Full Version: World War Two and Nukes...
On 6 August 1945 a uranium gun-type device code-named "Little Boy" was deployed by an American plane and caused a horror never before witnessed on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.
Days later, on 9 August, a second bomb was used on a Japan community. This second bomb was a plutonium implosion-type device code-named "Fat Man", dropped on the city of Nagasaki more death and destruction followed.
The bombing of the cities marked the final act of sanctioned carnage of the Second World War. Yet was it a necessary evil?
Questions for Debate:
1.) Did the murder of innocent Japanese citizens save more lives than were lost?
2.) Aside from a nuclear strike and the exhausted efforts of diplomacy: what alternatives could have been played-out in a short amount of time that could have reduced or eliminated the deaths?
3.) Are we safer now than we were thanks to the peace brought about by the detonation of these weapons?
4.) Was the bombing worth it in the grand scheme of things?
Days later, on 9 August, a second bomb was used on a Japan community. This second bomb was a plutonium implosion-type device code-named "Fat Man", dropped on the city of Nagasaki more death and destruction followed.
The bombing of the cities marked the final act of sanctioned carnage of the Second World War. Yet was it a necessary evil?
Questions for Debate:
1.) Did the murder of innocent Japanese citizens save more lives than were lost?
2.) Aside from a nuclear strike and the exhausted efforts of diplomacy: what alternatives could have been played-out in a short amount of time that could have reduced or eliminated the deaths?
3.) Are we safer now than we were thanks to the peace brought about by the detonation of these weapons?
4.) Was the bombing worth it in the grand scheme of things?
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Jun 2 2005, 08:07 PM)
Questions for Debate:
1.) Did the murder of innocent Japanese citizens save more lives than were lost?
Before the bombing campaign of the B-29s that leveled over 50 square miles of Tokyo it could have cost the U.S. around a million lives. After the devastating campaign and the mining of Japanese harbors surrender was inevitable. There were too many civilians killed in these nuclear attacks and conventional bombs had proven more stategic and could have targeted commercial and military targets far more precisly. In answer to the question, no, absolutly not.
QUOTE
2.) Aside from a nuclear strike and the exhausted efforts of diplomacy: what alternatives could have been played-out in a short amount of time that could have reduced or eliminated the deaths?
For months the Japanese had been seeking an honorable surrender and would have accepted anything short of the arrest of the Emperor. The U.S. would allmost certainly have accepted this one condition and it is puzzling at best that terms of surrender could not be reached.
QUOTE
3.) Are we safer now than we were thanks to the peace brought about by the detonation of these weapons?
There are plenty of reasons to believe we would have been safer without it but there is one that I think is crucial. We might have avoided the nuclear arms race that resulted from scientists at the Los Alamos testing facility leaking vital knowledge of nuclear technology to the Soviets.
QUOTE
4.) Was the bombing worth it in the grand scheme of things?
Well, it did punish our enemies in a way that satisfied the U.S. thirst for revenge. I hate to sound unpatriotic but I don't see the need for it given the fact Japan was allready driven to their knees and desperate to stop the fighting. Don't take my word for it:
During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face." (Dwight Eisenhower, The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956)
Was Hiroshima Necessary?
Two topics down from this one is an exactly identical debate, that has gone on for many pages, in which all of these questions have been asked and answered.
Phaedrus, I suggest you have a read-through most of the facts you stated in your post are in error.
Oh and Phaedrus, please PLEASE never quote anything from the Institute for Historical Review. It is a historical revisionist webpage denying the Holocaust, made famous by David Irving, notorious holocaust denyer and champion of the skinhead and neo-nazi speech circuit. It is famous for altering quotes, fabricating evidence and outright lying, to say nothing of its profoundly and violently anti-semitic agenda.
Phaedrus, I suggest you have a read-through most of the facts you stated in your post are in error.
Oh and Phaedrus, please PLEASE never quote anything from the Institute for Historical Review. It is a historical revisionist webpage denying the Holocaust, made famous by David Irving, notorious holocaust denyer and champion of the skinhead and neo-nazi speech circuit. It is famous for altering quotes, fabricating evidence and outright lying, to say nothing of its profoundly and violently anti-semitic agenda.
Vermillion, the other thread is closed so we will continue the debate here. Please be constructive in your responses. If you want to refute someone's sources, do so in an on-topic fashion and avoid belittling others.
TOPICS:
1.) Did the murder of innocent Japanese citizens save more lives than were lost?
2.) Aside from a nuclear strike and the exhausted efforts of diplomacy: what alternatives could have been played-out in a short amount of time that could have reduced or eliminated the deaths?
3.) Are we safer now than we were thanks to the peace brought about by the detonation of these weapons?
4.) Was the bombing worth it in the grand scheme of things?
TOPICS:
1.) Did the murder of innocent Japanese citizens save more lives than were lost?
2.) Aside from a nuclear strike and the exhausted efforts of diplomacy: what alternatives could have been played-out in a short amount of time that could have reduced or eliminated the deaths?
3.) Are we safer now than we were thanks to the peace brought about by the detonation of these weapons?
4.) Was the bombing worth it in the grand scheme of things?
1. Absolutely. Even if 10 million Japanese were killed to save the life of one US soldier, it would have been worth it. The Japanese would have gone down fighting. An invasion of Japan would have cost the US dearly. War is ugly, war is not fair. Wars need to be won with overwhelming force.
2. An end to war without unconditional surrender is not a suitable end. Aggressors must be punished and cannot be allowed to save face. It is not about getting together and holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
3. We are absolutely safer. If the bombs had not been dropped, the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) would only have been realized in later years when the US and Soviet Union erased each other from existence. The example set in Japan kept peace in the Cold War.
