Number of Dead people in Hisroshima and Nagasaki?

Discussions on all aspects of the Japanese Empire, from the capture of Taiwan until the end of the Second World War.
James McBride
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 15 Mar 2003, 23:58
Location: Sonoma County, California

#16

Post by James McBride » 31 May 2003, 01:39

Do you know why Hiroshima and Kyoto were the cities first on the list?

[edited to be asking the right question]
Last edited by James McBride on 27 Jun 2003, 20:30, edited 1 time in total.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#17

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 31 May 2003, 01:51

Hiroshima was the primary target on the first list because in was a large military stores area.

Nagasaki had naval stores.

Kyoto is a different critter, I believe it is the religious capital of Japan and I think it was first purely as a culturally morale destroying target.

The US Ambassor to Japan (Greer?) had suceeded the whole war of preventing Kyoto from getting bomb, as he said this would only prove to the Japanese that we were trying to destroy their culture not the military government and militaryability of Japan.

Picking Kyoto as a target for an Atom bomb was I believe the US high command getting fed up with fighting the Japanese in general, I think they had reached the conclusion that the Japanese were not going to surrender so they would end up killing every Japanese and Japanese
culture anyway.

Maybe they just hated the thought of a standing city, it was about the only one left , although I think it was the target of one small fire raid.
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 27 Jun 2003, 10:16, edited 1 time in total.


James McBride
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 15 Mar 2003, 23:58
Location: Sonoma County, California

#18

Post by James McBride » 03 Jun 2003, 00:46

Thanks.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#19

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 09 Jun 2003, 04:09

Also on the estimates of death for the bombs,

I have heard the figures put at 80,000-130,000 for Hiroshima and 40,000-to 70,000 for Nagaski, Your estimates are the lowest I have ever seen???

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
Location: ITALY

#20

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 27 Jun 2003, 02:44

ChristopherPerrien wrote:Hiroshima was the primary target on the first list because in was a large military stores area.

Nagasaki had naval stores.

Kobe is a different critter, I believe it is the religious capital of Japan and I think it was first purely as a culturally morale destroying target.

The US Ambassor to Japan (Greer?) had suceeded the whole war of preventing Kobe from getting bomb, as he said this would only prove to the Japanese that we were trying to destroy their culture not the military government and militaryability of Japan.

Picking Kobe as a target for an Atom bomb was I believe the US high command getting fed up with fighting the Japanese in general, I think they had reached the conclusion that the Japanese were not going to surrender so they would end up killing every Japanese and Japanese
culture anyway.

Maybe they just hated the thought of a standing city, it was about the only one left , although I think it was the target of one small fire raid.
Wrong reply! These were the official explanations. The truth was in the fact that Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kobe were never heavily bombed before. In this way scientists had the possibility to measure "in corpore vivi" the range of destructive shock-wave and the range of primary fall-out high radioactive zone. Releasing A-bomb on a destroyed town scientist could have no possibility to measure the effective destruction-range and with inhabitants desbanded was not possible to calculate % of casualties on equally spread population as a function of range of fall-out. There were not military strategical necessity to choose a town instead of another: Hiroshima was never bombed before because it was the main base of the Fleet and all the remains of the Fleet was lost facing Okinawa some months before August.
A-bombs were a dirty bloody nuke test. Nothing more, nothing less.
Dr. Strangelove existed: his name was John Von Neumann. :cry:

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#21

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 27 Jun 2003, 04:43

Nothing I said about Kyoto was incorrect, and both of the actual targets had military stores.

The official story and what I stated are the truth, there was no big conspiracy on the use of the Atomic Bombs on these cities or the targeting conventions used.

I would get back with some documentation to this effect, but since you give the impression that the official accounts are "lies", I don' t see the point.
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 27 Jun 2003, 10:19, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

#22

Post by Takao » 27 Jun 2003, 09:59

Please Gabriel, invest some time in research before you continue this argument further. You are arguing passionately, but with little knowledge about what you are arguing about.

First, Kobe was NEVER on the list of atomic targets. The cities on the first list were Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and Kokura. This was later refined to Kyoto, Hiroshima, Niigata, and Kokura. Finally, once Kyoto was dropped, Nagasaki was added. Someone should have corrected James McBride earlier on this. He confused Kobe with Kyoto.
Other than that what ChristopherPerrien has written is correct.
Kyoto was a capitol of ancient Japan and it was a city with great religious signifigance to the Japanese people. Groves argued that because of Kyoto's size it must have a vast amount of war work going on inside it.
It was Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War, who was responsible for having Kyoto taken off the list. Groves lobbied long and hard for keeping Kyoto as the primary target, but Stimson won out in the end. After the war, Groves would have the gall to claim he "saved" Kyoto from destruction, because he managed to keep it on his list for so long that it never endured a major bombing.

