Apologetic? - Hiroshima (1995) Discussion

[–] Plucifer 19 years ago

Its true that at the time of the bombing the war was basically decided. Since Nazi Germany was out of the war the Axis had lost most of its power base. The Allies could now turn their focus towards Japan with the United States taking most of the brunt of the assault.

As for the bombings not being neccessary, they were done to get Japan to surrender. They did not have a chance of winning the war but they were also desperate beyond what had been seen in modern conflict. Although running low on food and supplies they continued the fight, the fire bombings were done in hope that the devestation and the noticeable air superiority of Allied forces might make the Emperor decide to stop the war. Instead they still had the home armies on the main Japanese islands, in addition to training suicide bombers, and even civilians to attack incoming soldiers. The collaterral damage from an invasion force would have been significantly higher than the bombing, even those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The casualities fot these raids would have easily topped 1 million casulties.

Many historians understand this is a horible event, but further research shows that the death rates would have been far higher and the war would have lasted a few years longer had the weapon not been used.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] boncemeister 19 years ago

Plucifer, you present the orthodox view - hardly necessary considering the history textbooks, encyclopedia entries, film documentaries, all proffering the same analysis as fact. But history is about reportage and analysis, and there is much to dispute.

"the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing" General Dwight Eisenhower.

"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" Truman's chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy.

"Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might and that a demonstration of the bomb may impress Russia" Truman's secretary of state, James Byrnes.

In an age of depleted uranium and increasing nuclear proliferation, is it right to condone the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and risk insulting victims and endangering the planet? Rather, while risking Truman's honorable memory, we should constrain leaders against the 'justifiable' use of WMD by examining the inhumanity of such acts while emphasizing the alternatives.

reply

[–] Plucifer 19 years ago

While these quotations are true, most were made after the war was over, and after seeing the ultimate effects of the bomb on humans. These facts were not known at the time of dropping the bomb. It is true that Japan had nearly collapsed but dozens, even perhaps hundreds of books demonstrate they were willing to keep fighting despite the fact they could not feed their own people. It was a fact as well that they still had thousands of Japanese soldiers that were ready to defend the mainland despite it being futile. The casualty figures for both sides would have far excided the numbers of dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm not condoning the attacks I'm just demonstrating the probable alternative. The war would have at least lasted until 1946 at which point Japan would have been in far worse condition. Furthermore, the United States gave Japan two chances to surrender and they refused, thinking after Hiroshima that the American forces were allowing additional room to maneuver when they requested only the armed forces to back down. They had every opportunity to surrender and they did not. Iwo Jima and Owijima further demonstrate their desperation to remain in the war despite their losses. In addition it shows their spirit to keep in a brutal fashion rather than accept defeat.

Lastly this article is hardly a scholarly source for information. This is just a left wing and EXTEREMLY biased news report that throws history out the window. This article even goes to the extreme of calling the United States terrorists. Some great journalism in this article can be found here "Drunk from the success of its nuclear bloodletting in Japan" and "US and around the globe by the use of nuclear weapons remains the main restraint upon the atomaniacs in Washington." A few truthful quotes are surrounded by a cornacopia of crap.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050801&articleId=785

reply

[–] boncemeister 19 years ago

The hypothesis that peace was not possible and that suffering and death would have been worse because of a land war is both coherent and well supported by mainstream analysis. This does not mean that it is ‘fact’ nor that other hypotheses are therefore false (e.g. that the bombs were strategic re. Russia). The exact circumstances and influences surrounding the decision to drop the bombs cannot be known, only accepted (assumed to be true) from involved sources, or inferred by some method of analysis. We should not ignore the realpolitik of history writing. Clearly we do not share the same methodology for historical analysis - uncertainty should be acknowledged and alternative paradigms accommodated. You present a series of hypotheses and interpretations as fact, some of which are disputable. You do not qualify your view as such, which is why I raised evidence for an alternative view.

You refer correctly to an article I read containing the quotes. I presented three quotes which stand alone as reported, the source is irrelevant (but worth reading). I count eleven forms of negative criticism of the article, not one of which is substantive (8 insults, 3 assumptions of incorrectness). Alternatively, if you don't mind wikipedia, try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Opposition_to_use_of_atomic_bombs

I do not intend to convince you that your argument is wrong, only to provide some balance to message board readers. If we condone past deeds as 'necessity', then we cannot deter the same military paradigm from endangering the planet. For example, 2,400 tons of depleted uranium have been aerosolized or scattered in the latest Iraq war (another ‘necessity’) – 40,000 times more uranium than Hiroshima, with 4.5 billion years half-life and no known technology for cleanup. The orthodox view is that depleted uranium, though radioactive, is legal and ‘safe’.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] McTodd 18 years ago

I can't help thinking that Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented nuclear weapons being used again.