4. The bombing was definitely worth it. Just ask the current generation of Japanese. They live in a democracy without imperialist rule. Basically, Japan got all they wanted when they began their expansion in the 1930's. They became one of the most prosperous nations of the 20th century. With our help, by the way.
Japan was a misbehaving child that we disciplined fiercely and then raised and guided into a well rounded and productive adult.
2. An end to war without unconditional surrender is not a suitable end. Aggressors must be punished and cannot be allowed to save face. It is not about getting together and holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
3. We are absolutely safer. If the bombs had not been dropped, the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) would only have been realized in later years when the US and Soviet Union erased each other from existence. The example set in Japan kept peace in the Cold War.
4. The bombing was definitely worth it. Just ask the current generation of Japanese. They live in a democracy without imperialist rule. Basically, Japan got all they wanted when they began their expansion in the 1930's. They became one of the most prosperous nations of the 20th century. With our help, by the way.
Japan was a misbehaving child that we disciplined fiercely and then raised and guided into a well rounded and productive adult.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Jun 3 2005, 05:25 AM)
Two topics down from this one is an exactly identical debate, that has gone on for many pages, in which all of these questions have been asked and answered.
Phaedrus, I suggest you have a read-through most of the facts you stated in your post are in error.
Oh and Phaedrus, please PLEASE never quote anything from the Institute for Historical Review. It is a historical revisionist webpage denying the Holocaust, made famous by David Irving, notorious holocaust denyer and champion of the skinhead and neo-nazi speech circuit. It is famous for altering quotes, fabricating evidence and outright lying, to say nothing of its profoundly and violently anti-semitic agenda.
Phaedrus, I suggest you have a read-through most of the facts you stated in your post are in error.
Oh and Phaedrus, please PLEASE never quote anything from the Institute for Historical Review. It is a historical revisionist webpage denying the Holocaust, made famous by David Irving, notorious holocaust denyer and champion of the skinhead and neo-nazi speech circuit. It is famous for altering quotes, fabricating evidence and outright lying, to say nothing of its profoundly and violently anti-semitic agenda.
First off, I read several sources on the B-29 campaign and it's relavance to the nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I only chose that one because of the quote from Eisenhower and the compliance of the facts with other sources I found. To be sure the island campaigns had been costly but after the B-29 campaigns I am certain the devastation had brought Japan to its knees. In addition, the mining of Japan's harbors had virtually sealed them off from the rest of the world and that is strangulation for an industral nation. Still, I don't think the criticism of my choice of a source material is unwarranted so I'll see if I can find something a little more credible.
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, July 1946)
"It is possible, in the light of the final surrender, that a clearer and earlier exposition of American willingness to retain the Emperor would have produced an earlier ending to the war". (Sec. of War Henry Stimson, Memoirs)
Eisenhower would later state that upon hearing Stimson's, 'recitation of the relevant facts', that Japan was defeated and were seeking to surrender. Alternatives to a costly invasion were available but not sufficiently explored. The industral and miltitary capabilities of Japan had been bombed back into the stone age and the one primary concern was the fate of the Emperor and their monarchy. What is more the Soviet reaction was to pursue an arms race that eventually destroyed their economy. I suppose it is one of the great 'what ifs' but had these bombs not been dropped they may not have felt it was so urgent to get a first strike capability.
After the bombs are dropped the Soviets declare war on Japan and take Manchuria. This leads to an increase in tensions in the region culminating in the Korean War. I am not totally convinced that the these indiscriminate and devastating weapons were the best answer to the problems of ending the war with Japan.
I am going to skip most of the questions, since they were discussed extensively elsewhere.
3.) Are we safer now than we were thanks to the peace brought about by the detonation of these weapons?
I think the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese proved the horror that these weapons represent. That created a deterrent against their future use in their ever more deadly forms.
During the Cold War, the United States' demonstration of the will to actually use these weapons provided the additional deterrent that perhaps kept the Soviets at bay. That deterrent helped to avoid a conflict which would have cost tens of millions of lives (potentially).
So I think the use of Little Boy and Fat Man saved lives in the long term by proving how deadly these weapons were and that the US would actually deploy them.
3.) Are we safer now than we were thanks to the peace brought about by the detonation of these weapons?
I think the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese proved the horror that these weapons represent. That created a deterrent against their future use in their ever more deadly forms.
During the Cold War, the United States' demonstration of the will to actually use these weapons provided the additional deterrent that perhaps kept the Soviets at bay. That deterrent helped to avoid a conflict which would have cost tens of millions of lives (potentially).
So I think the use of Little Boy and Fat Man saved lives in the long term by proving how deadly these weapons were and that the US would actually deploy them.
1.) Did the murder of innocent Japanese citizens save more lives than were lost?The first part is a loaded question. Just what are "innocent" Japanese citizens? The United States was at war with the Empire of Japan. The world considered workers of factories making military goods to be legitimate targets. The Japanese were losing the war, but that did nothing to deter them from trying to kill as many Americans as possible. For the Japanese killing civilians was the same as military, ala their unsuccessful bombing campaign of North America with balloons.
Hiroshima was the headquarters for the Japanese 10th Army as well as numerous military plants. Nagasaki was the largest ship building yard in Japan. Over 25% of the warships in the Japanese Navy were built there along with over half the merchant fleet. They also were home to hundreds of factories for the military.
In short both cities were prime military targets.
