Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Hiroshima?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by lilfrizzy (U2719531) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
can hiroshima ever be seen as justified? any views as i am presenting a presentation on this and need oppinions!! thankyou
-
Message 2
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
It is a very complicated subject with several views for and against.
What we must remember is that the world had been bleeding itself to death for nigh on six years. Any "quick fix" would have been used to end the war.
The main US view was using the bomb to save hundreds of thousands of GI's in the invasion of mainland Japan. Yet as history has shown us it was more of a warning to the USSR for after the war. "We have the bomb and look what we could do to your cities."
In that sense perhaps the bomb can not be justified. I do not honestly believe the inventors knew the total devastation the bomb would casue in it's fallout and radiation poisoning.
But imagine if the bomb had not been developed, what wars might have begun or intensified without the threat of MAD (mutually assured distruction.
WW3? -
Message 3
Posted by DANNY-FRANKS (U2186615) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
It is a very complicated subject with several views for and against.
What we must remember is that the world had been bleeding itself to death for nigh on six years. Any "quick fix" would have been used to end the war.
The main US view was using the bomb to save hundreds of thousands of GI's in the invasion of mainland Japan. Yet as history has shown us it was more of a warning to the USSR for after the war. "We have the bomb and look what we could do to your cities."
In that sense perhaps the bomb can not be justified. I do not honestly believe the inventors knew the total devastation the bomb would casue in it's fallout and radiation poisoning.
But imagine if the bomb had not been developed, what wars might have begun or intensified without the threat of MAD (mutually assured distruction.
WW3?
Ìý
Very true...
As far as justification it all depends on what morals you hold yourself.
Some think war is wrong full stop and that taking life is wrong. yet others see that if killing is necessary what difference does it make how you do it.
I'm sure many GIs at the time were happy in as much that it brought an end to the war and so their fighting and risk of dying was over.
But then the civilians and the doctors treating the injured wouldn't agree.
As redcoat says, without it and without the technology we could have had WW3. -
Message 4
Posted by The Researcher Strikes Back (U2183402) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
While some might want to say that it was justified, many military leaders at the time said that it was not necessary.
It might be interesting for you to look examine their thinking as part of your presentation.
The following is, in summary, what some of America's top (and not insignificant) military leaders thought at the time:
Chief of Staff Admiral Leahy said the bomb was of no material assistance in ending the war, adding that its use was ethically questionable.
General Eisenhower (supreme commander of the Allied Forces in Europe) believed that it wasn't necessary to hit them with "that awful thing".
General Curtis Le May (the US Air Force commander) had said the bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war. He asserted that conventional bombing, he said, had driven the Japanese back to the Stone Age.
General Macarthur (supreme allied commander in the Pacific) and thus the military leader with the most direct involvement in potential invasion plans, wrote that, as early as April 1945, his staff believed that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender and that he had directed that plans be drawn up for a possible peaceful occupation without further military operations.
"The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." - General Omar Bradley can hiroshima ever be seen as justified? any views as i am presenting a presentation on this and need oppinions!! thankyou Ìý -
Message 5
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
But they weren't risking their lives in the front line. It is a very personal subject
-
Message 6
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
lilfrizzy,
Yes I believe it can be justified, let's examine some reasons why I believe so.
Let's look at the firebomb attack on Tokyo involving 334 B29s. 100,000 estimated dead. This was on March 10th, yet no Japanese surrender.
The B29s continued the assault killing an estimated 250,000, still no Japanese surrender.
Let's look at the Okinawa assault. Out of an assault force of 194,000, 7,300 dead and 32,000 wounded, or 20% casualties. Japanese / Okinawan loss estimated at 107,000. (Still no Japanese surrender).
Let's look at the Hiroshima attack, 80,000 dead from a single B29. Nagasaki 70,000 dead from a single B29. (August 6th and 9th). August 14th Japanese surrender!
Now to me it's plain that the dropping of the bombs did indeed have an impact upon the Japanese decision to surrender and thus saved many American and allied lives. It was estimated that the invasion of Japan would take one million invasion troops (estimates range from 35,000 to 70,000 dead). It also saved many Japanese lives (see the Okinawa casulaty list).
Now I'll fully admit that what The Researcher quotes is accurate. I'll just point out the following:-
Leahy, morally questionable? yes, but it depends on your morals. No material assistance in ending the war? Then why within one week of the bombs being dropped did the Japanese surrender. Seems a little odd given the heavy casualties the Japanese population was suffering by other means.
Eisenhower, well he wasn't fighting the Japanese, and, maybe had an eye on future political positions?
Curtis Le May. See above in the response to Leahy.
MacArthur, well if the Japanese were so willing to surrender in April 1945 why didn't they?
Bradley, I agree with him, however if you read him carefully he doesn't say it wasn't justifiable.
So did dropping the bombs save one American / Allied life. I believe so. That one thing makes it justifiable to me. Add in I believe it also saved many Japanese lives and it becomes doubly justifiable. I may be going over the post limit here so I'll add other thoughts / opinions below.
Cheers, my two pence, AA. -
Message 7
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
As promised / threatened my further thoughts.