How many times has the world been at the brink of nuclear war? And how many times must the images of the victims of the Japanese cities, and the awesome ruins, been in the minds of the men with their fingers on the trigger?

Awful though they were, the atomic bombings may have done the world a service.

reply

[–] voodooqueen126 18 years ago

most movie about hiroshima tend to take a very biased view against the americans, but this actually showed the decisions that went on... as opposed to some sob story about how awful it was (which it was but... you get the point don't you?)
Do I look as if I care?

reply

[–] ssaraf-2 17 years ago

Sorry, I don't get the point. And what you said about a "sob story" says a lof about the type of person you are.

You don't want to listen to the real stories of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, because you feel these people are beneath you and deserved to die.

The Japanese army and goverment were out of control during that time period, but I'm sorry. How can you gloss over the story of small children -- who had done nothing wrong -- watching their families being incinerated and not be moved by it?

The "sob stories" that you mention are the first things that people must pay attention. What happened is done. There's no way to go back and prevent the bombs from being dropped on those two cities. The reasons why and how are irrelevant. It doesn't matter. It's over.

The only important detail is the recollections of the survivors from these horrors. That way we can maybe prevent anything this revolting from happening again.

reply

[–] happy_apostate 17 years ago

Dropping the bombs saved millions of Japanese lives and ensured that they continued to exist as a people and a country. Further, forcing them to surrender before the Russians reached the Tokyo city limits also ensured that the country remined unified after the war. It was hell, but they were necessary to force capitulation.

Out of curiosity, who else here has actually been to the peace park, museum, and Dome in Hiroshima?

---
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. - David Hume

reply

[–] indy_go_blue44 16 years ago

I can only add this, the opinion of a sailor aboard a US transport at Okinawa (expletives and ethnic slurs cleaned up):

"We sat at Naha for 7 days [during the Okinawa campaign.] I saw several ships hit by kamikazes and 3 of them sunk. They came close to my ship several times.

"We were building up for the invasion of Kyushu. Men who had fought the Nazis were starting to arrive from Europe. I felt really bad for them because they had no idea what kind of soldier a Jap[anese] was. Hell, one guy I talked to captured 75 Germans with his pistol, he was some kind of hero in Europe but he would have been 75 ways dead over here.

"We got the word that an atomic bomb had been used on August 15. Right after that we heard the Jap[anese] had finally decided to surrender. I thought 'my God, I'm going to live.' You'll never know what it is to live 3 years thinking you might be dead at any moment.

"I got to Guadalcanal just in time for a big battle. I was at Saipan and Peileilu. They were bad, all bad, but I knew they weren't going to be nothing like what invading Japan would be. We didn't learn until later just how bad the atomic bomb was, but I'm glad as hell they used it and if you knew what the Jap[anese] were like in that war, you'd know why it had to be done."

Those comments were from my father-in-law, and I've never forgotten them.

**********
Dark Knight.. yes it's great; I can't wait for the sequel "Dark and Stormy Knight."

reply

[–] LiquidDynamite 17 years ago

"For example, 2,400 tons of depleted uranium have been aerosolized or scattered in the latest Iraq war (another ‘necessity’) – 40,000 times more uranium than Hiroshima, with 4.5 billion years half-life and no known technology for cleanup. The orthodox view is that depleted uranium, though radioactive, is legal and ‘safe’. "

Your mistaken. DU is not Radioactive at all. You clearly know nothing of which you speak. DU is 'depleted'. Look this word up if you don't know what it means. It is hazardous not because it's a nuclear weapon, but because it is a heavy metal. it does not become 'aerosolized', then it explodes it disintegrates, the dust resulting from this is the problem. Not it's radioactivity. It's a common mis-conception.

Furthermore, you comment that a Naval blockade would have worked (how you know this is beyond me) and killed less. This is incredibly naive. Japan had planned to fight to the bitter end. A naval blockade would have starved the population (food after all always goes to the army first) and set the scene for more bombings. Not only that the Russians were interested, and if the war was not over promptly, Japan may have been divided like Korea (look what happened to that one). Not only is there no valid argument to support the claim that less lives would have been lost otherwise (this is taking into account the fact that if the weapons were not used, the current mass bombings would have continued unabated), when it is widely regarded to be untrue. It's a popular anti-American myth that arose in the 60's and has little academic substance. Furthermore it would have left Japan in a far worse position postwar. Either divided like Korea. Or far worse, left with the same government that threw it's people into the conquest of China and WWII. Surely the Japanese would agree that the current Japan, despite the loss of life from allied bombing, is far better that old Japan. The sacrifice is worth it. They were brainwashed and being ruled horrendously by facists. I think the Japanese should be grateful.

reply

[–] boncemeister 17 years ago

zotmiester said:

Your mistaken. DU is not Radioactive at all. You clearly know nothing of which you speak. DU is 'depleted'. Look this word up if you don't know what it means. It is hazardous not because it's a nuclear weapon, but because it is a heavy metal. it does not become 'aerosolized', then it explodes it disintegrates, the dust resulting from this is the problem. Not it's radioactivity. It's a common mis-conception.