2.) Aside from a nuclear strike and the exhausted efforts of diplomacy: what alternatives could have been played-out in a short amount of time that could have reduced or eliminated the deaths?None that had a chance. Interviews with the Japanese leaders after the war stated that without the use of nuclear devises on their cities they would not have surrendered. Time and time again all of the surviving leaders stated the same thing.
3.) Are we safer now than we were thanks to the peace brought about by the detonation of these weapons?Yes we are. MacArthur wanted to use them during the Korean War against the Chinese. Millions would have died and President Truman refused to let them be used. If we had not seen the destruction caused we most assuredly would have widely used them later.
4.) Was the bombing worth it in the grand scheme of things?Without a single doubt. The wisest decision that could have been made. Not only were millions of people saved on both sides during the war, but the later as well. The Cold War would not have stayed cold without the knowledge that both sides had nuclear weapons, saving the entire human race.
When has another weapon ever been developed at a considerable cost, used twice and then put on the shelf so to speak? I can not think of another weapon ever treated so.
Hiroshima was the headquarters for the Japanese 10th Army as well as numerous military plants. Nagasaki was the largest ship building yard in Japan. Over 25% of the warships in the Japanese Navy were built there along with over half the merchant fleet. They also were home to hundreds of factories for the military.
In short both cities were prime military targets.
2.) Aside from a nuclear strike and the exhausted efforts of diplomacy: what alternatives could have been played-out in a short amount of time that could have reduced or eliminated the deaths?None that had a chance. Interviews with the Japanese leaders after the war stated that without the use of nuclear devises on their cities they would not have surrendered. Time and time again all of the surviving leaders stated the same thing.
3.) Are we safer now than we were thanks to the peace brought about by the detonation of these weapons?Yes we are. MacArthur wanted to use them during the Korean War against the Chinese. Millions would have died and President Truman refused to let them be used. If we had not seen the destruction caused we most assuredly would have widely used them later.
4.) Was the bombing worth it in the grand scheme of things?Without a single doubt. The wisest decision that could have been made. Not only were millions of people saved on both sides during the war, but the later as well. The Cold War would not have stayed cold without the knowledge that both sides had nuclear weapons, saving the entire human race.
When has another weapon ever been developed at a considerable cost, used twice and then put on the shelf so to speak? I can not think of another weapon ever treated so.
1.) Did the murder of innocent Japanese citizens save more lives than were lost?
This subject has been beaten to death more than almost any other here on AD. But I hadn't added my two cents yet.
I believe the amphibious assault on the island of Okinawa proved to military commanders and civilians alike, that an instant catastrophic event like the explosion of the two atomic bombs, was the only way the Japanese would submit. The actions of the Japanese soldiers and civilians on Okinawa defied all previous notions of conventional warfare, in that, when faced with imminent defeat, the Japanese would simply resort to a tactic of killing as many Americans as possible before dying, as opposed to surrender and living with the shame of defeat. The tactics used, and the sheer amount of casualties inflicted, provided a mere snapshot of what an invasion of the home islands would involve........with a million+ soldiers still under arms, and countless millions of civilians, either pressed into service or willingly defending the homeland from the very invasion beaches until annihilation.
The Japanese civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were innocent at the time of the bombing (though thousands worked in armament and munitions factories), but at the time of an invasion, their status would have provably changed to that of combatants.
This subject has been beaten to death more than almost any other here on AD. But I hadn't added my two cents yet.
I believe the amphibious assault on the island of Okinawa proved to military commanders and civilians alike, that an instant catastrophic event like the explosion of the two atomic bombs, was the only way the Japanese would submit. The actions of the Japanese soldiers and civilians on Okinawa defied all previous notions of conventional warfare, in that, when faced with imminent defeat, the Japanese would simply resort to a tactic of killing as many Americans as possible before dying, as opposed to surrender and living with the shame of defeat. The tactics used, and the sheer amount of casualties inflicted, provided a mere snapshot of what an invasion of the home islands would involve........with a million+ soldiers still under arms, and countless millions of civilians, either pressed into service or willingly defending the homeland from the very invasion beaches until annihilation.
The Japanese civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were innocent at the time of the bombing (though thousands worked in armament and munitions factories), but at the time of an invasion, their status would have provably changed to that of combatants.
My apologies, I had not noticed that the previous topic had been closed.
Anyways, The most important issue to remember here is one of context. People look at the atomic bombings through the eyes of 2004 citizens of the west who lived through the cold war. To try and judge such an anachronistic event using 2004 morals and terminology (WMD?) is silly. Was the German and Allied use of WMD (chemical weapons) in the first world war a war crime?
At the time, the situation was VERY different from now. People have mentioned the fire bombings of Tokyo, they have not mentioned the fire bombings of nearly every major Japanese city on the island. The US air force incinerated between 50% and 80% of the 30 largest cities in Japan, (as high as 94% in a couple cases)and many smaller ones as well. USAF intel reports from September 1945 note that it is a good thing the war ended when it did, as the Bomber command was running out of targets. Mass bombing of cities was simply the order of the day, in Japan and in Europe. The mass 'city-buster’ raids at the end of the war in Europe were intended to annihilate German cities, to ‘de-house’ workers and civilians and cause a mass uprising against the German government. The only reason more German cities were not annihilated was because the German air force put up more of a fight until the end of 1944, and the weather over Germany was prohibitive. Still, Hamburg, Dresden, Cologne, Nuremburg, Berlin, and many other cities were destroyed from the air, creating huge firestorms where the oxygen caught fire and flames lept over a mile into the air.