To say that the dropping of the atomic bombs was some sort of test is unbelievable (to me) given the later tests of A and H bombs upon our own troops. (British, American, Russian and French).
The principle of uncontrolled nuclear fission is relatively easy one it has been proved to work. The Trinity test proved it did work. The engineering of uncontrolled nuclear fission is a little more complex but not by much. So, let's examine the myth that the bombs were dropped to impress / warn Stalin.
The USA had three bombs available. One was exploded at the Trinity Test, the other two were used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now to me, if you want to impress / warn Stalin you keep one in reserve, or you invite Soviet scientists officials to a test drop. The Americans / Tube Alloys Group couldn't use the Trinity drop as they weren't sure it would work. So, you're left with two bombs. Do you drop them on your enemy or impress your ally? My answer, I'll drop them on my enemy.
It strikes me that the Vice President of the USA suddenly promoted to the Chief Executive position has more to worry about than impressing an ally. Defeat the enemy is more pressing. This arguement has (to me) the smell of 20:20 hindsight and conspiracy theory. It also confers upon Truman more prescience than I believe he could have possibly had at the time. (Obviously I think that he came to the right decision but without the full facts, the sign of a great leader).
Also examine the delivery system as a warning to Stalin in the aftermath of WW2. Excuse me, but the only way an A Bomb could be dropped was by aeroplane. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong but the Soviets have always been a little prickly about airspace. Even during WW2 as our ally the Soviets wouldn't allow USAAF / RAF into their airspace. I can imagine the response the Soviets would have had to an incursion by a bomber stream into their territory. It's not pretty, and by this time the Soviet Air Force could and would have been a formidable opponent.
Cheers AA.
(You may not believe it but I have strong views on this so
). -
Message 8
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
redcoat,
And yes, it is a very personal subject. I think I've posted a rational response, however
Cheers AA. (The worlds favourite Papal Legate and Cistercian General).
-
Message 9
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
can hiroshima ever be seen as justified? any views as i am presenting a presentation on this and need oppinions!! thankyou Ìý
I posted the thread mentioned below a few months ago in reply to a similar question.
"Again, from this distance in time, and with the benefit of hindsight it is easy to condemn the use of the atom bomb as barbaric and senseless. But that would be wrong. Absolutely wrong.
One could actually say that, that statement is criminally wrong
.
Of course some 75,000 Japanese men, women and children were killed or maimed when it happened. But had the conventional war been continued with an invasion of the Japanese mainland by Allied forces the death toll would have been far greater over a greater period of time.
Think of those 75,000. Multiply it by 20 and you begin to approach the sort of casualty figures that would have been borne by the Americans, British and Commonwealth troops plus, of course the Japanese themselves.
With the dropping of the atom bomb the war ended within days.
And that is an unarguable fact.
It just is not possible for anybody who wasn’t around to suffer the hell of war, air attacks, concentration camps, or the untold millions who gave their lives, or their loved ones lives or entire families who simply vanished off the face of this earth to appreciate the joy and indescribable relief at the news of that bomb and with it, the end of the war.
It was indeed a time for great rejoicing. And one final thought for those critics. What would have happened had Germany or Japan developed the bomb before America (and it was a close-run thing), it would have been ludicrous to argue that they wouldn’t have used it on us"
Is it any help to you? Feel free to use it. -
Message 10
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Dirk Marinus,
I agree, 100%, for anyone to disagree ignores the facts of the case.
Justifiable, yes, neccesary, yes.
Anyone who posts an alternative to the facts, then Good Luck!
Cheers AA. -
Message 11
Posted by The Researcher Strikes Back (U2183402) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
I have to disagree. To back this up I cite the Report of the The United States Strategic Bombing Survey from a panel set up by President Truman:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." Page 26 of the report which can be found at Dirk Marinus,
I agree, 100%, for anyone to disagree ignores the facts of the case.
Justifiable, yes, neccesary, yes.
Anyone who posts an alternative to the facts, then Good Luck!
Cheers AA.
Ìý -
Message 12
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Researcher,
I'll leave it to you to discover the 20:20 hindsight in your own quote and the research quotes.
Can I just point out that on the 1st November 1945 the 2nd WW was over?
Cheers AA. -
Message 13
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
And you haven't answered my points.
Cheers AA. -
Message 14
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Absolutely.
There are many important things to remember. Firstly the casualties involved – Less than one night of Bombing on Tokyo, certainly less than any assault on the home islands.
There has been comments that the Japanese government wasn’t prepared to defend the home islands, or defend it to the last, this isn’t true. The government was split on this, yet preparations were being made to make a massive defence – Causing the deaths of Hundreds of thousands of servicemen and Civilians.
I think the most poignant words come from the mouth of Emperor Hirohito – He himself acknowledged the powerful weapon the enemy now possessed as one of the main reasons for surrender.
There have been comments made about ‘showing muscle’ to the Soviets, yet they were invited to the New Mexico tests, there is no evidence that supports the theory that the bombing was an exercise in showing the Soviets anything?
