypt, etc. Overwhelming force in numbers was what won a war. You were not there to dance, you were there to end the conflict as soon as possible by inflicting as much damage as possible to get the other side to capitulate.

Again, to me, this all comes down to trying to look at history through a scope or rose glasses, etc. As Rich said, they were working with the rules of engagement, the intelligence and acceptable norms of the time. One of the reasons they dropped the second bomb was also b/c the Emperor of Japan (Our Enemy) would not surrender after the first. Again, for me, August 6, 1945 has a whole lot of meaning to me in more ways than one in that it is my birthday, as well as my late fathers (he was 3) on that day that saved my Grandfather. My father nor I would have ever met my grandfather if it wasn't for that bomb and arguably the second one on Nagasaki.

On another note, my Grandfather was present for the occupation of Japan and he talked about the citizens starving and as much as they had been taught and trained to hate and kill the Japanese, the soldiers gave all leftover food to the town of Nagoya where they were stationed. IT didn't start out that way, they noticed as they were throwing out food daily , the Japanese were picking through the garbage b/c they were starving, at that point the US Army starting bundling it up and giving it to them rather than throwing it away.

Here is a picture of Nagoya, my Grandathers HQ was the former Mitsubishi Airplane Factory (one part that was still standing)

TD

 

[jazzeum]

I don’t want to turn this thread into a debate but over time as the archives have opened we have learned more about the reasons for the dropping of the bombs and it was not just to end the war. As far as Nagasaki goes, three days was hardly enough time for the Japanese to make up their mind as transmission of information is not what it is today. It was intended to send a message to Russia.

Over the years I have changed from a believer in what we did to a skeptic, at least what we did in Nagasaki which in my mind was unacceptable.

 

[jazzeum]

Brad here a podcast on what you just been talking about http://ww2podcast.com/. It worth a listen

Thanks Neil. I will check it out.

 

[lancer]

All I can say about the dropping of the A-bomb is that as horrible a weapon as it is, as bad as the consequences were for the Japanese, the US had a weapon to end the war without having to invade Japan, so there was no real rational argument to not use it. How could Truman have faced himself or the American public if he had chosen not to use the bomb, had to invade Japan with the resultant hundreds of thousands of Allied casualties (and the probable destruction of the Japanese race)? My father and 2 uncles were in the PTO and they never, ever questioned the decision and they were happy to come home in one piece. The irony of using a nuclear weapon and all it's horrid consequences to end a war and actually save lives is not lost on me, but it sure doesn't make me question it's use, for whatever reasons one wants to argue. The true tragedy would have been to not end the war as quickly as possible and to allow the needless loss of life and human suffering to continue when the means to end it existed. I do not find any argument against the use of the A-bomb to be credible. My father, his brothers, and hundreds of thousands of other Allied soldiers came home alive because of the bomb and that's all that really mattered at the time. -- Al

 

[uksubs]

I don’t want to turn this thread into a debate but over time as the archives have opened we have learned more about the reasons for the dropping of the bombs and it was not just to end the war. As far as Nagasaki goes, three days was hardly enough time for the Japanese to make up their mind as transmission of information is not what it is today. It was intended to send a message to Russia.

Over the years I have changed from a believer in what we did to a skeptic, at least what we did in Nagasaki which in my mind was unacceptable.

Brad I have to agree

 

[OzDigger]

IMO the Allies made the correct choice to use Both Atom Bombs, in effect not much different to the use of High Explosive and Incendiary Bombs that were used by Allies and Axis, people are going to die horribly either way.

An interesting 'what if' video by Mark Felton

Link to Silverplate bomb bay conversion for Atom Bombs on B-29 Superfortress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverplate

 

[uksubs]

IMO the Allies made the correct choice to use Both Atom Bombs, in effect not much different to the use of High Explosive and Incendiary Bombs that were used by Allies and Axis, people are going to die horribly either way.