Japan has no significant air force left in 1945, much better weather and cities made primarily out of wood and paper, not stone, so the USAF went at the country with a vengeance. They used tactics of mass area bombing started in 1917, and used since then by Germany, Spain, Russia, Italy, Canada, Britain, Australia, Turkey, France, the US and Japan itself since. Every nation in the world, allied and axis, accepted the bombing of cities as a part of modern warfare, and every nation that could practiced it. Britain and the US got very good at it, but Germany and Japan had had a lot of practice as well. Post-war studies would show that the effect on civilian morale was not what people expected, that in fact morale strengthened under this aerial assault, but that was not known at the time.
The ruling cabinet in the Japanese government was formed of three groups, civilians, naval and Army Officers. The civilians were divided, some wanted peace, some wanted war. There was no consensus. The Navy was disgraced, and it tended to follow the decisions of the Army. It still had a strong voice, but nowhere near as much as in 1941. Due to its performance in the latter years of the war, it no longer held a voice of power. The Army was unified in its desire for war. It held the strongest voice and had no intention of surrendering. On paper, more than 2/3 of the Japanese army was unharmed and intact in China and Manchuria. In fact the war in China was still going fairly well. While most knew that it would be impossible to win the war, Japan saw opportunities for an honourable settlement, which would allow them to keep their Chinese possessions. The plan was for a single massive attack against any US or Allied forces landing on the homeland. Japan had over 7000 aircraft stockpiled (old and obsolete aircraft mind you) for which ¾ would be given suicide assignments on US coastal fleets. The actual effect of the counter push would have had on landing US forces is of course unknown. The Japanese correctly guessed the landing spot of the US, but most of the defences would have been severely damaged by shore and naval bombardment. Previous estimates show that Kamikaze pilots had about a 5-10% hit rate. Even if you lower that considering the poor quality of the remaining Japanese pilots, that is still a potential for a lot of damage.
But there was no chance of surrender. The Japanese ambassador to Holland decided on his own initiative to try and broker a peace with the US on behalf of his government. The Japanese government, upon hearing this, cut off his status, and sentenced him to death as a traitor in absentia. A further series of pro-peace officials were arrested and imprisoned or executed in June of 1945. The Japanese refused to mention the Potsdam declaration in the Media, or discuss it in cabinet past a few dismissive comments. We know this because we have the cabinet transcripts from the Japanese government at the time.
The US on the other hand has its own problems. Morale was low, as many troops do not want to get into such a bloody conflict, and many just came from the long struggle in Europe. Worse the points system means that the most experienced NCOs in the US army all got to go home, and a critical component of US combat effectiveness was lost. The home front was tired of war and demanding a return to a civilian economy and there was even the fear that continued resistance in the East might cause problems involving renewed resistance in Europe. Casualty figures for the invasion of Japan are as high as 1 million casualties (not dead), though more realistic estimates are for about 500-600,000 casualties, meaning about 150,000 to 200,000 dead. That of course does not include the incalculable slaughter of Japanese soldiers and civilians in the maths.
So the bomb is discussed. Originally designed for use in Europe to counter a possible Nazi bomb, the possibility of deploying it against Japan comes up. Several scenarios are discussed: Use of the bomb to support a landing; use of the bomb as a bloodless demonstration of power, say over Tokyo harbour, or use of the bomb against remaining Japanese targets.
The first option is dismissed because it does not make a very good tactical weapon, and the same support could be achieved with mass conventional bombing, and without the relatively misunderstood boogeyman of radiation to contend with. The second is dismissed because the ‘demonstration’ would be limited to those who happened to be nearby and watching the flash, and the power of the bomb would not be understood simply by seeing a flash in the sky.
So the decision was taken to hit Japanese targets in the hope of forcing surrender. Interestingly, the bomb was not dropped on Tokyo for several reasons, but the main one was that Tokyo was so huge, and the centre of the city was already so gutted (the March 3-5th firebombing destroyed 26 square km in the centre of the city) that the effects of the atomic bomb would be muted. Hiroshima was chosen because of the naval academy and command stationed there, and the fact that it was one of the very few cities relatively undamaged from bombing so far in the war.
So they dropped the Bomb. The effect upon Japan was limited. There was no mention of it in the press, and no unusual activity in the cabinet on the 6th or 7th. When army representatives visited the site 24 hours later, they described it as being 'not as bad as the centre of Tokyo'. They also did not believe it was an atomic bomb. A common theory was that the US had dropped hundreds of thousands of strips of magnesium, and then ignited them all at once. Most importantly, everyone agreed that the US would not be able to duplicate this feat. There was NO talk of a surrender.
2 Days later, the forgotten even occurred, which nobody ever seems to mention for some reason. The USSR invaded Manchuria on 9 August 1945. Within 24 hours they had utterly routed much of the Japanese forces. The Red Army, huge, equipped and experienced against the Nazis, faces the Kwangtung army fielding no artillery above 75 mm, few tanks, and those tanks they had with guns no bigger than 50 mm and no modern anti tank weapons. This was a double blow, because the USSR had been the traditional route of diplomatic messages between japan and the Allies, and many regarded the USSR as a benevolent neutral.
This destruction broke the back of the Army in the Ruling cabinet, they were disgraced much like the navy, but they still had the power to veto any legislation, and both army and Navy had the power to dissolve and reform the cabinet at will, a power they had used several times during the war. There was still little talk of peace, in fact the order for the mobilisation of defences against invasion (hardly the act of a surrendering nation) was done the same day as Nagasaki. More time would have made no difference. The public were completely in the dark, and the government held firm to their option of a negotiated surrender.