Second. gabriel pagliarani, you too have given a wrong reply! As the "official" explanation hides nothing. It clearly states that the cities to be targeted were to be military in nature AND not to have been previously damaged so that the effects of the bomb could be assessed accurately. Also, "Hiroshima was never bombed before because it was the main base of the Fleet and all the remains of the Fleet was lost facing Okinawa some months before August." Is untrue. Hiroshima did have a naval base, but it was never the main one. The main one was at Kure and it endured several carrier air attacks both before Okinawa and after. Hiroshima was never bombed before because, at the time, it was rated as a low priority target. If your looking for a conspiracy Gabriel try Kennedy or Pearl Harbor, you might have better luck.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#23

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 27 Jun 2003, 10:14

Thank you Takao, you are correct I did confuse Kobe with Kyoto.


I will go fix my posts , Thanks again . Been a long time since I read some of this stuff (20 years?).

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

#24

Post by Takao » 27 Jun 2003, 10:53

Your welcome ChristopherPerrien. My problem is the exact opposite. Seems like it's all I have been reading for the past 25 years.

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
Location: ITALY

#25

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 28 Jun 2003, 16:19

Kobe was a translittered error. You are right. But only on this point.
1) The fleet attacking Pearl Harbour left Hiroshima: a special target for propaganda internal use. Try to say this isn't true...
2) Weather opportunities cancelled other targets. Scientists asked 20km of clean visibility from plane to plane: Enola Gay wasn't the only B29 over Hiroshima. Technical opportunities indeed. No any moral consideration indeed.
3) What conspiracy? There was no political or militar conspiracy in any sense you add to this term. Simply war was end without playing the new toy: Mac Arthur asked for a demostrative drop facing Tokio Gulf causing an heart-break to Hiro Hito and the sudden collapse of Japan but nobody was hearing him because the new toy had to be tested on heads of Japs, not facing them. It worked exactly as per the last run of the B52 as described in Dr. Strangelove. A conspiracy is fulfilled of political consciourness, A-bomb launched as brute vengeance had no political control.
4) Any time this argument is touched a lot of "well thinking proud Americans" go hurried. The reason? Not only Nazi are guilty of war-crimes and you collectively feel the collective sin of those dirty bloody bombs.. 8)
Who loved the bomb? :oops:

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

#26

Post by Takao » 28 Jun 2003, 19:54

1.) False, The Japanese fleet left Hittokapu Bay at Etorofu Island(in the Kuriles) to attack Pearl Harbor.

Added: Before that the fleet had been training in Kagoshima Bay.

2.) False, You may be thinking of the second atomic mission. The decision to make Hiroshima the primary target had been decided well in advance of the mission flight. Weather did not cancel any targets on this mission. However, on the second atomic mission Major Charles B. Sweeney made 3 passes on Kokura and never sighted his aiming point. They were forced to divert to their secondary target, Nagasaki. Upon reaching Nagasaki, the target was clouded over, but at the last moment a break in the clouds allowed the target to be seen.

Added: The first atomic mission the weather over primary target Hiroshima, secondary target Kokura, and tertiary target Nagasaki was clear. And yes there was more than one plane over Hiroshima: "Great Artiste", piloted by Major Charles B. Sweeney, was outfitted with scientific instruments. And "No. 91", piloted by Major George Marquardt, was outfitted with photographic equipment

3.)The war was over? Shame nobody thought to inform the Japanese the war was over. Personally, I think "Dugout" Doug's statement is full of hot air. A demonstration drop would cause Japan to surrender, I don't think so. Japan did not surrender when millions of it's people were starving. Japan did not surrender when the American's had control of it's skies and seas. Japan did not surrender after the massive B-29 fire raids on her main cities. I think it ludicrious to expect Japan to surrender after a demonstration drop of the atom bomb. The Atomic bomb was not just a vengence weapon as you make it out to be. The bomb was originally intended to be dropped on Germany, not Japan. Among other factors to the dropping of the bomb were: The American government had invested billions in it's development and would not waste it on a demonstration. After all the had already exploded one in a demonstration, only the told no one about it. The dropping of the bomb would serve as a message to the Soviets of America's power, after all the split between the Allies had already started. Also, America wanted to end the war quickly, before the Soviets entered into the Pacific conflict. An invasion of Japan would be a long drawn out campaign and would be very costly in American and Japanese lives.

Added: Right there I have provided you with some political decisions that influenced the dropping of the bomb. If the Pearl Harbor attack had gone as planned, with the declaration of war coming some 30 minutes before the attacks started, I feel the atomic bombs still would have been dropped.

