Nuking Japan Saved Millions? Horsehockey

[Anna G.]

Coming to agreement on whether it was "necessary or not" would require agreeing on what the necessary outcome of the war had to be... and we see that very differently than the japanese, and we always will. If all that was to be accomplished was to temporarily stop Japanese aggression in the Pacific, then we had pretty much assured that by the time we had the A-bomb. But, the only outcome which the allies would accept was unconditional surrender, assuring that Japan would suffer a defeat of sufficient humiliation to make sure they never considered a similar action in the future. Such is the end of all wars... those who believe they were wronged never settle for anything less than unconditional surrender, true even when the United States fought itself in our own civil war. One point which is clear: Japan would NEVER have surrendered without dropping the bombs and many in the regime fought hard against surrender even after they were dropped.

I disagree. Dont get me wrong. I like the outcome of the war. My point was that your sources could be wrong. If the japanese indeed were ready to surrender without the bombs the outcome would be the same without such drastic measures. The point which is clear for you is exactly the one which I think is impossible to be sure of.

In a war of attrition, with artificial rules imposed by you, where we take one life from them for every life they take from us...they win handily.

I get it finally.. a little embarrassed, but amused.

 

[madmike]

Also, the conventional bombings and firebombings of Coventry, Dresden and Tokyo killed more people than both nukes. The Japanese raped and killed more than a million in Nanking.

Oh, but those weren't nukes, so they don't matter.

The Bataan Death March, 47 bombing runs over Darwin, Australia, the Malaysian, Filipino, American, Dutch and Indonesian women forced to "Service" troops in "relief stations" for four years, fifteen hours a day...

We invited their Ambasssador to the Trinity test, which we weren't sure would succeed. We dropped warning leaflets. We picked cities with major industrial centers but minimal cultural interest. We gave them three days in between each one to consider.

More than they gave us at Pearl or Corregidor, eh?

 

[moa]

Some other lives that were saved was in Southeast Asia and China. Japanese forces were still rampaging successfully through out China, and cruelly occupied parts of China and Southeast Asia.

It is estimate that the Japanese killed between 19 and 36 million Chinese, much of it outright murder.

The A-bombs brought all of that to an end.

 

[Shane333]

Anna G.,

Thanks for your sincere thoughts.

Regarding the consensus as to whether or not the USA was justified in dropping the bombs, you'll find the consensus is "YES". You may disagree and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

As for the worth of one's life and wartime, I'll quote General Patton who said it best, "No son of a bitch ever won a war dying for his country. You win wars by making the other son of a bitch die for his country." I couldn't say it better myself. We made the other SOB's die for their country, and we won the war. That is the nature of war.

Personally I don't regret dropping the A-bomb simply because they deserved it. In fact they deserved worse than what they got.

As for the supposed feelings of superiority, I'd like anyone here to tell me what other country would have felt the unselfish need to rebuild Japan, after all the brutal crimes the Japanese committed to other nations? Dropping the A-bomb didn't make us morally superior to anyone, but rebuilding the "enemy" was an act of absolute benevolence that I doubt many other countries to aspire to. We're trying to do the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan, with little positive recognition from the rest of the world, so I hope you'll forgive me if I feel a little pride at the selflessness of my country.

 

[CarlS]

Anna, I admire the way you are trying to think this topic through. And you are absolutely on target that history books change. We call that "revisionist history". I see a trend to write history as one wished it had happened rather than as it actually happened. American schools are full of this revisionist history.

You are lookiing at this as two nations fighting each other and there is nothing wrong with that. I look at it as us vs. the Japanese. From that view, it definitely becomes personal.

CarlS, I understand you, but I am sure lots of japanese lost their relatives there. I have to admit I dont understand anything from military business but I think if there is something worth destroying in these two cities there is no need to kill everyone in there, just what you have to. Ie there is no point to try to believe that the real reason was to destroy something specific, it was a show of power.

