At Hiroshima’s 70th Anniversary, Japan Again Mourns Dawn of Atomic Age

[TitanTiger 20,469]

Well, as I mentioned, numerous knowledgeable people, both contemporary to the war and who studied it afterward, believe Japan would have surrendered without the bomb drops.

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

And the most knowledgeable person subjected to all of the expert opinions, Harry S. Truman, made the call to drop the bomb(s) in order to end the war & preserve even further loss of life.

[AUDub 11,131]

Yeah I would consider that a war crime. But You can't list all of the war crimes and label them as one.

These were the estimates of the civilian death total from the Second Sino-Japanes War. That's why I rolled them up. Exclusively China. Haven't included other countries.

Americans killed over a million by firebombings and by the atomic bombs as well.

I'm aware of that. Why does the atomic bomb get singled out? Operation Meetinghouse alone saw an estimated 100,000 deaths as a result of incendiaries, on par with the nukes, yet the a-bomb was Truman unleashing the "greatest evil?"

As I pointed out earlier, both were considered "crimes to humanity" at the Nuremberg trials. Not to mention on American war crime side, we held concentration camps for our citizens with Japanese ties.

Which is horrible. I need to find an article I read recently from George Takei, who was in one of them in his youth.

Still nowhere near equivalent to the crimes committed by our opposition.

I am glad we went to war with Japan to atone for their war crimes but like I said many times, the two A bombs were not necessary. We answered atrocity with atrocity.

Again, easy to say that now.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

And the most knowledgeable person subjected to all of the expert opinions, Harry S. Truman, made the call to drop the bomb(s) in order to end the war & preserve even further loss of life.

He's not a trump card that baptizes the decision into being the right one. People hear all the sides of an issue and make the wrong call all the time, every day.

[Mims44 1,864]

And the most knowledgeable person subjected to all of the expert opinions, Harry S. Truman, made the call to drop the bomb(s) in order to end the war & preserve even further loss of life.

He's not a trump card that baptizes the decision into being the right one. People hear all the sides of an issue and make the wrong call all the time, every day.

You're doing it right now

[aujeff11 6,243]

Yeah I would consider that a war crime. But You can't list all of the war crimes and label them as one.

These were the estimates of the civilian death total from the Second Sino-Japanese War. That's why I rolled them up. Exclusively China. Haven't included other countries.

Americans killed over a million by firebombings and by the atomic bombs as well.

I'm aware of that. Why does the atomic bomb get singled out? Operation Meetinghouse alone saw an estimated 100,000 deaths as a result of incendiaries, on par with the nukes, yet the a-bomb was Truman unleashing the "greatest evil?"

As I pointed out earlier, both were considered "crimes to humanity" at the Nuremberg trials. Not to mention on American war crime side, we held concentration camps for our citizens with Japanese ties.

Which is horrible. I need to find an article I read recently from George Takei, who was in one of them in his youth.

Still nowhere near equivalent to the crimes committed by our opposition.

I am glad we went to war with Japan to atone for their war crimes but like I said many times, the two A bombs were not necessary. We answered atrocity with atrocity.

Again, easy to say that now.

That fact was known then. America easily could have allowed the USSR to jump into action against Japan, as they promised at Yalta or they could have performed various other tactics to finally provoke them into unconditional surrender.

I've brought up the sins of the firebombing many times today even though the very name of this thread dictates that we should be talking about atomic bombs. I explicitly said that the use of strategic firebombing weakens the idea that our military absolutely had to have the atomic bombs. Because we firebombed over 65 cities, the Japanese were only figuratively speaking hanging on by a thread, making the bombs unnecessary.

[AUDub 11,131]

That fact was known then. America easily could have allowed the USSR to jump into action against Japan, as they promised at Yalta or they could have performed various other tactics to finally provoke them into unconditional surrender.

You put a lot of faith in ever reliable (*snigger*) Russia, who declared war one hour before they would have been in violation of their agreement at Yalta, and a few hours before Fat Man detonated over Nagasaki.

And you also neglect that Japan was not talking to us directly, and we could see their supposedly secret communications, having broken their codes a few years prior. These communications only indicated a fierce battle for their homeland on the horizon.

I've brought up the sins of the firebombing many times today even though the very name of this thread dictates that we should be talking about atomic bombs. I explicitly said that the use of strategic firebombing weakens the idea that our military absolutely had to have the atomic bombs.