4.) War crimes??? That's one of the most idiotic terms ever coined. Is not war itself a crime? After all, your taking people and telling them to do something that they have been told all their lives is wrong. Kill. During WW2, there was more than enought killing to go around. What makes the Atomic raids different from other raids, the awnser is nothing. Bombs were dropped and people died, it had been going on since September, 1939, if you include Japan&China 1932 or 1937(depending on your viewpoint).

Are the bombs a sin? No more than a bullet or a battleship or anything else meant to kill. As an American do I feel part of your "collective sin". No...Wait I'll even ask for a recount...What do you know the awnser is no again. Why should I feel guilty for something that occured well before I was born? Do I feel guilty about slavery, no. Do I feel guilty about the treatment of the American Indians, no. It's history, and it's in the past, a past I was not part of. Do Italians feel guilty about supporting Mussolini? Do they feel shame about their pitiful showing in WW2?

Who loved the bomb? General Leslie R. Groves.

As the Eagles song goes "Get over it."

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
Location: ITALY

#27

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 29 Jun 2003, 02:55

Takao wrote:1.) .... The American government had invested billions in it's development and would not waste it on a demonstration. After all the had already exploded one in a demonstration, only the told no one about it. The dropping of the bomb would serve as a message to the Soviets of America's power, after all the split between the Allies had already started.... ."
:lol: ..finally you said I am right! Only less than 1000 persons in whole America had full consciourness what a beast was really the A-bomb. And only few of those were Americans, starting from my own compatriot Enrico Fermi. They loved the bomb! Message to Soviets? May be..weren't they allied of USA? :idea: ...or not? Because if they were not your allieds yet, the war was just over!!
Wake up, Takao!

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

#28

Post by Takao » 29 Jun 2003, 10:41

I am very awake Gabriel, however, I would suggest several cups of expresso to you. You hypothesis is only 50% correct. As you told ChristopherPerrien that he is wrong for suggesting the the Atomic mission targets were purely military in nature, I am telling you are wrong for stating that the only reason for dropping the atom bombs was only for the scientists. You are both correct, yet both wrong. The decision to drop the atomic bombs was a combination of both awnsers. If the question had been multiple-choice, the awnser is D.) All Of The Above.

If the scientists so "loved" the bomb the why were several so vocal against it's use(for example: Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard, and Alexander Sachs)?

As for the Alliance between the West and the Soviets, I consider it a marriage of convieience or "An enemy of my enemy is my friend." I don't think the Soviets ever enjoyed a close relationship similar to that of Britain and the United States. The West and the Soviets were as much Allies as Germany and Japan...Each fighting a common enemy, but each pursuing different goals.

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
Location: ITALY

#29

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 30 Jun 2003, 13:43

Takao, we are mixing political, military, ethical considerations in the wrong emotive manner.
Truman was informed too late about Manhattan's last step and he had not the "moral height" of Roosevelt. Simply he gave the OK to the last step of the Manhattan without spending a further minute in any kind of political project. I am sure that, with Roosevelt still living , the demostrative launch in Tokio Bay should be performed as ULTIMATUM towards Japan and as VADE RETRO toward SU. A power demonstration much more significative towards Soviets than towards a Japan just defeated. Simply the scientists were left free to lead a nuclear conflict, without any political mediation. Why assembly 3 bombs without any political "escalation" time outing? The originary plan controlled by Roosevelt was suddenly adapted to Truman's leadership:but there was no management of this. Manhattan project was performed authomatically by the techno-military leadership without any political, ethical, moral control as it was the last step of an experiment. Hear me, Takao...USA had any legal authority to perform those launches against their worst enemy. But the ethical question still standing is: why was not the 1st launch on Tokjo Harbour performed as ULTIMATUM?
2 espresso a day are enough to my poor liver.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

#30

Post by Takao » 30 Jun 2003, 19:30

Yes we have tended to drift off-topic a bit.

I will attept to awnser your question as to why the powers that be decided against a demonstration in Tokyo Bay.