Oh dear. Try my reverse-semantic-parser:

You're not mistaken. DU is radioactive. You clearly know much of which you speak. DU is depleted of U-235, but not U-238. I need to look this word up if I don't know what it means (links below). It is hazardous because it is a nuclear weapon, and also because it is a heavy metal. It does become 'aerosolized' - it burns (pyrophoric) to produce suspended particles smaller than dust - the aerosol resulting from this is the problem, combined with its radioactivity. I have a rare mis-conception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
http://www.google.com/search?q=aerosolized+uranium+pyrophoric

zotmiester said:

Furthermore, you comment that a Naval blockade...

- does not compute - no such comment made. I will have to leave the reverse-semantic-parse of your second paragraph as an exercise for the overly keen. (Hint: the result is a similar collection of arbitrary assertions.) Also, I think you spelt your name wrong (e before i in meister).

reply

[–] nedra66 14 years ago

Apparantly boncemeister you have researched this a great deal. Unfortunatlely you know what they say about hindsight. Given the information Truman had at the time this was necessary evil. The Japanese military were never going to give up. Yes the politicos in Japan knew that the war was over but they dragged their feet hoping the Russians would help them negotiate terms for a surrender. Because of the military, they could not be overt about a surrender because the fear over a military coup (which the military did try and failed). The Russians were another reason. Truman watching Stalin gobble up territories in eastern Europe knew that if Russia were invoved in Japanese surrender would go after more territories in the far East. What was not known at the time was Japan itself developing an atomic bomb. And they were only weeks behind America in terms of testing it. So if the war had not ended when it did....maybe Japan would have used theirs first.

reply

[–] RKnSGs90 18 years ago

this movie points out the fact that even after both bombs had been dropped on Japan, the Japanese military still did not want to surrender. They opposed the Emperor when he decided upon a full non-conditional surrender and even mounted a failed coup attempt to prolong the conflict. To think that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't speed up the end of the war is just naive.

reply

[–] Friederich 18 years ago

This Forum makes me sad! Don't you people know those were women and children down there. To end a war fast by doing that, is not worth it, I would rather have soldiers die then women and children...wouldn't you?

Don't Mess With Germany

reply

[–] RKnSGs90 18 years ago

Bjorn.....

I would rather have no single human being die because of war, but since Japan and your country, Germany were intent on conquering the world, we had to stop them.........and we did.......

remember, there's no such thing as a fair fight.....

reply

[–] Friederich 18 years ago

see what I mean people...no offence!

Don't Mess With Germany

reply

[–] RKnSGs90 18 years ago

"You shoot women and children?"

"Sometimes"

"How can you shoot women and children?"

"It's easy. You just don't lead them as much"

Full Metal Jacket

reply

[–] S.L.Fake 18 years ago

bjorn-109 said:
This Forum makes me sad! Don't you people know those were women and children down there. To end a war fast by doing that, is not worth it, I would rather have soldiers die then women and children...wouldn't you?

What about places like Manchuria and Nanking...
What about places like Auschwiz, Buchenwald, Bergen-Breslen, Dachau (and some 35-40 other Nazi Death Camps), the Warsaw Ghetto, etc...

You do know that there were women and children in these places to?

Sorry... by your quote, I don't suppose you want to be reminded of THAT.

-----
"Probably". The word is "Probably"! Enough of that "prolly" crap.

reply

[–] voiceofsilence 18 years ago

I apsalutely love Japan and can't even begin to imagine what it was like in Hiroshima after the bombing. I'm latin from Puerto Rico living in the states and I just wanted to say that I wish something like that never had to happened and pray that it never happens again.

I'll always love Japan even more then my own country.

reply

[–] charlesadams1 18 years ago

Just remember that it was the Japanese dreams of ruling their empire across all of Asia and the Pacific which lead to the ultimate act. America gave them many chances to come to the negotiating table and end the war peacefully but the Japanese vanity and stubborness would not let them bow down and do that.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Samuraibro 8 years ago

A "history"? You sound as if the US has used atomic bombs multiple times when they've only been used twice in quick succession in 1945. It must be great to have the power of hindsight and know what should be done even though you weren't there at the time.

Funny how you also say nothing about the atrocities that Japan has committed and also tend to refuse to acknowledge ever happened.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] theskippyspartan 15 years ago

Sorry, but i have alwaysed viewed the bombings as one of best of two evils.

