WOW! WWII, why we needed to drop 2 A-bombs, facts you did not learn in school.

[Jludo]

Maybe the act is not that different, it's the reason you give for having to do it. Japan was trying to take over and smother Pacific countries into submission and then they attacked us. I don't exactly see America as doing that. I'd be happy to let the middle east kill themselves, I don't care they're not my countrymen. The philosophy of fight them on their own land may be bull****, I'm not sure.

But at the moment the bomb was dropped the Japanese were on the verge of collapse so to say they posed a threat at the time we dropped the bomb was false.
As to the terrorist grievances, which you don't exactly see, it was the 500,000 kids killed as a result of bombing and sanctions put on Iraq. I believe they saw America as 'doing that', they probably would have much preferred we hit them with a Pearl Harbor type attack and just knocked out their military.

 

[cobber]

IF the US Gov't intended to maximize Japanese civilian casualties in WWII, they'd have continued fire-bombing.

Growing up in school I was always taught the same BS that is that the US was good and Japan was evil, simple as that. When you do your own research you find out that the war was much more grey than black and white.

What "research" have you done? You mean reading primary sources, or someone else's research and then synthesizing that, i.e. taking secondary information and rendering a tertiary opinion.

So Japan wasn't evil? Or only partly evil? I would find it hard to justify much of anything Japan did from say, 1895 to 1945. Now if they had won, we would be having a very different discussion indeed.

But don't pretend an invasion was necessary to end WWII.

You are correct. An invasion was not necessary because we dropped the bombs.


Re the upper brass being against using the A-bomb, what did the upper brass in WWI think about the machine gun, as they threw wave after wave of flesh against lead? They thought the bayonet would prevail. Yes, the brass always know what's best...

 

[octalman]

We aren't qualified to take the position of Admiral Nimitz,Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower? Were they incorrect? I suppose as you can't criticize the decisions of dead people you can't say they were wrong can you?

You already decided they were wrong based on hindsight. If you mean try to put yourself in their shoes considering only the full context of what they had to work with, your conclusion will be different. Unfortunately, no matter how hard any of us try we are unable to wipe out our life experiences and truly put ourselves in someones else's shoes for the sake of an intellectual exercise.

 

[caverjamie]

I was just recently reading about these bombings. I wondered what it would have been like to have witnessed the event. I found a website that had just what I was looking for:

The Voice of Hibakusha | The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com

Eyewitness Account of Hiroshima | The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com


My opinion is, regardless of why we dropped the bomb, or if we needed to or not does not matter. Japan attacked us first - they started it and we ended it. I guess some people wanted a do-over, it was unfair because they didn't know we were going to design a terrible weapon and use it on them. You can argue details all day - like the warning we gave them. Well come on - we warned them that we would rain down destruction upon them unlike anything seen before. Well yes it was true, but what did you expect them to think? If I were them, I would have thought we were just making crap up. Besides, I agree that the carpet bombing campaigns were already pretty much hell on earth for them. But then we found a way to not just kill them, but poison their bodies and their air, water, soil, even what they were eating and drinking. I believe in total war...in hopes that people in general would become too afraid to start a war in the first place.

 

[88GT]

War is not a civilized activity. It should be conducted until the enemy is unconditionally surrenders or is destroyed.

/thread. More people should recognize that fact.

What school did you all attend where most of what is in this thread wasn't taught?

I'm guessing you graduated before 1995-2000. They aren't teaching history anymore. I knew all of the info in the OP, but not from my high school education.

If the government deliberately intended to maximize innocent civilian casualties, I think we ought to know about it.

Wake up, friend. This is war. If you think war is about anything BUT maximizing the loss of life for the enemy (the "civilized" distinction between civilian and non is a modern construct of dubious purpose), you are living in a fantasy world. Your worldview is admirable, but so far removed from human nature that it is hard to discuss anything with you. The irony is that the very core of your worldview is that which makes it so unlikely to exist: people acting in their own self interest will ALWAYS do so to the detriment of their neighbor when there is no compelling reason to convince them otherwise.

Are you going to answer my question?

Why are so many of you so terrified of asking and answering the tough questions?

If this is your moral code, shouldn't you spend a little time putting it to the test in some real life situations?

I don't have a problem answering it. War is amoral. It is, by definition, an act of self-preservation. Who started it is largely irrelevant.

Yeah, I get the idea...the ends justify the means. And maybe it was effective in WWII. We can never know for certain, it's all just speculation.

It does bother me, though, that this is basically the same logic employed by the terrorists of 9/11.