First and foremost, the fuzing of the atomic bomb had not been perfected yet. In several tests, the fuzing either failed to explode or exploded seconds after the bomb left the aircaft. Becuase, the scientists had known of the bomb's devasting power, they had designed an intricate fuzing system. It consisted of a series of electrical switches that would close as each switch's condition was met, eventually detonating the bomb at a given altitude. The first switch would close when the bomb was released from the aircraft. The second switch was on a timer and after
a set period of seconds it closed. The third switch was contolled by a barometric pressure meter, it would close once a given height(5,000 feet) was reached. The last switch was a radar altimeter that would close at 1,850 feet. The last test of this fuzing system was conducted on August 5, 1945, by Major Sweeney in the "Great Artiste". The dummy bomb was supposed to emit a puff of smoke when it reached 1,850 feet above ground. The bomb dropped into the ocean with out giving off this puff of smoke. When Major Sweeney heard the results of the test he predicted
that when the "live" bomb was dropped the next day it would be a dud.
Now, if the Japanese had been forewarned of a demonstration drop in Tokyo Bay(or another city) on August 6, and the bomb had worked as it did on August 5, what would be the reaction of the Japan and the world. The American's had just announced this devasting new weapon and it turns out to be a dud! American credibility would be shot and the war would continue to drag on. As such, the American leadership did not have total faith that the bomb would even work. Hence, the decision was made not to give any advance warning before the Atomic bomb drop. The Americans were hedging their bets against a dud, if it fell and failed to explode, they hoped no one would be the wiser. It was this lack of faith in the Atomic Bomb that precluded using it in a demonstration drop.

Second, would a demonstration have had a greater effect than an actual drop on a city. I believe that awnser to be no. As we have seen, the first bomb was dropped on August 6 & Soviets join the fight against Japan, the second on August 9, and Japan finally decided to surrender on August 14. So now we have two cities vaporized, hundreds of thousands dead
or dying, The Soviets attacking and the Japanese still argue about whether or not to surrender. Japanese scientists, at first could not even confirm that it was an atomic bomb that had destroyed Hiroshima, not even with all of the tangible evidence left by the bomb. Now, if the bomb had been dropped in the Tokyo Bay, there would been much less
evidence to analyize. Even after the Japanese scientists identified the bomb as being atomic, the Japanese leadership deluded itself into believing that it wasn't. Then, you must ask yourself what effect would a bright flash and a loud noise have on a citizenry that has endured the holocaust of the fire raids.

Third, the United States had been giving Japan ultimatums since Potsdam. The Japanese disounted these as propaganda and discounted them. The messages would become more and more pointed that the Japanese faced eradication if they would not promptly surrender. Still, the messages were ignored. The Japanese were given many chances to surrender, they decided not to take them. However, I do feel that if the US government had decided to make an offer which allowed the Emperor to remain on the throne, as the US State Department suggested, a diplomatic conclusion to the war might have been made. Unfortunately, the US government decided against such an offer. Japan had tried to make a peace offer through the OSS in Switzerland(April '45), but Stimson stopped it before it reached Truman's desk. Also, Japan had been trying to use the Soviet Union as an intermediary with the US, but this approach went nowhere.

As for Roosevelt and Truman, their "Moral height" is an irrelevant issue. Roosevelt's writing on the matter of the atomic bomb was very ambigious. Some believe that FDR would have dropped the bomb as Truman did, other say FDR would have issued a warning to the target city so that it could be evacuated, still other subscribe to your demonstration of the bomb, and finally that the bomb might not have been used at all had FDR still lived. As to Truman's "quick" decision, to use the bomb, I believe this came about because of the failure to include then Vice-President Truman in the Manhatten Project. Roosevelt had been in on the Project from the beginning and had plenty of time to form his own opinions on the subject, while Truman was deliberatly kept "out of the loop" because he did not "Need to know." Truman was not informed of the Project until April 24, 1945. Thus Truman had to do a great deal of "catch up" on the subject. To do this, Truman relied heavily on his advisors and was influenced by their own feelings on the matter.
Now, if Truman had been in on the Project from the beginning his conclusions about the matter might have been different.

As to why little time was given between drops, on that matter, I can only speculate. The United States had "painted itself into a corner," with the demand for unconditional surrender at Potsdam. I don't think there is an escalation above "Unconditional Surrender." We basically told them surrender or die, how do you trump that? The Allies could not increase the threat and if they backed off and offered terms then they would appear weak. The military and political leadership overestimated Japan's willingness to resist. After all Japanese public broadcasts routinely espoused Japan's willingness to resist to the bitter end, and their combat tactics(Kamikazes, Banzai charges, suicide mini-subs) only reinforced this notion. If only one bomb had been dropped, the Japanese might explain it away as being a one time only deal(and several Japanese did).
But with two bombs coming so close together, it could not be explained away as a unique or fluke episode. It is also possible the US leadership figured that if the Japanese were foolish enough to continue fighting after the first drop, then they deserved what they got with the second. Finally, US leadership had seen with Germany that diplomatic negotiations were
futile, so why should Japan be any different.

One thing I can't understand is why you keep going on about the scientists. Groves was the driving force behind the project.
He got the bomb built, and his persistance made sure it was used.

P.S. As for me I live on 2-3 pots of coffee a day. I have found this discussion very interesting and look forward to your next reply.

Post Reply

Return to “Japan at War 1895-1945”