Yes, for me, it was definitely personal. People were involved with faces and names that I came to know. I realize that the Japanese lost relatives; but that doesn't mean that I feel guilty because mine didn't get killed. Given the choice, I had rather have had the Japanese lose relatives than me lose mine. Selfish? Probably so; but it is honest.

I spent most of my life in the Army. I came to learn that some leaders and some cultures only respect one thing - force. Sometimes displays of power are necessary to prevent further violence and bloodshed. If the only motive in dropping the A-bombs was a show of force (which I don't believe), it worked. It brought about unconditional surrender and prevented further bloodshed and loss of lives on both sides and on the Asian mainland. I can find no credible evidence that the Japanese were considering unconditional surrender prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The allied objective was unconditional surrender with the minimum loss of allied lives. The objective was accomplished.

I don't consider American lives to be any more or less valuable than any other peoples lives - unless we are at war. War is about killing the enemy before he can kill you and neutralizing his will and ability to fight. During war, I consider the lives of American service members infinitely more valuable, to me, than the lives of the enemy. War is ugly, terrible and tragic.

 

[HBK]

Japan should have surrendered sooner. Then maybe we wouldn't have incinerated two of their cities. Anyone who doubts that atomic bombs saved American lives is an idiot.

 

[bad_dad_brad]

I have done a lot of reading and research on the subject of the use of atomic weapons on Japan. I have come to these conclusions:

1. America spent billions of dollars developing an ultimate weapon of war in what amounted up to that time, the single greatest engineering feat ever attempted by mankind. What would the American public have done if we did not use it to end a war ? Truman really had no choice.

Let us just say, that we did invade Japan. Then let us say that America suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties in doing so. Then let us say, that the Japanese suffered millions. And then let us say, oh by the way we had the Atomic bomb, but thought it to inhumane a weapon to use. No way. We had it - we had to use it. People today have no idea what World War II was like unless they objectively read history.

2. Yes we were also sending a signal to the Russians - no doubt about it. Would you rather the northern islands of Japan become communist? It could have happened. Can you spell North Korea?

3. It did end the war. The Emperor of Japan gave the order to surrender based upon the overwhelming strength of this new weapon - only he could end the war, yet even then, some rebelling Japanese officers tried to prevent the Emperor from doing so.

It was quite clear based upon the resistance of Japanese soldiers, sailors, and airmen during the battles of the Pacific theater, and later the civilian reaction in Okinawa, that the obedience to the Chrysanthemum of Empire was paramount. Blowing up Mt. Fuji was not going to send any kind of signal to those people other than - you are too weak to use your strength, so we will fight on.

4. If we had the bomb before Germany surrendered, would we have used it on Berlin? No doubt about it - yes. That crap that we would not have used the bomb to end the war in the European theater because the Germans were white people is just that - crap. Just like in Japan, only one man could have ended the war in Europe, either by his death or capitulation, and that man was of course, Hitler.

People who espouse that we should not have dropped the bomb on Japan are of three types:

1. Ignorant of history.

2. Feel good types that think it is worse to die from Atomic bombs than from conventional bombs - my God - do you know how many civilians were killed fire bombing Tokyo, Dresden, Cologne, etc.? Dead is dead.

3. Academe types who have an agenda and distort historic facts. History, after all, is often written to the advantage of the historian.

 

[Iain]

I see the word 'revisionist' in conjunction with the word 'history' quite a lot. Usually negatively.

I would say that revisionist history was often a genuine attempt to reassess the evidence about a certain era or event and to stop relying on the classic writings on the subject. In that sense I don't regard it as bad thing in and of its self. Yeah it's been used to promote certain agendas, mostly notably Holocaust deniers, but there is a difference between genuine academic revisions and lies.

History comes in schools of thought, marxists et al, sometimes you need to look at the classic tome on a subject and assess that writing and that author in their own context and decide whether that work is 100% valid. Writings about the French Revolution from a marxist historian would be one example I could give, same is true of what marxist historians have called 'The English Revolution', I know it as the English Civil War.