Nagasaki is more nebulous. A second bomb was required, but this one could have been dropped in a place with less loss of life. Maybe Tokyo harbour. At this point is was just proof that the US could do it again. In response to that I say, maybe, but this is 1945 we are talking about not 2004, and to quote Patton "you don't win wars by not killing people". Its not just the 60 years difference, its also the experience of just having survived 6 years of brutal warfare, and 4 years more only 20 years earlier.
So they dropped the Bomb. Again. Also on the 10th, the US delivered another massive conventional bombing raid on Tokyo (another forgotten fact). The cabinet met and after some debate is was decided that Japan would not surrender unconditionally, and that the planned defence of the mainland would continue. Army Minister General Anami (a leading cabinet member) made a loud proclamation on the radio stating that the Japanese would never surrender. That bears repeating for effect: The decision of the Cabinet after the bombing of Nagasaki was NOT to surrender, and this was announced on the radio. At this point, the Emperor, technically head of the cabinet, but traditionally silent, spoke up (for only the second time in his life) and pled for peace. The Cabinet could not disagree, and this gave the Doves in the Cabinet the ammunition they needed to call for immediate surrennder, and the next day Japan was to capitulate.
But it wasn't over. That night, the Army staged a Coup against the Emperor in order to take him into 'protective custody' and reverse his decision to surrender. The coup was a very close thing, but was thwarted when several key generals stayed loyal. The offending officers either killed themselves, or in several cases, got into aircraft for last ditch kamikaze missions against the US. As the announcement of surrender was read by the Emperor on 12 noon on the 15th, there were mutinies in barracks across the country from disbelieving troops, though in most cases it was short or ended by suicide.
Not only was Japan NOT about to surrender, but it is unlikely that they ever would have EVEN AFTER the two bombs, had not the Russians invaded Manchuria. While there is an argument to be made that the second bomb did not need to target Nagasaki, there is no argument against dropping the bombs. Even after these three critical events, the Japanese came very close to continuing the war.
I can recommend about 40 books on the subject, but the best are probably the more recent:
Downfall: by Richard B Frank.
Japan's War: by Edwin Hoyt
The Decision to Surrender: Akira Iryie
Japan's Longest day: Pacific war Research Society (Japan)
Anyways, The most important issue to remember here is one of context. People look at the atomic bombings through the eyes of 2004 citizens of the west who lived through the cold war. To try and judge such an anachronistic event using 2004 morals and terminology (WMD?) is silly. Was the German and Allied use of WMD (chemical weapons) in the first world war a war crime?
At the time, the situation was VERY different from now. People have mentioned the fire bombings of Tokyo, they have not mentioned the fire bombings of nearly every major Japanese city on the island. The US air force incinerated between 50% and 80% of the 30 largest cities in Japan, (as high as 94% in a couple cases)and many smaller ones as well. USAF intel reports from September 1945 note that it is a good thing the war ended when it did, as the Bomber command was running out of targets. Mass bombing of cities was simply the order of the day, in Japan and in Europe. The mass 'city-buster’ raids at the end of the war in Europe were intended to annihilate German cities, to ‘de-house’ workers and civilians and cause a mass uprising against the German government. The only reason more German cities were not annihilated was because the German air force put up more of a fight until the end of 1944, and the weather over Germany was prohibitive. Still, Hamburg, Dresden, Cologne, Nuremburg, Berlin, and many other cities were destroyed from the air, creating huge firestorms where the oxygen caught fire and flames lept over a mile into the air.
Japan has no significant air force left in 1945, much better weather and cities made primarily out of wood and paper, not stone, so the USAF went at the country with a vengeance. They used tactics of mass area bombing started in 1917, and used since then by Germany, Spain, Russia, Italy, Canada, Britain, Australia, Turkey, France, the US and Japan itself since. Every nation in the world, allied and axis, accepted the bombing of cities as a part of modern warfare, and every nation that could practiced it. Britain and the US got very good at it, but Germany and Japan had had a lot of practice as well. Post-war studies would show that the effect on civilian morale was not what people expected, that in fact morale strengthened under this aerial assault, but that was not known at the time.
The ruling cabinet in the Japanese government was formed of three groups, civilians, naval and Army Officers. The civilians were divided, some wanted peace, some wanted war. There was no consensus. The Navy was disgraced, and it tended to follow the decisions of the Army. It still had a strong voice, but nowhere near as much as in 1941. Due to its performance in the latter years of the war, it no longer held a voice of power. The Army was unified in its desire for war. It held the strongest voice and had no intention of surrendering. On paper, more than 2/3 of the Japanese army was unharmed and intact in China and Manchuria. In fact the war in China was still going fairly well. While most knew that it would be impossible to win the war, Japan saw opportunities for an honourable settlement, which would allow them to keep their Chinese possessions. The plan was for a single massive attack against any US or Allied forces landing on the homeland. Japan had over 7000 aircraft stockpiled (old and obsolete aircraft mind you) for which ¾ would be given suicide assignments on US coastal fleets. The actual effect of the counter push would have had on landing US forces is of course unknown. The Japanese correctly guessed the landing spot of the US, but most of the defences would have been severely damaged by shore and naval bombardment. Previous estimates show that Kamikaze pilots had about a 5-10% hit rate. Even if you lower that considering the poor quality of the remaining Japanese pilots, that is still a potential for a lot of damage.
