The bombing of Hiroshima

[Sunset Rose]

I saw on the news that August 6th was the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. I've read that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped end WW2. I notice that Japan has never became a military super power since that time.
Was it right to bomb the Japanese this way? Do you think the war could have been ended without the loss of so many innocent civilians? What do you all think?

 

[Max R.]

Absolutely the bombing was the correct action. We were losing an average of 300 Americans every day. Any President who let the war continue one more day than necessary would be irresponsible. The execution of Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan, would undoubtedly led to hundreds of thousands more causalities on both sides.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/
The main concern for the Americans was the potential for huge casualty rates. Nearly every senior officer involved in the planning did his own research regarding American casualties – this was based on the experience America had fighting the Japanese since Pearl Harbour.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that Olympic alone would cost 456,000 men, including 109,000 killed. IncludingCoronet, it was estimated that America would experience 1.2 million casualties, with 267,000 deaths.

Staff working for Chester Nimitz, calculated that the first 30 days of Olympic alone would cost 49,000 men.MacArthur’s staff concluded that America would suffer 125,000 casualties after 120 days, a figure that was later reduced to 105,000 casualties after his staff subtracted the men who when wounded could return to battle.

General Marshall, in conference with President Truman, estimated 31,000 in 30 days after landing in Kyushu. Admiral Leahy estimated that the invasion would cost 268,000 casualties. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. The ‘Los Angeles Times’ estimated that America would suffer up to 1 million casualties.

The firebombing of Tokyo March 9th, 1945 resulted in an equal, if not higher, number of casualties.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/firebombing-of-tokyo
On this day, U.S. warplanes launch a new bombing offensive against Japan, dropping 2,000 tons of incendiary bombs on Tokyo over the course of the next 48 hours. Almost 16 square miles in and around the Japanese capital were incinerated, and between 80,000 and 130,000 Japanese civilians were killed in the worst single firestorm in recorded history.

http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki
On August 6, 1945, during World War II (1939-45), an American B-29 bomber dropped the world’s first deployed atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people; tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure. Three days later, a second B-29 dropped another A-bomb on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 40,000 people.

 

[georgephillip]

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his 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'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

It's more likely Truman dropped the bomb to scare Stalin out of Korea.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

 

[Max R.]

Mao Zedong killed 45 million.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html
Mao Zedong, founder of the People's Republic of China, qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history, an expert who had unprecedented access to official Communist Party archives said yesterday.

......At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in China over these four years; the worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55 million.

 

[georgephillip]

"'It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.'

"'The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.'

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441."

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

 

[Queen Titania]

I saw on the news that August 6th was the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. I've read that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped end WW2. I notice that Japan has never became a military super power since that time.
Was it right to bomb the Japanese this way? Do you think the war could have been ended without the loss of so many innocent civilians? What do you all think?

It is what Victors have done since there were Wars - wipe out the History and Structures of their Victims past to rebuild their, usually inferior, own on top of what had been - After the War was won the Allies turn to dust almost every City which was Japanese or German and starved millions, then demonized them. That is what Victors do, the Victors of modern times are no different to those of the Ancient past ---- same old same old with the same old propaganda.

 

[Max R.]

Wow. What alternate reality did that happen? In this one we had the Marshall Plan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
By the end of World War II, much of Europe was devastated. Sustained aerial bombardment during the war had badly damaged most major cities, and industrial facilities were especially hard-hit.[19] The region's trade flows had been thoroughly disrupted; millions were in refugee camps living on aid from United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration and other agencies. Food shortages were severe, especially in the harsh winter of 1946–1947. From July 1945 through June 1946, the United States shipped 16.5 million tons of food, primarily wheat, to Europe and Japan. It amounted to 1/6 of the American food supply, and provided 35 trillion calories, enough to provide 400 calories a day for one year to 300 million people.

 

[Fast Eddy]

Truman made the right decision. We would have lost so many soldiers and probably more civilians if we had made a land invasion.

 

[Sunset Rose]

Truman made the right decision. We would have lost so many soldiers and probably more civilians if we had made a land invasion.

There are other people who were close to the situation who say differently.

 

[Fast Eddy]

There are other people who were close to the situation who say differently.

I'm curios what those people said. I'm a student of the military and there were estimates that we would lose a million soldiers to talk Japan. The country was saying they would never surrender and the people were planing on meeting the soldiers on the beach with hoes and pitch forks. Can you imagine the slaughter with this mentality. The bomb changed their thinking and saved millions of GI lives. They had mountain fortresses that they planned to launch Kamikaze planes and by many estimates we could have been seriously hurt.
I stand by what I have read and what I was told from the old vets. I'm always open to new information, so please educate me.

 

[Sunset Rose]

I'm curios what those people said. I'm a student of the military and there were estimates that we would lose a million soldiers to talk Japan. The country was saying they would never surrender and the people were planing on meeting the soldiers on the beach with hoes and pitch forks. Can you imagine the slaughter with this mentality. The bomb changed their thinking and saved millions of GI lives. They had mountain fortresses that they planned to launch Kamikaze planes and by many estimates we could have been seriously hurt.
I stand by what I have read and what I was told from the old vets. I'm always open to new information, so please educate me.