I'm afraid history isn't necessarily about facts, I like to think of it as his-(s)tory.

Apologies if that is a lecture.

 

[Iain]

double post.

 

[oldfart]

"We made the other SOB's die for their country, and we won the war."


Actually, we just got to wave our flag over their county for a few years. In the end, both Japan and Germany ended up stronger amd in better financial condition than before the war. Like our "War on Poverty," "War on Drugs," and "War on Terror," the supposed focus of all our effort became stronger because of our efforts.

The Bible tells us that God instructed the Hebrews to kill every man, woman and child, together with all their cattle, sheep and goats when they (the Hebrews) invaded a country. They never did as they were told and they were always punished.

Nowadays, tactics such as those are called "genocide" and frowned on by all 'civilized' people. Instead, we conquer a country and hurry to install a new government that will turn on us as soon as we look away. I guess 'civilization' has some hidden costs.

 

[Oleg Volk]

"Japan" as a people didn't deserve to get nuked. Three-year old kids who got toasted had no part in the atrocities committed by the Japanese army. However, the guilt should be placed on the Japanese army, same as a criminal who commits a drive-by with his kids in the car should be charged with murder if return fire from the would-be victims kills the children.

 

[kbr80]

In the end, both Japan and Germany ended up stronger amd in better financial condition than before the war.

Of course they did, we spent millions of tax dollars to rebuild it.

 

[Ryder]

I'll never feel the least bit of responsibility. I wasn't even born.

The only lesson to be learned is to be careful who you want war with, you just might get it.

 

[StuporDave]

StuporDave, I am sorry, but I disagree. I am a bulgarian and for me a bulgarian life doesnt worth more than the life of another person who belongs to any other nationality. Though I have to agree on the last one. My life definately worths more for me than any other. Selfish, but true, its human nature.

Anna,

I think you're not getting my point. I'm not trying to say American lives are generally more important than anyone elses.

When I wrote:

If you were Japanese, Japanese lives were worth more than American lives.

If you were German, German lives were worth more than allied lives.

If you were British (or American, for that matter), British lives were worth more than German lives.

I was specifically talking about WWII.

You said you are in Bulgaria. Say Bulgaria is at war with another country. The Bulgarian military leaders are going to make plans to inflict maximum casualities on the enemy forces while keeping the Bulgarian forces as safe as possible. They will fire artillery into enemy positions, but avoid Bulgarian forces. In this situation (war), to Bulgarians, Bulgarian lives are more important than the enemy soldiers' lives.

That is the point I was making. In peacetime, all human life is equally important. But, the moment someone tries to kill me, that person's life becomes very unimportant to me.

Dave

P.S. - excuse me for being so rude. Welcome to THR!

 

[Tim L]

Couple of things

Hopefully they will add to the discussion. First, I had an opportunity to meet Gen. Paul Tibbets several years ago. He always does a Q&A session where he answers questions from the audience and also repeats some questions and answers from past events. At one of the past events a lady stood up and pointed to a man, her husband, and told Gen. Tibbets that he had saved her husbands life by dropping the bomb. he was a POW and was digging his grave when the second bomb was dropped and Japan surrendered. Second, the US, Japan and Germany were developing atomic weapons, we got there first. Only found one link in a quick search, but this link covers some of the details. Would they have succeeded? fortunately we will never know.

Tim

 

[Tom A]

If the japanese indeed were ready to surrender without the bombs the outcome would be the same without such drastic measures.

If they were indeed ready to surrender, would you then presume that they were somehow incapable of communicating that intention?

 

[Khornet]

St. Johns,

your point about revisionism is well taken, for as we get further down the road we do indeed get a better overall view of where we were standing. Repeated looks back in view of new data are always useful.

BUT (you knew there had to be a but) if you accept the idea that there are as many points of view as there are onlookers, we should be seeing a spectrum of new views of history. That is not the case, for the overwhelming tone of revisionist history in the last thirty years, especially in academia, has been condemnation or deconstruction of the West, Western thought, and especially America. Look at any college course catalog and you'll see what I mean.