But there was no chance of surrender. The Japanese ambassador to Holland decided on his own initiative to try and broker a peace with the US on behalf of his government. The Japanese government, upon hearing this, cut off his status, and sentenced him to death as a traitor in absentia. A further series of pro-peace officials were arrested and imprisoned or executed in June of 1945. The Japanese refused to mention the Potsdam declaration in the Media, or discuss it in cabinet past a few dismissive comments. We know this because we have the cabinet transcripts from the Japanese government at the time.
The US on the other hand has its own problems. Morale was low, as many troops do not want to get into such a bloody conflict, and many just came from the long struggle in Europe. Worse the points system means that the most experienced NCOs in the US army all got to go home, and a critical component of US combat effectiveness was lost. The home front was tired of war and demanding a return to a civilian economy and there was even the fear that continued resistance in the East might cause problems involving renewed resistance in Europe. Casualty figures for the invasion of Japan are as high as 1 million casualties (not dead), though more realistic estimates are for about 500-600,000 casualties, meaning about 150,000 to 200,000 dead. That of course does not include the incalculable slaughter of Japanese soldiers and civilians in the maths.
So the bomb is discussed. Originally designed for use in Europe to counter a possible Nazi bomb, the possibility of deploying it against Japan comes up. Several scenarios are discussed: Use of the bomb to support a landing; use of the bomb as a bloodless demonstration of power, say over Tokyo harbour, or use of the bomb against remaining Japanese targets.
The first option is dismissed because it does not make a very good tactical weapon, and the same support could be achieved with mass conventional bombing, and without the relatively misunderstood boogeyman of radiation to contend with. The second is dismissed because the ‘demonstration’ would be limited to those who happened to be nearby and watching the flash, and the power of the bomb would not be understood simply by seeing a flash in the sky.
So the decision was taken to hit Japanese targets in the hope of forcing surrender. Interestingly, the bomb was not dropped on Tokyo for several reasons, but the main one was that Tokyo was so huge, and the centre of the city was already so gutted (the March 3-5th firebombing destroyed 26 square km in the centre of the city) that the effects of the atomic bomb would be muted. Hiroshima was chosen because of the naval academy and command stationed there, and the fact that it was one of the very few cities relatively undamaged from bombing so far in the war.
So they dropped the Bomb. The effect upon Japan was limited. There was no mention of it in the press, and no unusual activity in the cabinet on the 6th or 7th. When army representatives visited the site 24 hours later, they described it as being 'not as bad as the centre of Tokyo'. They also did not believe it was an atomic bomb. A common theory was that the US had dropped hundreds of thousands of strips of magnesium, and then ignited them all at once. Most importantly, everyone agreed that the US would not be able to duplicate this feat. There was NO talk of a surrender.
2 Days later, the forgotten even occurred, which nobody ever seems to mention for some reason. The USSR invaded Manchuria on 9 August 1945. Within 24 hours they had utterly routed much of the Japanese forces. The Red Army, huge, equipped and experienced against the Nazis, faces the Kwangtung army fielding no artillery above 75 mm, few tanks, and those tanks they had with guns no bigger than 50 mm and no modern anti tank weapons. This was a double blow, because the USSR had been the traditional route of diplomatic messages between japan and the Allies, and many regarded the USSR as a benevolent neutral.
This destruction broke the back of the Army in the Ruling cabinet, they were disgraced much like the navy, but they still had the power to veto any legislation, and both army and Navy had the power to dissolve and reform the cabinet at will, a power they had used several times during the war. There was still little talk of peace, in fact the order for the mobilisation of defences against invasion (hardly the act of a surrendering nation) was done the same day as Nagasaki. More time would have made no difference. The public were completely in the dark, and the government held firm to their option of a negotiated surrender.
Nagasaki is more nebulous. A second bomb was required, but this one could have been dropped in a place with less loss of life. Maybe Tokyo harbour. At this point is was just proof that the US could do it again. In response to that I say, maybe, but this is 1945 we are talking about not 2004, and to quote Patton "you don't win wars by not killing people". Its not just the 60 years difference, its also the experience of just having survived 6 years of brutal warfare, and 4 years more only 20 years earlier.
So they dropped the Bomb. Again. Also on the 10th, the US delivered another massive conventional bombing raid on Tokyo (another forgotten fact). The cabinet met and after some debate is was decided that Japan would not surrender unconditionally, and that the planned defence of the mainland would continue. Army Minister General Anami (a leading cabinet member) made a loud proclamation on the radio stating that the Japanese would never surrender. That bears repeating for effect: The decision of the Cabinet after the bombing of Nagasaki was NOT to surrender, and this was announced on the radio. At this point, the Emperor, technically head of the cabinet, but traditionally silent, spoke up (for only the second time in his life) and pled for peace. The Cabinet could not disagree, and this gave the Doves in the Cabinet the ammunition they needed to call for immediate surrennder, and the next day Japan was to capitulate.
But it wasn't over. That night, the Army staged a Coup against the Emperor in order to take him into 'protective custody' and reverse his decision to surrender. The coup was a very close thing, but was thwarted when several key generals stayed loyal. The offending officers either killed themselves, or in several cases, got into aircraft for last ditch kamikaze missions against the US. As the announcement of surrender was read by the Emperor on 12 noon on the 15th, there were mutinies in barracks across the country from disbelieving troops, though in most cases it was short or ended by suicide.
Not only was Japan NOT about to surrender, but it is unlikely that they ever would have EVEN AFTER the two bombs, had not the Russians invaded Manchuria. While there is an argument to be made that the second bomb did not need to target Nagasaki, there is no argument against dropping the bombs. Even after these three critical events, the Japanese came very close to continuing the war.
I can recommend about 40 books on the subject, but the best are probably the more recent:
Downfall: by Richard B Frank.