Think!!

If they didn't bomb Japan, what then. Japna would not surrender. then the Allies would ahve to invade Japan. Invading JApan would mena the loss of approximatly 2,000,000 allied lives in the fighting. now unfortuantly for them, the allies won't just be fighting teh Japanese army, but its people. they woudl follow the orders of Hirohito to the death (he was viewd as a god to them), so how many citizens would die then?

Then what, the allies take Japan, peace is restored. I doubt it.. lets face it, if the Allies invaded Japan, the Russia would ahve joned in. Stalin would love to have a peice of Japan and install the communsit governemtn in the lands he took. Then we have a Communist Nth Japan, and a democratic Sth Japan. Something like Korea of Vietnam would happen. Also yet again Hirohito ( He knew what was going on in the war, so he is a war criminal like Tojo)would be spared the death penalty, becasue MacAurthur would need him to control the people.

The bombings no matter how evil it was, was a lesser of Two evils, and the Americans did a great thing. If you still think it was wrong and call me a evil person, think about this. It may be possibel our grandfathers or fathers woul dhave taken part in that invasion, and possibley lost their lives fighting for our rights as free people. if they died, we would no longer exist

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hankmcn 14 years ago

At the end of WWll Japan was being run by the Army who's leaders had no respect for the old politicians who were willing to end the war, to them surrender was worse than the entire population being wiped out down to the last child with a sharpened bamboo spear.

In my opinion the best thing to come out of that war was the end of two long time militant states like Japan and Germany who were not allowed to rearm to the degree of ever being aggressors again. Imagine a military budget with only enough arms for self defense. We'd have enough money to fix the bridges and roads we neglect so we can buy 20 million dollar airplanes.

reply

[–] xenodrone 11 years ago

The atomic bombs weren't the reason why the Japanese finally surrendered. It was the Soviet Union invasion of Manchuria, the Soviets wiped out the Kwantung million men army, the most forgotten battle and biggest military.The Red army was also speeding their way to Japan's main islands,that terrified Japan into quickly surrendering to the Americans. The atomic bombs didn't make a difference to the japenese since most of their cities were already destroyed by firebombing like the one in Tokyo. Dropping the 2 atomic bombs was military unnecessary.

reply

[–] phillipsdan83 10 years ago

It was both. The Japanese would have rationalized that the Russians wouldn't have had it so easy taking their home islands without the atom bombings having taken place. And the atom bombings alone wouldn't have scared the Japanese into surrendering quickly, as they figured we couldn't have had that many atom bombs.

reply

[–] IcanthandleDoctorWho 9 years ago

From the mouth of Emperor Hirohito himself: (Note the bold part)

[Emperor Hirohito, Accepting the Potsdam Declaration, Radio Broadcast.
Transmitted by Domei and Recorded by the Federal Communications Commission, 14 August 1945]

"To our good and loyal subjects: After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in our empire today, we have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.

We have ordered our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration.

To strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations as well as the security and well-being of our subjects is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by our imperial ancestors and which we lay close to the heart.

Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to insure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.

But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone--the gallant fighting of our military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of out servants of the State and the devoted service of our 100,000,000 people--the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, nor to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.

We cannot but express the deepest sense of regret to our allied nations of East Asia, who have consistently cooperated with the Empire toward the emancipation of East Asia.

The thought of those officers and men as well as others who have fallen in the fields of battle, those who died at their posts of duty, or those who met death [otherwise] and all their bereaved families, pains our heart night and day.

The welfare of the wounded and the war sufferers and of those who lost their homes and livelihood is the object of our profound solicitude. The hardships and sufferings to which our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great.

We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that we have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the [unavoidable] and suffering what is unsufferable. Having been able to save *** and maintain the structure of the Imperial State, we are always with you, our good and loyal subjects, relying upon your sincerity and integrity.

Beware most strictly of any outbursts of emotion that may engender needless complications, of any fraternal contention and strife that may create confusion, lead you astray and cause you to lose the confidence of the world.

Let the entire nation continue as one family from generation to generation, ever firm in its faith of the imperishableness of its divine land, and mindful of its heavy burden of responsibilities, and the long road before it. Unite your total strength to be devoted to the construction for the future. Cultivate the ways of rectitude, nobility of spirit, and work with resolution so that you may enhance the innate glory of the Imperial State and keep pace with the progress of the world."

To say that the bomb had "no impact" on the Japanese surrender is disingenuous.

reply

[–] Lava-Rocks 7 years ago

You would have to have lived through WWII to know enough about the decision to drop the Bomb. I think it was necessary. End of story. If you want to contest this, try running up a beach with 100 enemy soldiers trying to kill you.

reply