America got it right when it nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002, 13:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

#46

Post by tonyh » 19 Apr 2004, 12:58

For anyone whose interested this was discussed two years ago.
:)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... highlight=

Tony

zleeper
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 16:19
Location: Sweden

#47

Post by zleeper » 23 Apr 2004, 19:15

Lawrence Tandy wrote:I have heard that Japan had offered a surrender proposal through the Soviets, who in turn neglected to pass this proposal on to the U.S, thus causing thousands of needless deaths. Is there any truth to this or is it just B.S.?
Actually he(Stalin) told the other allies about the peace feeler during the Potsdam conference, and if I remember correctly made it clear that he was not interested in mediating these discussions, ie he pushed the unconditional surrender terms. The japanese peace feeler was already known to the U.S. thanks to the breaking of the Japanese diplomatic code, though. Speculating, it is possible that Stalin actually knew about this, as he knew about the A-bomb.

Stalin also said that he did not want to be included in the Potsdam declaration. (Which he was in the preliminary draft)

The japanese had a treaty (that expired april 1946) with the USSR which Stalin broke and it both was, and was not, a suprise when Stalin attacked (as he had promised the allies).
Some japanese even considered the entry of USSR (whenever it happend) would increase the chance of a conditional surrender.

IMHO considering the consessions promised to Stalin for attacking Japan, his tactics seems obvious. Keep the element of suprise as long as possible then grab what you can. An example is that he, at Potsdam, said that he would not be able to attack Japan until the 15th but actually attacked on the 8th two days after Hiroshima.

As for other peace feelers(AFAIK) none of these were upgraded to higher level japanese officials/military and as such is hard to be taken serious.
Considering the diplomatic windup before WW2 I seriously doubt that diplomlomacy ranked very high.


User avatar
Beppo Schmidt
Member
Posts: 4324
Joined: 14 May 2003, 03:05
Location: Ohio, USA

#48

Post by Beppo Schmidt » 08 Jun 2004, 23:18

I am no American and I am glad to

History proofs that America will kill civilians
And history repeats itself
History proves that EVERY COUNTRY will and has killed civilians, what's with singling out the US all the time. United States of America is not the source of all evil in the world :x

User avatar
yerbamatt
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: 19 May 2004, 05:27
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Atomic bomb

#49

Post by yerbamatt » 09 Jun 2004, 05:56

Windward wrote:

And the four biggest Japanese Naval Yards during WW2 were Kure Naval Yard, Yokosuka Naval Yard, Kawasaki Shipbuildings at Kobe and Mitsubishi Shipbuildings at Nagasaki. So you can understand why Nagasaki was bombed, though the second bomb was planed to bomb Kitakyusho.
Winward, you're wrong - there was not such a city as KITAKYUSHU at the time. It was created in 1963 by merging five municipalities.

http://www.city.kitakyushu.jp/~english/01history/

It was KOKURA, one of these five towns, which was a primary target of the "Fat Man".

Regards...

User avatar
Klaus Yurk
Member
Posts: 1373
Joined: 15 May 2004, 04:15
Location: Lincoln, Ne.

#50

Post by Klaus Yurk » 11 Jun 2004, 09:47

History proves that EVERY COUNTRY will and has killed civilians, what's with singling out the US all the time. United States of America is not the source of all evil in the world
I agree. Every country has done it. But anyone that says the nuking of Hiroshima was good and right, but that the German bombing of London was wrong and evil, is an outright hypocrite. (Stupid...I will agree with!)

I happen to think that ALL bombing of civilians is wrong. But then, our family had, on my Mother's side, at one time, relatives in Dresden.

I fully understand, with the targeting ability available in WWII, why fire-bombings, carpet bombings, and nuking were done. I just happen to think that it is wrong. I hold NO grudges. I merely think waging war on civilians is wrong. No matter who does it.

In the new documentary movie "The Fog of War," Robert McNamara even states that Gen. Curtis LeMay privately told him, that if the US lost the war, he would be convicted of "war crimes." Even he knew it and acknowledged it.

In short, both sides did it. And, on both sides, I think it was wrong.

Just my personal opinion.