Japan's War: by Edwin Hoyt
The Decision to Surrender: Akira Iryie
Japan's Longest day: Pacific war Research Society (Japan)
Vermillion, a very elagant and informative post, I enjoyed reading it very much.
There where some disenting voices who simply didn't see the justification of using such a devasting and terribly cruel device.
"If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them." (Leo Szilard, a scientist who played a major role in the development of the atomic bomb)
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Other people who had grave reservations were Albert Einstien (who wanted them banned), Edward Teller (who wanted them demonstrated without dropping them on cites), Dwight David Eisenhower (who advised Secretary of War Stimpson that Japan was defeated in July), Douglas McAurthur (who later said there was no military justification for their use). William Leahy (Fleet Admiral and chief of staff to the President) and the list goes on. Call it an argument from authority but these are not uninformed opinions of revisionist historians. These were leading military and scientific people who we do well to consider.
Let's think about why Japan rejected the U.S. ultimatum at Potsdam:
"It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." (President Harry Truman)
What was the problem that led the Japanese military to reject to proposed surrender? They wanted better conditions of surrender but the principle concern was the preservation of their monarchy. It could have been proposed as a condition of surrender that they reform their government into a democratic monarchy where the emperor was effectivly strip of political power while retaining the title.
There are other reasons of course, the cost of an invasion would certainly have been very high, well in the tens of thousands. However with the systematic bombing of military and commercial targets they simply would not have had enough to launch a counter offensive. The troops in Manchuria were ordered to fight to the last man and they did but the campaign ended quickly anyway. Russia (USSR) had been planning to enter the war, in fact, completion of the bombs was scheduled to coincide with their entrance into the war.
I did want to acknowledge that there are compelling arguments both for and against the dropping of the bombs. One of them is that it not only saved American lives it saved the lives of Asians and liberated many European and American prisoners. However, with so many of the leading scientists and military leaders in the United States who claim it was not needed I am far from convinced that it was worth it. When Eisenhower spoke in his inaugeral address of the dangers of the industral military complex he would almost certainly have had this in mind.
There where some disenting voices who simply didn't see the justification of using such a devasting and terribly cruel device.
"If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them." (Leo Szilard, a scientist who played a major role in the development of the atomic bomb)
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Other people who had grave reservations were Albert Einstien (who wanted them banned), Edward Teller (who wanted them demonstrated without dropping them on cites), Dwight David Eisenhower (who advised Secretary of War Stimpson that Japan was defeated in July), Douglas McAurthur (who later said there was no military justification for their use). William Leahy (Fleet Admiral and chief of staff to the President) and the list goes on. Call it an argument from authority but these are not uninformed opinions of revisionist historians. These were leading military and scientific people who we do well to consider.
Let's think about why Japan rejected the U.S. ultimatum at Potsdam:
"It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." (President Harry Truman)
What was the problem that led the Japanese military to reject to proposed surrender? They wanted better conditions of surrender but the principle concern was the preservation of their monarchy. It could have been proposed as a condition of surrender that they reform their government into a democratic monarchy where the emperor was effectivly strip of political power while retaining the title.
There are other reasons of course, the cost of an invasion would certainly have been very high, well in the tens of thousands. However with the systematic bombing of military and commercial targets they simply would not have had enough to launch a counter offensive. The troops in Manchuria were ordered to fight to the last man and they did but the campaign ended quickly anyway. Russia (USSR) had been planning to enter the war, in fact, completion of the bombs was scheduled to coincide with their entrance into the war.
I did want to acknowledge that there are compelling arguments both for and against the dropping of the bombs. One of them is that it not only saved American lives it saved the lives of Asians and liberated many European and American prisoners. However, with so many of the leading scientists and military leaders in the United States who claim it was not needed I am far from convinced that it was worth it. When Eisenhower spoke in his inaugeral address of the dangers of the industral military complex he would almost certainly have had this in mind.
I have one contribution I can make to this debate. Modern war differs from ancient war in that it is no longer genocidal. Genghis Khan conquered by killing everybody, but in modern warfare we destroy a tiny fraction of the society we defeat. Germany lost less than 10% of its population in World War II, and their "utterly destroyed" industrial base was in fact back up and running in ten years. The material damage we do in modern war is really quite small in relative terms.
No, war is not won by depriving the enemy of the means to resist, but by destroying his will to resist. A foe who refuses to accept defeat simply cannot be beaten. We stomped all over the North Vietnamese for ten years and they won because we accepted defeat on much lower losses than they suffered. If we fail to convince the Iraqis of our goodwill, we will surely be defeated in Iraq. Israel has been killing Palestinians, occupying their land, and razing their homes for decades and yet still the Palestinians fight on. People will continue to fight for as long as they believe in their cause.
War is ended only by convincing the enemy that its continuation is hopeless. All the bombs and bullets are expended, all the blood is spilled, only to create a psychological state in the minds of the enemy leadership. To abuse von Clausewitz, it's the extension of psychology to other means. Thus, shock is a more important element of warmaking than the magnitude of the killing. You don't want to kill your enemy's people in slow, quiet ways -- you want maximum horror. You want to broadcast gruesome images of people being decapitated, burning to death, suffering horrifically.