That pattern shows that modern revisionists do not actually try to evaluate history in the light of new knowledge; rather they start from a political conviction and revise history to fit.

An example of the wholesome kind, which I would not actually call revisionism since that to me means adjusting history to suit your politics, is the change from the "only good injun is a dead injun" view to the publishing of "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" and "Son of the Morning Star", in which America came to see how badly the Indians were treated.

An example of the revisionist kind would be the recent attempt by the Smithsonian Institute to portray the Hiroshima bombing as an act of American racism and bloodlust, with little or no exploration of what could have provoked us to drop the bomb.

Thoughtful historical review is open-minded and sees many sides, as is necessary to understand human actions. Today's historical revisionism is decidedly one-sided, and thus anti-truth.

 

[Iain]

I don't disagree Khornet if that is the way it is in colleges over there. Things are a little different over here at times.

Not too long ago I took a history course at university called 'Empires on the Nile' it was about the history of Egypt and the Sudan in the 19th century and British rule. It could have been a real opportunity for some handwringing 'aren't we all evil' diatribes from the tutor, particularly over actions in the Sudan against the Mahdi's revolt. In one notable battle the British killed 10,000 men in a morning for the loss of about 12 I think. The tutor was a great pains to point out that this was the result of a monumental strategic error on behalf of the Mahdi who was operating under delusions of victory against the British on the open plain - spears against new-fangled artillery.

rather they start from a political conviction and revise history to fit.

I'm afraid history has always been written that way. Macaulay and the others are all guilty of it, try reading some of Winston Churchill's work on the World Wars, what he omits to mention in places can be stunning. Revision does need to be undertaken - particularly as a lot of what was written in the 1950's and 60's was undertaken by Marxist thinkers - we know how we feel about them.

Historians have always had their preconceptions and biases, they've operated under over-arching schemes (marxism is just one example) they've been determinist and all sorts. Sometimes history is very clear and most of the time it's not, new books and new writers muddy the waters as much as they clarify them.

An example of the wholesome kind, which I would not actually call revisionism since that to me means adjusting history to suit your politics...

I appreciate that definition, unfortunately it means finding a new word for the 'wholesome kind'. I'll have a look in to it and see what the good ones call themselves.

See you later.

 

[Khornet]

Well, St. Johns

I hope it really is different across the pond.

Of course we all have preconceptions, and of course they influence our interpretation of history, and of course you can find them if you look closely enough. But that's beside my point, which is the strikingly uniform nature of today's historical revisionism. It is so uniformly deconstructionist and anti-west that to be truly revisionist in American academia today would be to write pro-west history. It's really much more a political indoctrination than anexamination of history through honest eyes.

 

[bountyhunter]

Anna, I admire the way you are trying to think this topic through. And you are absolutely on target that history books change. We call that "revisionist history".

And by all credible accounts, the worst offenders in the realm of "revisionist history" of the 20th century were the japanese. I saw some of their "textbooks" regarding WWII, and all you read about was how much they suffered under the hands of the US forces, etc. No reality programming about what circumstances led up to the war. Bottom line is this: in the 30's, japan's government came under control of a warlike sect of militaristic people who believed it was their destiny to conquer and control their area of the world. Period. They began "expanding", and the methods they used against the "inferior races" they were conquering reflected the level of propoganda they were disseminating internally as to how they were the superior race and the other Asian races were sub human. That is pure racism, and although it's not PC to say it, that component exists in their culture today 9an arrogant disdain for westernized culture).

The point is, while they were "expanding", they were given wrnings to stop. FDR assembled a coalition of nations who agreed to stop selling japan oil, knowing that the war machine does not run without it. Japan was faced with only teo alternatives:

1) Capitulate and stop conquering territories.

2) Secure oil supplies independent of US control.