Lastly,. I think the dropping of the bomb, and our knowledge of what happens is the only thing that has prevented it being dropped in anger since. -
Message 15
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Monday, 12th December 2005
It gave the Japanese government a means of surrendering without losing face. They knew they were militarily beaten and once Russia invaded Manchuria then their last hope went. Okinawa demonstrated that even most civilians considered death more honorable than surrendering.
Together with the unofficial agreement that they would be allowed to retain the emporer, the use of atmoic bombs meant the Japanese government were effectively able to say they were defeated by them, rather than being beaten conventionally. -
Message 16
Posted by The Researcher Strikes Back (U2183402) on Monday, 12th December 2005
I do not understand. You are indeed correct that the war was over by that time; but that was not the question I was dealing with. What I have said on this thread is that there were some, including MacArthur, Eisenhower and Leahy, no lightweights in the US military, who AT THE TIME said that it was not a good idea then, I posted one of the conclusions of the highly significant United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) set up by the US government itself, which concluded that the use of the atomic weapons was not necessary. Yes it was based on hindsight, but it answers the specific question "was it necessary?" They (the USSBS) say no, the Japanese would have surrendered anyway, probably without any need to invade mainland Japan. That is all I said.
My conclusion was that it was not necessary, not just based on my own understanding of the situation, but based on the opinions of these military leaders and the USSBS. The USSBS certainly did not have any agenda that would make it politically expedient to repudiate Truman; their report was to Truman. They had access to all the facts in drawing their conclusions, and their opinion should not so lightly be ignored.
Researcher,
I'll leave it to you to discover the 20:20 hindsight in your own quote and the research quotes.
Can I just point out that on the 1st November 1945 the 2nd WW was over?
Cheers AA.
Ìý -
Message 17
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Regarding the views of senior US personnel who thought the bombings militarily unneccessarily, I think some of those have been shown to have had ulterior political motives. I'll try to contribute more by having a dig round.
-
Message 18
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Monday, 12th December 2005
I have to say that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nesessary for the US.Because if the atomic bombs weren't happan the US was forced to invade Japan and transport more allied troops from europe to the pacific.So the atomic bombs saved thousands of allied soldiers.
-
Message 19
Posted by lenmadeiros (U781806) on Monday, 12th December 2005
I do not understand. You are indeed correct that the war was over by that time; but that was not the question I was dealing with. What I have said on this thread is that there were some, including MacArthur, Eisenhower and Leahy, no lightweights in the US military, who AT THE TIME said that it was not a good idea then, I posted one of the conclusions of the highly significant United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) set up by the US government itself, which concluded that the use of the atomic weapons was not necessary. Yes it was based on hindsight, but it answers the specific question "was it necessary?" They (the USSBS) say no, the Japanese would have surrendered anyway, probably without any need to invade mainland Japan. That is all I said.
My conclusion was that it was not necessary, not just based on my own understanding of the situation, but based on the opinions of these military leaders and the USSBS. The USSBS certainly did not have any agenda that would make it politically expedient to repudiate Truman; their report was to Truman. They had access to all the facts in drawing their conclusions, and their opinion should not so lightly be ignored.
Researcher,
I'll leave it to you to discover the 20:20 hindsight in your own quote and the research quotes.
Can I just point out that on the 1st November 1945 the 2nd WW was over?
Cheers AA.
Ìý Ìý
Yes, Truman did have all that advice to hand - but he still chose to make another decision. We shouldn't discount the political dimension to why he decided to drop the bomb. If the predictions of his generals had been proved wrong, how would the American voters have reacted to him? He knew he had a chance of ending the war at a stroke, saving countless GI lives, and he may have chosen not to. If he had have chosen not to drop the bomb, he would at the very least have lost a Presidential election, and, at worst, have been impeached. Truman was still at heart a politician. -
Message 20
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 16th December 2005
I do not understand. You are indeed correct that the war was over by that time; but that was not the question I was dealing with. What I have said on this thread is that there were some, including MacArthur, Eisenhower and Leahy, no lightweights in the US military, who AT THE TIME said that it was not a good idea then, I posted one of the conclusions of the highly significant United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) set up by the US government itself, which concluded that the use of the atomic weapons was not necessary. Yes it was based on hindsight, but it answers the specific question "was it necessary?" They (the USSBS) say no, the Japanese would have surrendered anyway, probably without any need to invade mainland Japan. That is all I said.
My conclusion was that it was not necessary, not just based on my own understanding of the situation, but based on the opinions of these military leaders and the USSBS. The USSBS certainly did not have any agenda that would make it politically expedient to repudiate Truman; their report was to Truman. They had access to all the facts in drawing their conclusions, and their opinion should not so lightly be ignored.
Researcher,
I'll leave it to you to discover the 20:20 hindsight in your own quote and the research quotes.
Can I just point out that on the 1st November 1945 the 2nd WW was over?
Cheers AA.
Ìý Ìý
Forgive me, Researcher, you have to put up with some personal "attacks" on this board.
Forgive me if you quote American Military Leaders, or the USSBS, as the font of what is right. It gets my hackles up.
Cheers AA. -
Message 21
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Saturday, 17th December 2005
Agree completely with AA and Dirk,nuff said,
cheers,
Paul
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.