User avatar
Grünherz
Member
Posts: 1152
Joined: 07 May 2003, 10:13
Location: California

Hiroshima/Nagasaki

#51

Post by Grünherz » 11 Jun 2004, 10:39

On one of my first posts in this forum (on a similar topic) I mentioned that, in my opinion, I might not be here if it wasn't for the atomic bombs ending the war in the Pacific.
My father was an aircrewman for the Navy (Avengers, Leyte Gulf, etc.) and his Air Group had been back in the U.S. for training and R&R at the time of Japan's surrender. My belief is that they would have been back in action for the invasion of Japan.
My opinion (as reflected in some earlier posts on this thread) is that the bombing of Hiroshima--Nagasaki, well I just don't know--saved the lives of countless soldiers and civilians by ending the war sooner. I think that this is also the opinion of many Allied troops who survived the war.
Tom

(and, yes, the Japanese were stockpiling weapons for a last-ditch/all-out final fight).

User avatar
GUARDIA PRETORIANA
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 09 May 2004, 06:54
Location: Terra Incognita

#52

Post by GUARDIA PRETORIANA » 18 Jun 2004, 15:51

Sending allied forces onto the beaches of Japan for some kind of invasion/occupation that the Emperor was not copasetic with would be a worse 'war crime' then the A-bombs. Fanatical civilians and soldiers fighting city to city, hill to hill on the orders of their emperor would be too bloody to handle. And allowing the Japanese government to exist in its war-mongering form through peaceful surrender was not an option.

The bombs ended the imperialistic Japanese regime in a punishing and disturbing manner... which for the americans who had been surprise attacked not so long before, im sure there were many who wanted to drop more bombs. It also send a statement to the anti-allied world that America and its allies could stand up to the Fascist and also the Red Menace with no uncertain terms.

Goldfish
Member
Posts: 410
Joined: 31 May 2004, 14:51
Location: Atlanta, USA

#53

Post by Goldfish » 14 Jul 2004, 11:56

This is a reply to another post; "The bombing of Nagasaki". It was asked that we add to an existing thread rather than create a new one. So here goes.
In my opinion, the bombing of Nagasaki proceeded so closely after the Hiroshima bombing because it was clear that Japan was not willing to accept the Postdam Declaration or that they were even considering accepting it. This could have been for several reasons. First, there is some evidence that the Japanese believed that the US had only one bomb. Most atomic bomb programs were abandoned, including Japan's, because it was believed that it would take years to refine enough fissionable material to make even one small bomb. It is therefore possible that the Japanese, who were well aware of what had hit them, believed that the US had been woring for years just to build the Hiroshima bomb and had no others. They were almost right. Although the US had found a way to refine the material faster, they only had enough for three bombs and the third was damaged in transit. Had Japan not surrendered after Nagasaki, the US would have had to wait months before another bomb was ready. Second, the Japanese still thought that they could get a negotiated settlement through the Soviet Union. And third because any public hint that Japan was considering surrender might trigger a collapse or a military coup (which was attempted as soon as Japan indicated that it would accept the Potsdam Declaration).
In my opinion, if the Japanese were even considering accepting the Potsdam Declaration after Hiroshima, they would have let the Allies know as soon as possible (as they did very quickly after Nagasaki). Instead, the Japanese continued their attempts to convince the Soviets to act as a go between for a negotiated surrender. The US knew of these attempts through radio intercepts.
I don't know that waiting and giving Japan more time to consider would have made any differnence. The USSR's entrance into the war might have led to acceptance of Potsdam, but even that is not certain. Consider that even after Nagasaki, it took the direct intervention of the Emperor to get the military to accept surrender.
Japan had been willing to negotiate a surrender long before Hiroshima, but, as I stated before, they wanted a negotioted surrender that would leave them with the Imperial system, military government, and most (if not all) of their pre-Pearl Harbor Empire intact. They were later willing to accept retention of only their pre-1937 Empire, and this remained the goal up until Nagasaki and the Soviet entrance into the war. It is a common misconception that all the Japanese wanted was a guarantee that the Emperor would remain on the throne. That was the minimum for some, but the military wanted retention of control of the government and at least their pre-1937 territory.
The United States had promised China in 1943 that Taiwan, Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, and all of Japan's concessions and colonies in China would be returned to China and the US had already decided that Korea would become independent. As a result, the US was not willing to allow Japan to retain it's pre-1937 Empire. The US was also not willing to allow Japan to remain in the hands of its military leaders and, as a result, to exempt them from any war crimes trials. It must be remembered on this point that the US would not sign a seperate peace with Japan, so any surrender agreement would have to be approved by China, which would not approve of a continued military government in Japan or amnesty for war criminals.
Again, I think the bombings were horrible, but they were probably the only way to convince the military that a negotiated surrender was impossible and that they had no alternative but to "bear the unbearable" and hope for the best.

chino
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 01 Jul 2004, 14:05
Location: Shanghai, Singapore

A controversial view.