They freely chose the latter. The attack on our forces was about one thing (times haven't changed much): OIL. The japanese had to secure the oil fields of the Dutch east indies, which they did. However, they failed to destroy our fleet which meant the sea lanes to carry the oil home were never actually clear and unrestructed. most knowledgable people withing Japan knew the war was lost as early as six months in, because of their failure to deal our fleet a fatal blow and obtain free oil flow.

The bottom line is that the war with japan arose because Japan followed a clearly marked path that always leads to war; rapid expansion/aggression and slaughtering of civilians in adjacent countries. Where they miscalculated was the US willingness to step in and fight a war on two fronts (Europe and pacific). We did and we kicked their butts. The ultimate responsibility for wars lies with who starts them, and the methods used to obtain surrender in this war were fully acceptable at the time.

BTW: whoever is filling you with BS that Japan would have happily surrendered is shoveling the stuff that makes lawns green and plants grow.

 

[bountyhunter]

If the japanese indeed were ready to surrender without the bombs the outcome would be the same without such drastic measures.

Honestly, who is feeding you this drivel? The facts are that not only was japan NOT going to surrender, but even after the bombs were dropped, there was an internal struggle against it. The Bushido code said fight to the death, and the militaristic elements demanded exactly that. The only reason surrender occurred was very simple: the emporer adamantly ordered it and he was considered to be a living god, and his word could not be questioned (seriously). If he had not ordered surrender, the war would have gone on for many years. Do you know why? At that time, all of the enriched U-238 that existed in the world was in the first two bombs (named "Fat Man" and "Little Boy"). It would have taken time to make more because of the crude methods... and if Japan was willing to suffer through the loss of a major city every couple of months, then we would have had to fight until all their forces were gone. That would have taken years and cost us millions of US deaths.

 

[Thumper]

Anna,

Facts: A unanimous vote by the Japanese Cabinet was required for a surrender. Even after seeing results of the second bomb, they were unable to agree to surrender (12 members, 8 votes for, three against, and one abstaining).

In addition to the Cabinet, the Big 6 rulers of Japan were unable to agree...three were for surrender, but the other three, War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda, steadfastly refused to surrender. Remember, this is all AFTER the second bomb.

In fact, when Japan finally surrendered, Anami disembowelled himself with a sword.

Did you know, Anna, that any Japanese who spoke out in favor of peace were arrested? (Pacific War Research Society, DML, pg. 167-168; Butow, pg. 75(56n) & 178-179; Sigal, pg. 228-229)

The Japanese were obviously NOT ready, or even close to being ready, to surrender before the bombs were dropped.

I would suggest that you closely examine the motives of those who would tell you that they were.

 

[lapidator]

Of course, if we hadn't used nukes in Japan, we might have in Korea, not knowing the effects. Or Vietnam. Would that have been better?

Yes, lets take Korea for example. We would certainly have used Nukes in Korea if we had not in 1945 -- we nearly did as it was!

By then, the Soviets had nukes of their own -- it would have lead to all out nuclear war.

Oh, yes... it would have been much better to invade Japan and hold the nukes for later days...

Lapidator

 

[Paco]

Lapidator and Bountyhunter,

As much as I appreciate your intelligent arguments, they are shady speculations at best. We really don't know if there would be a knock down drag out fight, as much as we like to think we know what the Japanese were thinking.

If they surrendered with the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then who's to say that the would have NEVER surrendered otherwise. Just like someone else said: dead is dead and bombing is bombing. Lets' just say given what was known, as long as we the people and historians haven't been lied to, the a-bombs were a smart tactical move in that it presented a new weapon in the theater of war that had high destructive value and intimidation.

It just shouldn't be justified with a bunch of would ifs such as lives saved. Maybe LESS lives would have been lost with just a few more conventional bombing runs... Who knows...

-I think someone said it best that after having spent all that money and time, they had to use that puppy.

 

[moa]

I thought "Fat Man" was made with U-235, and not U-238.