Back in the 60s, there was an old Star Trek episode that made this point very well. (I realize that citing Star Trek as an authority on the human condition is a little weak, but this particular expression was so powerful that I think it deserves mention.) In this story, the Enterprise discovered two planets that were at war with each other. The leaders of the two planets had taken the Geneva Convention to its logical extreme and devised the most sanitary system imaginable for conducting war. There were computers on both planets that carried out virtual attacks, whose effectiveness was determined by mutually agreed-upon algorithms. Based on these calculations, specified citizens of each planet would report to vaporization stations where they were painlessly removed from existence. The system was so civilized that both planets had been fighting the war for centuries; it was part of their daily existence. Captain Kirk destroyed the battle computer on one planet, violating their warfighting agreement and precipitating a crisis. "Now you've got a real war on your hands, and war is a very messy business", Kirk announced. "Perhaps you'd better get in touch with your enemies and end this war."
The A-bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were profoundly shocking; much higher casualties in previous strikes had not swayed the Japanese leadership, but these deaths had the desired emotional impact on the Japanese. As such, they were a particularly humane way of ending a horrific slaughter.
Contrast with "Love they neighbor as thyself." Suggests that you love your neighbor less than one ten-millionth as much as you love yourself. Falls a bit short of Christian standards, doesn't it?
This represents a profound failure to understand Japanese culture. Have you ever been to Japan? What do you know about their culture?
No, war is not won by depriving the enemy of the means to resist, but by destroying his will to resist. A foe who refuses to accept defeat simply cannot be beaten. We stomped all over the North Vietnamese for ten years and they won because we accepted defeat on much lower losses than they suffered. If we fail to convince the Iraqis of our goodwill, we will surely be defeated in Iraq. Israel has been killing Palestinians, occupying their land, and razing their homes for decades and yet still the Palestinians fight on. People will continue to fight for as long as they believe in their cause.
War is ended only by convincing the enemy that its continuation is hopeless. All the bombs and bullets are expended, all the blood is spilled, only to create a psychological state in the minds of the enemy leadership. To abuse von Clausewitz, it's the extension of psychology to other means. Thus, shock is a more important element of warmaking than the magnitude of the killing. You don't want to kill your enemy's people in slow, quiet ways -- you want maximum horror. You want to broadcast gruesome images of people being decapitated, burning to death, suffering horrifically.
Back in the 60s, there was an old Star Trek episode that made this point very well. (I realize that citing Star Trek as an authority on the human condition is a little weak, but this particular expression was so powerful that I think it deserves mention.) In this story, the Enterprise discovered two planets that were at war with each other. The leaders of the two planets had taken the Geneva Convention to its logical extreme and devised the most sanitary system imaginable for conducting war. There were computers on both planets that carried out virtual attacks, whose effectiveness was determined by mutually agreed-upon algorithms. Based on these calculations, specified citizens of each planet would report to vaporization stations where they were painlessly removed from existence. The system was so civilized that both planets had been fighting the war for centuries; it was part of their daily existence. Captain Kirk destroyed the battle computer on one planet, violating their warfighting agreement and precipitating a crisis. "Now you've got a real war on your hands, and war is a very messy business", Kirk announced. "Perhaps you'd better get in touch with your enemies and end this war."
The A-bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were profoundly shocking; much higher casualties in previous strikes had not swayed the Japanese leadership, but these deaths had the desired emotional impact on the Japanese. As such, they were a particularly humane way of ending a horrific slaughter.
QUOTE(mufka @ Jun 3 2005, 06:02 AM)
Even if 10 million Japanese were killed to save the life of one US soldier, it would have been worth it.
Contrast with "Love they neighbor as thyself." Suggests that you love your neighbor less than one ten-millionth as much as you love yourself. Falls a bit short of Christian standards, doesn't it?
QUOTE(mufka @ Jun 3 2005, 06:02 AM)
Japan was a misbehaving child that we disciplined fiercely and then raised and guided into a well rounded and productive adult.
This represents a profound failure to understand Japanese culture. Have you ever been to Japan? What do you know about their culture?
Erasmussimo,
What regard must I have as an American citizen for Christian standards? Nothing in my Constitution says that I must love my neighbor. The Japanese certainly did not have such regard for the Allies.
As far as my understanding for Japanese culture - it has no bearing on my ability to support the defeat of the Japanese enemy on the field of battle. What aspect of their culture justified their attack on the US? What aspect of their culture justified the horrible mutilation and torture of US soldiers on Iwo Jima?
Regards,
What regard must I have as an American citizen for Christian standards? Nothing in my Constitution says that I must love my neighbor. The Japanese certainly did not have such regard for the Allies.
As far as my understanding for Japanese culture - it has no bearing on my ability to support the defeat of the Japanese enemy on the field of battle. What aspect of their culture justified their attack on the US? What aspect of their culture justified the horrible mutilation and torture of US soldiers on Iwo Jima?
Regards,
QUOTE(mufka @ Jun 6 2005, 12:43 PM)
What regard must I have as an American citizen for Christian standards? Nothing in my Constitution says that I must love my neighbor. The Japanese certainly did not have such regard for the Allies.
You are not required to honor Christian principles. The thrust of my comment was that any true Christian would find your disregard for Japanese life to be morally reprehensible.
QUOTE(mufka @ Jun 6 2005, 12:43 PM)
As far as my understanding for Japanese culture - it has no bearing on my ability to support the defeat of the Japanese enemy on the field of battle. What aspect of their culture justified their attack on the US? What aspect of their culture justified the horrible mutilation and torture of US soldiers on Iwo Jima?
My comment was specifically in response to your statement that "Japan was a misbehaving child that we disciplined fiercely and then raised and guided into a well rounded and productive adult." Your original statement had nothing to do with "the defeat of the Japanese enemy on the field of battle" and was instead an evaluation of Japanese culture. Hence the justification of my question about your expertise with Japanese culture.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.