An interesting 'what if' video by Mark Felton

Link to Silverplate bomb bay conversion for Atom Bombs on B-29 Superfortress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverplate

Saw the Mark Felton video this week very interesting

 

[Terp152]

I never read or heard of a WWII vet who criticized the use of both weapons to end the war. Operations Olympic and Coronet, invasion of the home islands, were already set. The Jap(anese) did not pursue a cease fire after the bombing of Hiroshima. And there were military die hards who were against surrender even after the bombing of Nagasaki. It was a horrific thing that happened to the civilian populace but I will not second guess the decision to use the weapons while sitting in the safety and comfort of my home. Chris

 

[tdubel]

I don’t want to turn this thread into a debate but over time as the archives have opened we have learned more about the reasons for the dropping of the bombs and it was not just to end the war. As far as Nagasaki goes, three days was hardly enough time for the Japanese to make up their mind as transmission of information is not what it is today. It was intended to send a message to Russia.

Over the years I have changed from a believer in what we did to a skeptic, at least what we did in Nagasaki which in my mind was unacceptable.

Brad we can agree to disagree, but the fact was we were at war and we controlled the rules of engagement. Looking back now 75 years later, I have no problem with it and certainly am not going to second guess the decision. Like I said before, personally, for me looking back, it was the only decision. If we didn't end the war at that moment, my Grandfather statistically would not have made it back. Easy decision for me to agree with.

TD

 

[Combat]

This is one of those historical decisions I can never pass judgment on. Kill hundreds of thousands to save possibly millions!
An excruciating moral dilemma that only those making the decision with the intelligence available to them at the time could make.

The added tragedy is that it started an arms race with the destructive power to end our civilization and it still goes on.

The monetary cost of the arms race has been enormous, but you also have to wonder if the availability of nuclear weapons helped to avoid a major conflict between the West and the USSR or China. It has so far proven to be a deterrent to major conflicts between those powers. In terms of the generation that had to make the decision to drop the bomb on Japan, I don't believe there was really much doubt. They truly hated the Japanese for Pearl Harbor and the many atrocities committed during the war. My Grandfather wouldn't even buy a Japanese car decades later. He would have fallen on the ground laughing about any debate to drop the bomb.

 

[jazzeum]

The monetary cost of the arms race has been enormous, but you also have to wonder if the availability of nuclear weapons helped to avoid a major conflict between the West and the USSR or China. It has so far proven to be a deterrent to major conflicts between those powers. In terms of the generation that had to make the decision to drop the bomb on Japan, I don't believe there was really much doubt. They truly hated the Japanese for Pearl Harbor and the many atrocities committed during the war. My Grandfather wouldn't even buy a Japanese car decades later. He would have fallen on the ground laughing about any debate to drop the bomb.

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.

 

[jazzeum]

Brad we can agree to disagree, but the fact was we were at war and we controlled the rules of engagement. Looking back now 75 years later, I have no problem with it and certainly am not going to second guess the decision. Like I said before, personally, for me looking back, it was the only decision. If we didn't end the war at that moment, my Grandfather statistically would not have made it back. Easy decision for me to agree with.

TD

Tom, as I have pointed out history is seldom that simple. Moreover, a study executed by the War Department in 1946, the supports thenotion that Japan was ready to surrender, reading, “the Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies.” The bombs were used because they were there and because their use could send a lesson to the Russians.

Examining decisions is what historians do. I was a masters candidate in history many years ago and that was our stock in trade.

 

[tdubel]

Tom, as I have pointed out history is seldom that simple. Moreover, a study executed by the War Department in 1946, the supports thenotion that Japan was ready to surrender, reading, “the Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies.” The bombs were used because they were there and because their use could send a lesson to the Russians.

Examining decisions is what historians do. I was a masters candidate in history many years ago and that was our stock in trade.

Understood, just for me in hindsight it was very personal and a no brainer. End of the day, we are all selfish to the most when comes to family. On another note, Stalin was a very bad guy and arguably as bad as Hitler.

TD

 

[jazzeum]

Understood, just for me in hindsight it was very personal and a no brainer. End of the day, we are all selfish to the most when comes to family. On another note, Stalin was a very bad guy and arguably as bad as Hitler.

TD

Can’t disagree Tom. It’s a question that really doesn’t have a good answer.

 

[Combat]

Tom, as I have pointed out history is seldom that simple. Moreover, a study executed by the War Department in 1946, the supports thenotion that Japan was ready to surrender, reading, “the Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies.” The bombs were used because they were there and because their use could send a lesson to the Russians.

Examining decisions is what historians do. I was a masters candidate in history many years ago and that was our stock in trade.

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.