Did you read the above posts by georgephillip?

 

[Max R.]

There are other people who were close to the situation who say differently.

There are always dissenting opinions, but fact remains every GI in Europe who was packing up to go to the Pacific breathed a sigh of relief that the war ended due to the new "superweapon".

As for this taboo on nukes, I don't get it. Would you rather be killed by a nuke or a 500lb bomb? Doesn't matter, does it? We killed an equally large number of people firebombing Tokyo. Do you think they'd have preferred firebombing over a single atomic bomb? I doubt it.

 

[Fast Eddy]

Did you read the above posts by georgephillip?

Yes, I read it, but believe History shows a different situation. I have read many accounts of the end of the war and none take that stand. Everything I have read points to a very bloody end without the bomb.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes, I read it, but believe History shows a different situation. I have read many accounts of the end of the war and none take that stand. Everything I have read points to a very bloody end without the bomb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War_(1945)#Importance_and_consequences
"In the 'Sixty years after Hiroshima' issue of the Weekly Standard, American historian Richard B. Frank points out that there are a number of schools of thought with varying opinions of what caused the Japanese to surrender.

"He describes what he calls the 'traditionalist' view, which asserts that the Japanese surrendered because the Americans dropped the atomic bombs.

"He goes on to summarise other points of view.[20]

"Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation.

"He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North.
There were many Japanese and Russians alive in 1945 who remembered the Russo-Japanese War which had ended in 1905 with a surprising Japanese victory.

Rumors of Russian atrocities in Nazi Germany were also reaching Japanese ears. Japan wanted no part of a Soviet occupation like the one pillaging Germany. As long as they were allowed to keep their Emperor, the Japanese would have surrendered without the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[Fast Eddy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War_(1945)#Importance_and_consequences
"In the 'Sixty years after Hiroshima' issue of the Weekly Standard, American historian Richard B. Frank points out that there are a number of schools of thought with varying opinions of what caused the Japanese to surrender.

"He describes what he calls the 'traditionalist' view, which asserts that the Japanese surrendered because the Americans dropped the atomic bombs.

"He goes on to summarise other points of view.[20]

"Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation.

"He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North.
There were many Japanese and Russians alive in 1945 who remembered the Russo-Japanese War which had ended in 1905 with a surprising Japanese victory.

Rumors of Russian atrocities in Nazi Germany were also reaching Japanese ears. Japan wanted no part of a Soviet occupation like the one pillaging Germany. As long as they were allowed to keep their Emperor, the Japanese would have surrendered without the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Wikipedia is not a trusted source, anyone can edit these files. Much of what I read on this site is wrong.
What you quote is an opinion, there are many more people with other views as to how the war ended.
If they were so ready to end the war, why did it take them so long to surrender, even after the bombs were dropped.

 

[georgephillip]

Wikipedia is not a trusted source, anyone can edit these files. Much of what I read on this site is wrong

Can you find anything "wrong" in the following?
"Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a 'strategic bankruptcy' for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.
Specifically, do you doubt Japan lacked the manpower and resources to counter two separate invasions? If you expect me to believe your views are more credible than Wiki's, provide some impartial evidence to back your claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War_(1945)#Importance_and_consequences

 

[georgephillip]

If they were so ready to end the war, why did it take them so long to surrender, even after the bombs were dropped.

Stalin declares war on 8 August, and Japan surrenders one week later; Too long?

 

[Fast Eddy]

Can you find anything "wrong" in the following?
"Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a 'strategic bankruptcy' for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.
Specifically, do you doubt Japan lacked the manpower and resources to counter two separate invasions? If you expect me to believe your views are more credible than Wiki's, provide some impartial evidence to back your claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War_(1945)#Importance_and_consequences

This is one man's opinion of what happened, we all have opinions and there are many contradicting accounts. You of coarse can believe which one you like, I choose to not believe it based on many other writings.

 

[Max R.]

Can you find anything "wrong" in the following?
"Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a 'strategic bankruptcy' for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.
Specifically, do you doubt Japan lacked the manpower and resources to counter two separate invasions? If you expect me to believe your views are more credible than Wiki's, provide some impartial evidence to back your claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War_(1945)#Importance_and_consequences

Yes. It's not just the military who'd be fighting, but the entire population.

Have you ever lived in the Far East? Japan specifically? Their culture is very different from a European mindset. For one thing, while many Westerners give lip-service to spiritual matters, Japanese, especially those of the time, "walk the walk". They'd rather die than capitulate.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes. It's not just the military who'd be fighting, but the entire population.

Have you ever lived in the Far East? Japan specifically? Their culture is very different from a European mindset. For one thing, while many Westerners give lip-service to spiritual matters, Japanese, especially those of the time, "walk the walk". They'd rather die than capitulate.

They were ready to surrender weeks before the bombs were dropped on one single condition: the retention of the institution of their emperor.
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

"Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, 'MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.'

"He continues, 'When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.'"

"Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71."

Truman delayed accepting the Japanese surrender until August of 1945 in order to impress Stalin.

"BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

"Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359."