Because we firebombed over 65 cities, the Japanese were only figuratively speaking hanging on by a thread, making the bombs unnecessary.

Nonsense. As deadly as incendiary bombing was, its power of persuasion was, uh, limited compared to the atom bomb.

Have you read the transcript of Showa's speech informing the public of the surrender? Know how many times he mentioned Russia? Incendiary bombs? 0. But do you know what he did bring up?

...Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable...

[aujeff11 6,243]

Now you're just talking in circles. I'm not going to amuse myself by watching you chase your tail.

[AUDub 11,131]

Now you're just talking in circles. I'm not going to amuse myself by watching you chase your tail.

Because I have to keep beating you over the head with my cyber-stick until it sinks in.

I had thought you more mature than that. Shame.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

And the most knowledgeable person subjected to all of the expert opinions, Harry S. Truman, made the call to drop the bomb(s) in order to end the war & preserve even further loss of life.

He's not a trump card that baptizes the decision into being the right one. People hear all the sides of an issue and make the wrong call all the time, every day.

You're doing it right now

Ha.

Of course I'm not. Because aside from the possibilities of the Japanese being already in a mood to negotiate a surrender, there was a naval blockade of the island among other options to bring Japan to the negotiating table. Our options simply were not to incinerate 130,000+ civilians or endure a bloody land invasion.

[AUDub 11,131]

And the most knowledgeable person subjected to all of the expert opinions, Harry S. Truman, made the call to drop the bomb(s) in order to end the war & preserve even further loss of life.

He's not a trump card that baptizes the decision into being the right one. People hear all the sides of an issue and make the wrong call all the time, every day.

You're doing it right now :)/>

Ha.

Of course I'm not. Because aside from the possibilities of the Japanese being already in a mood to negotiate a surrender, there was a naval blockade of the island among other options to bring Japan to the negotiating table. Our options simply were not to incinerate 130,000+ civilians or endure a bloody land invasion.

A blockade isolates a Power, but it does not kill it. Strategic bombing lays waste to cities, devastates populations, crippling industry and transport, but leaves entire Armies relatively unscathed.They gave us no indication that the blockade and continued firebombing would end the war. Remember, we could read their communications. Not that we had to. The Japanese Governmental News Agency, their state news organization, formally announced to the world that they were going to ignore all of the provisos of Potsdam and of their unwavering refusal to surrender.

In late July of 1945, intelligence intercepts revealed Japan had closed all schools, non-essential industry, and commerce, mobilizing and arming much of its civilian population. Aerial reconnaissance clearly showed massive fortification and underground facility construction underway throughout Japan. They armed and mobilized literally millions of citizens

MacArthur predicted at least a million casualties. General Charles Willoughby, MacArthur's Intelligence Chief, considered that a conservative estimate.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Now you're just talking in circles. I'm not going to amuse myself by watching you chase your tail.

Because I have to keep beating you over the head with my cyber-stick until it sinks in.

I had thought you more mature than that. Shame. :glare:/>

You do dodge,dip, and deflect with the best of them.

[AUDub 11,131]

Now you're just talking in circles. I'm not going to amuse myself by watching you chase your tail.

Because I have to keep beating you over the head with my cyber-stick until it sinks in.

I had thought you more mature than that. Shame. :glare:/>

You do dodge,dip, and deflect with the best of them.

lol

thought you were done.

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

And the most knowledgeable person subjected to all of the expert opinions, Harry S. Truman, made the call to drop the bomb(s) in order to end the war & preserve even further loss of life.

He's not a trump card that baptizes the decision into being the right one. People hear all the sides of an issue and make the wrong call all the time, every day.

I never said Truman was a trump card. Look, I acknowledge there are two sides to the argument whether the atomic bombs were absolutely necessary to end the war. I'll even acknowledge that Japan's situation in 1945 when the population ran through their available food supply & starvation became reality may have convinced the militarists that 'fighting to the last man' was senseless, finally prompting unconditional surrender. But ... acknowledging that side of the argument still doesn't erase Truman's stated reasons for dropping the bomb in his announcement to the world, his diary entries nor in his memoir.

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

That fact was known then. America easily could have allowed the USSR to jump into action against Japan, as they promised at Yalta or they could have performed various other tactics to finally provoke them into unconditional surrender.