#54

Post by chino » 04 Aug 2004, 06:55

I really don't think that saving Japanese lives civilian or otherwise was on mmany people's minds during WW2.

The Jap soldiers treated every one they encountered in a most inhumane way and that didn't endear them to even the most soft-hearted human beings. They butchered, raped and plundered ALL before them. Not just their Asian victims but also Allied soldiers who fought them met similar cruelties.

And where do Japanese soldiers come from? They didn't get born in barracks. They come from the civilian population. So the whole Japannese nation (at that time) was like a scourge of the human race. It was like a cancer that spreads death and destruction evverywhere.

Was it wrong to try and wipe out this cancer?

In my mind the A-bomb was the real "Kamikaze" - the divine wind. It cleansed the Japanese nation. After the bombing, after we saw how they suffered, the world can recognise them as human beings once more and can forgive them for what they did.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#55

Post by Peter H » 04 Aug 2004, 09:35

Please don't use the derogatory term 'Jap' here.

Furthermore to taint a whole nation,and its people, for the acts of a few could be seen as rascist.

User avatar
Beppo Schmidt
Member
Posts: 4324
Joined: 14 May 2003, 03:05
Location: Ohio, USA

#56

Post by Beppo Schmidt » 04 Aug 2004, 15:29

After the bombing, after we saw how they suffered, the world can recognise them as human beings once more and can forgive them for what they did.
And what of the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who survived the atomic blast? Are they to be forgiven for being nuked? Forgiven for having their family vaporized. My grandmother survived Dresden, and she forgave the United States and Britain, not the other way around.

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

#57

Post by Topspeed » 04 Aug 2004, 16:01

zleeper wrote: IMHO considering the consessions promised to Stalin for attacking Japan, his tactics seems obvious. Keep the element of suprise as long as possible then grab what you can. An example is that he, at Potsdam, said that he would not be able to attack Japan until the 15th but actually attacked on the 8th two days after Hiroshima.
What has Stalin also attacked empire of Japan !? Why, when, what happened...there is the cancer of the world to you..attacking a country after it has been hammered with nukes ! Really a galant move...don't you agree ?


jt
Last edited by Topspeed on 16 Aug 2004, 21:33, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Psycho Mike
Member
Posts: 3243
Joined: 15 Sep 2002, 14:18
Location: United States

#58

Post by Psycho Mike » 06 Aug 2004, 17:47

I have a thread here on modern Hiroshima, because there is one. There are also reports of the military opposition to our nuclear strategy and reliance on technology since.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... highlight=

Would Japan have used a dirty bomb on us? As far as I know they tried- the Germans had a U-Boat filled with enriched uranium which there is ample open source material suggesting we took the uranium and used it on Japan.

Let's face facts here, Japan had expierenced fire bomb attacks that had left their cities made of wood a shambles. What would the words "nuclear bomb" have meant to anyone on earth when we used them? The radio didn't report the bombings, most people in Japan didn't even know of the attack! So much for the "breaking the will of Japan" theory- it just doesn't hold up. And if the populace was going to fight to the last person, why would they care if they were all killed by nukes or firebombs? That theory doesn't hold up. Many of the Japanese military leaders were prepared to kill the emperor if possible to continue the war after the two bombs were dropped.

70,000 people died in one attack. Those of military age were long gone. These were the elderly. Children. Women. And the P.O.W.'s the Japanese kept there.

Yes they would have used it on us. But the victims still deserve a moments silence.

User avatar
Beppo Schmidt
Member
Posts: 4324
Joined: 14 May 2003, 03:05
Location: Ohio, USA

#59

Post by Beppo Schmidt » 06 Aug 2004, 20:57

70,000 people died in one attack. Those of military age were long gone. These were the elderly. Children. Women. And the P.O.W.'s the Japanese kept there.

Yes they would have used it on us. But the victims still deserve a moments silence.
Mike, I'll be honest- it's not often that we agree, but I agree 100% here. Of course all the victims of the war deserve a moment's silence, and I don't see why there are arguments about that.

hellraiser
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 13 May 2004, 18:33
Location: sweden

#60

Post by hellraiser » 10 Aug 2004, 10:49

Hiroshima: 92 000 dead, 37 000 wounded.
Nagasaki: 23 000 dead, 43 000 wounded.

This is not much compared to the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo wich killed about 130 000 each.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”