You put a lot of faith in ever reliable (*snigger*) Russia, who declared war one hour before they would have been in violation of their agreement at Yalta, and a few hours before Fat Man detonated over Nagasaki.

And you also neglect that Japan was not talking to us directly, and we could see their supposedly secret communications, having broken their codes a few years prior. These communications only indicated a fierce battle for their homeland on the horizon.

I've brought up the sins of the firebombing many times today even though the very name of this thread dictates that we should be talking about atomic bombs. I explicitly said that the use of strategic firebombing weakens the idea that our military absolutely had to have the atomic bombs.

Because we firebombed over 65 cities, the Japanese were only figuratively speaking hanging on by a thread, making the bombs unnecessary.

Nonsense. As deadly as incendiary bombing was, its power of persuasion was, uh, limited compared to the atom bomb.

Have you read the transcript of Showa's speech informing the public of the surrender? Know how many times he mentioned Russia? Incendiary bombs? 0. But do you know what he did bring up?

...Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable...

And ... let's not forget the contribution to ending the war that LT Marcus McDilda (a captured P-51 pilot) provided by "confessing" (under torture) that the US had 100 atomic bombs and Tokyo & Kyoto were the next targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember/Marcus_McDilda

[aujeff11 6,243]

That fact was known then. America easily could have allowed the USSR to jump into action against Japan, as they promised at Yalta or they could have performed various other tactics to finally provoke them into unconditional surrender.

You put a lot of faith in ever reliable (*snigger*) Russia, who declared war one hour before they would have been in violation of their agreement at Yalta, and a few hours before Fat Man detonated over Nagasaki.

And you also neglect that Japan was not talking to us directly, and we could see their supposedly secret communications, having broken their codes a few years prior. These communications only indicated a fierce battle for their homeland on the horizon.

I've brought up the sins of the firebombing many times today even though the very name of this thread dictates that we should be talking about atomic bombs. I explicitly said that the use of strategic firebombing weakens the idea that our military absolutely had to have the atomic bombs.

Because we firebombed over 65 cities, the Japanese were only figuratively speaking hanging on by a thread, making the bombs unnecessary.

Nonsense. As deadly as incendiary bombing was, its power of persuasion was, uh, limited compared to the atom bomb.

Have you read the transcript of Showa's speech informing the public of the surrender? Know how many times he mentioned Russia? Incendiary bombs? 0. But do you know what he did bring up?

...Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable...

And ... let's not forget the contribution to ending the war that LT Marcus McDilda (a captured P-51 pilot) provided by "confessing" (under torture) that the US had 100 atomic bombs and Tokyo & Kyoto were the next targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember/Marcus_McDilda

Nobody said that the A bombs weren't a reason for the Japanese surrender. I was just stating that the firebombs had just as much of a reason to surrender because of the incendiary bombs that decimated over 60 cities and killed over a million Japanese citizens.

[AUDub 11,131]

That fact was known then. America easily could have allowed the USSR to jump into action against Japan, as they promised at Yalta or they could have performed various other tactics to finally provoke them into unconditional surrender.

You put a lot of faith in ever reliable (*snigger*) Russia, who declared war one hour before they would have been in violation of their agreement at Yalta, and a few hours before Fat Man detonated over Nagasaki.

And you also neglect that Japan was not talking to us directly, and we could see their supposedly secret communications, having broken their codes a few years prior. These communications only indicated a fierce battle for their homeland on the horizon.

I've brought up the sins of the firebombing many times today even though the very name of this thread dictates that we should be talking about atomic bombs. I explicitly said that the use of strategic firebombing weakens the idea that our military absolutely had to have the atomic bombs.

Because we firebombed over 65 cities, the Japanese were only figuratively speaking hanging on by a thread, making the bombs unnecessary.

Nonsense. As deadly as incendiary bombing was, its power of persuasion was, uh, limited compared to the atom bomb.

Have you read the transcript of Showa's speech informing the public of the surrender? Know how many times he mentioned Russia? Incendiary bombs? 0. But do you know what he did bring up?

...Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable...

And ... let's not forget the contribution to ending the war that LT Marcus McDilda (a captured P-51 pilot) provided by "confessing" (under torture) that the US had 100 atomic bombs and Tokyo & Kyoto were the next targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember/Marcus_McDilda

Nobody said that the A bombs weren't a reason for the Japanese surrender. I was just stating that the firebombs had just as much of a reason to surrender because of the incendiary bombs that decimated over 60 cities and killed over a million Japanese citizens.

The frog in the boiling pot is the perfect metaphor for this.

[cptau 169]

I wonder how many on this forum would never have been born if there had been an invasion of Japan. Their fathers or grandfathers killed in an invasion of Japan.

Up to an estimated 1 million US deaths and 10 million Japanese deaths if the invasion had happened. The RAF was to start flying their bombers with the 22,000lb Grand Slam Earthquake bombs. The US planned to have 15 more atomic bombs available for use.

[AUDub 11,131]

I wonder how many on this forum would never have been born if there had been an invasion of Japan. Their fathers or grandfathers killed in an invasion of Japan.

Up to an estimated 1 million US deaths and 10 million Japanese deaths if the invasion had happened. The RAF was to start flying their bombers with the 22,000lb Grand Slam Earthquake bombs. The US planned to have 15 more atomic bombs available for use.

Both of my papaws served in the Pacific theater. One as a GI and the other on a B29.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I have always considered both sides of this debate, and have never felt strongly about it one way or the other. Ultimately, it is because there is no "right" answer for how we should have dealt with Japan at that point, just a list of bad options with no definitive way of knowing how any of them would have panned out. However, any argument about morality or atrocities is moot. We had already dispensed with that concept when we started firebombing cities. Once you have crossed the bridge into war crimes, you may as well continue. If you emerge victorious, they were not war crimes anyway.

What I can say for certain is that if it were my decision to make, I would not have deployed nuclear weapons. Personally, I consider nuclear weapons to be one of those things that sensible people should have recognized the world would be better off without. Then again, the world is clearly not populated by sensible people. World War II is fantastic evidence of that. I also would not have firebombed their cities, or rounded Japanese-Americans up and placed them in internment camps. My thought is that Japan had been reduced to only having the ability to wage war effectively on their home islands at that point. Their fuel supplies were such that they stopped bothering to intercept small groups of bombers, hence why Enola Gay dropped Little Boy unopposed. Food was a problem as well. We certainly had the resources present to effect a complete blockade basically indefinitely. Unlike Britain, Japan had no allies with the United States' resources willing to endure losses to break such a blockade. For that matter, they had no allies left at all. Ferocious zeal is eventually tempered by hunger. I do not think invading their home islands would have been necessary at all, unless time is a factor.

Then again, a blockade would have likely had a currently incalculable toll in Japanese civilian lives as well, just like an invasion would have, and just like nuclear weapons did. Like I said, it was just a list of bad options with no clearly defined and obvious "right" answer.

[aujeff11 6,243]

That fact was known then. America easily could have allowed the USSR to jump into action against Japan, as they promised at Yalta or they could have performed various other tactics to finally provoke them into unconditional surrender.

You put a lot of faith in ever reliable (*snigger*) Russia, who declared war one hour before they would have been in violation of their agreement at Yalta, and a few hours before Fat Man detonated over Nagasaki.

And you also neglect that Japan was not talking to us directly, and we could see their supposedly secret communications, having broken their codes a few years prior. These communications only indicated a fierce battle for their homeland on the horizon.

I've brought up the sins of the firebombing many times today even though the very name of this thread dictates that we should be talking about atomic bombs. I explicitly said that the use of strategic firebombing weakens the idea that our military absolutely had to have the atomic bombs.

Because we firebombed over 65 cities, the Japanese were only figuratively speaking hanging on by a thread, making the bombs unnecessary.

Nonsense. As deadly as incendiary bombing was, its power of persuasion was, uh, limited compared to the atom bomb.

Have you read the transcript of Showa's speech informing the public of the surrender? Know how many times he mentioned Russia? Incendiary bombs? 0. But do you know what he did bring up?

...Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable...

And ... let's not forget the contribution to ending the war that LT Marcus McDilda (a captured P-51 pilot) provided by "confessing" (under torture) that the US had 100 atomic bombs and Tokyo & Kyoto were the next targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember/Marcus_McDilda

Nobody said that the A bombs weren't a reason for the Japanese surrender. I was just stating that the firebombs had just as much of a reason to surrender because of the incendiary bombs that decimated over 60 cities and killed over a million Japanese citizens.

The frog in the boiling pot is the perfect metaphor for this.

hmmm how so.

[AUDub 11,131]

That fact was known then. America easily could have allowed the USSR to jump into action against Japan, as they promised at Yalta or they could have performed various other tactics to finally provoke them into unconditional surrender.

You put a lot of faith in ever reliable (*snigger*) Russia, who declared war one hour before they would have been in violation of their agreement at Yalta, and a few hours before Fat Man detonated over Nagasaki.

And you also neglect that Japan was not talking to us directly, and we could see their supposedly secret communications, having broken their codes a few years prior. These communications only indicated a fierce battle for their homeland on the horizon.

I've brought up the sins of the firebombing many times today even though the very name of this thread dictates that we should be talking about atomic bombs. I explicitly said that the use of strategic firebombing weakens the idea that our military absolutely had to have the atomic bombs.

Because we firebombed over 65 cities, the Japanese were only figuratively speaking hanging on by a thread, making the bombs unnecessary.

Nonsense. As deadly as incendiary bombing was, its power of persuasion was, uh, limited compared to the atom bomb.

Have you read the transcript of Showa's speech informing the public of the surrender? Know how many times he mentioned Russia? Incendiary bombs? 0. But do you know what he did bring up?

...Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable...

And ... let's not forget the contribution to ending the war that LT Marcus McDilda (a captured P-51 pilot) provided by "confessing" (under torture) that the US had 100 atomic bombs and Tokyo & Kyoto were the next targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember/Marcus_McDilda

Nobody said that the A bombs weren't a reason for the Japanese surrender. I was just stating that the firebombs had just as much of a reason to surrender because of the incendiary bombs that decimated over 60 cities and killed over a million Japanese citizens.

The frog in the boiling pot is the perfect metaphor for this.

hmmm how so.

Given the belligerent language of the Japanese press and their supposedly secret communications, they gave no indications that the firebombing was affecting Japanese morale (heating the water up gradually). Compare that with the sheer shock of the atom bomb (dropping the frog into a pot of boiling water).

[cptau 169]

Interesting Atlantic article on the Japanese Emperor and his decision to end to the war.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/emperor-hirohito-surrender-japan-hiroshima/400328/

[aujeff11 6,243]

That fact was known then. America easily could have allowed the USSR to jump into action against Japan, as they promised at Yalta or they could have performed various other tactics to finally provoke them into unconditional surrender.

You put a lot of faith in ever reliable (*snigger*) Russia, who declared war one hour before they would have been in violation of their agreement at Yalta, and a few hours before Fat Man detonated over Nagasaki.

And you also neglect that Japan was not talking to us directly, and we could see their supposedly secret communications, having broken their codes a few years prior. These communications only indicated a fierce battle for their homeland on the horizon.

I've brought up the sins of the firebombing many times today even though the very name of this thread dictates that we should be talking about atomic bombs. I explicitly said that the use of strategic firebombing weakens the idea that our military absolutely had to have the atomic bombs.

Because we firebombed over 65 cities, the Japanese were only figuratively speaking hanging on by a thread, making the bombs unnecessary.

Nonsense. As deadly as incendiary bombing was, its power of persuasion was, uh, limited compared to the atom bomb.

Have you read the transcript of Showa's speech informing the public of the surrender? Know how many times he mentioned Russia? Incendiary bombs? 0. But do you know what he did bring up?

...Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable...

And ... let's not forget the contribution to ending the war that LT Marcus McDilda (a captured P-51 pilot) provided by "confessing" (under torture) that the US had 100 atomic bombs and Tokyo & Kyoto were the next targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember/Marcus_McDilda

Nobody said that the A bombs weren't a reason for the Japanese surrender. I was just stating that the firebombs had just as much of a reason to surrender because of the incendiary bombs that decimated over 60 cities and killed over a million Japanese citizens.

The frog in the boiling pot is the perfect metaphor for this.

hmmm how so.

Given the belligerent language of the Japanese press and their supposedly secret communications, they gave no indications that the firebombing was affecting Japanese morale (heating the water up gradually). Compare that with the sheer shock of the atom bomb (dropping the frog into a pot of boiling water).

When firebombs kill over one million people and destroy many cities, it should be common sense that the morale would be affected.

[AUDub 11,131]

Interesting Atlantic article on the Japanese Emperor and his decision to end to the war.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/emperor-hirohito-surrender-japan-hiroshima/400328/

Saw that the other day on another forum. A tremendous article on the events surrounding the surrender and the bravery of Showa.