What makes us different?

POV, not much else. But you see that in those who don't have a problem fighting fire with fire either. I recognize the Jihadist excuse to attack (even though in this particular example it is largely a fabrication for the convenience of making their prosecution of the war look more justified in the eyes of the world). Backtrack, perhaps the distinction is in the factual claims made to justify action. Otherwise, yeah, the end does justify the mean. It's war. What other option is there?

 

[Jludo]

No one told me in school that:
the Japanese were willing to surrender if they were allowed to keep their emperor, a condition we honored after securing unconditional surrender.
the Russians were sweeping through Manchuria and going to be in position to invade Japan.
the top US brass was against dropping the bomb.
the vital importance occupying Japan held coming into the Cold War.
While it was always harped upon that 500,000 US servicemen were estimated casualties in an invasion, no one mentioned an invasion wasn't necessary as Japan had already been decimated.
All very important details usually left out of this discussion.

 

[jedi]

3 pages and counting with folks arguing if the bombs were needed or not. Some (like rambone) on the side I would not have thought they would have taken.

That video on the "fog of war" that someone links on youtube. meh! That old man is just regretting what he and others did now that he is old and looking at it from a moral point of view. Morals, however, have no place in war. War is about survival and ensuring your enemy is destroyed, all of them or else you will have to deal with them again. So by whatever means needed.

[video=youtube_share;aCbfMkh940Q]http://youtu.be/aCbfMkh940Q[/video]
if you need to ensure you win. That is what we did and I'll bet you the farm Japan and Germany would have done the same.

Furthermore most of us can not begin to understand the EAST culture and their sense of honor, duty and loyalty to a "emperor god".
It's the same mess we are in now with trying to fight in the middle east. We are not fighting a people but a way of life and a different value/culture/god.

 

[Jludo]

You already decided they were wrong based on hindsight. If you mean try to put yourself in their shoes considering only the full context of what they had to work with, your conclusion will be different. Unfortunately, no matter how hard any of us try we are unable to wipe out our life experiences and truly put ourselves in someones else's shoes for the sake of an intellectual exercise.

I think you misread, I am in total agreement with top US brass thinking at the time. Unfortunately it wasn't US brass that made the decision, it was Truman's decision.

 

[Jludo]

3 pages and counting with folks arguing if the bombs were needed or not. Some (like rambone) on the side I would not have thought they would have taken.

That video on the "fog of war" that someone links on youtube. meh! That old man is just regretting what he and others did now that he is old and looking at it from a moral point of view. Morals, however, have no place in war. War is about survival and ensuring your enemy is destroyed, all of them or else you will have to deal with them again. So by whatever means needed.

if you need to ensure you win. That is what we did and I'll bet you the farm Japan and Germany would have done the same.

Furthermore most of us can not begin to understand the EAST culture and their sense of honor, duty and loyalty to a "emperor god".
It's the same mess we are in now with trying to fight in the middle east. We are not fighting a people but a way of life and a different value/culture/god.

But your logic justifies genocide. That war doesn't discriminate between civilians and soldiers.

 

[Jludo]

I don't like the Idea that you are absolutely a fair target for murder based on actions of your government. Whether that's Nuking civilian population centers, terrorists flying planes into the twin towers, firebombing Dresden etc. In no case do I think it's justified.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What school did you all attend where most of what is in this thread wasn't taught?

That's what I was thinking. I learned in high school that incendiary bombs killed more people than nukes. I learned that accounts of POWs and others on the ground saw Japanese women and children practicing with spears and knives, plunging them into stuffed dummies over and over. The Japanese weren't on the verge of surrender, they had a "kill all" policy in place where POWs and enslaved civilians were killed when the camp was about to be liberated, etc.

 

[DragonGunner]

Well don't like Ike fool ya, he had plans to drop h-(not a) bombs on Russia and china during the Korean War.

That was MacCarther, not Ike.....


Jedi, I posted The Fog of War.....never heard him say anything about regret, more along the lines they did what had to be done and agreed with Truman dropping the bombs......not sure what the heck you heard...?

 

[Jludo]

That's what I was thinking. I learned in high school that incendiary bombs killed more people than nukes. I learned that accounts of POWs and others on the ground saw Japanese women and children practicing with spears and knives, plunging them into stuffed dummies over and over. The Japanese weren't on the verge of surrender, they had a "kill all" policy in place where POWs and enslaved civilians were killed when the camp was about to be liberated, etc.

So Ike was wrong when he said the Japanese were already defeated? They taught you that Japan was prepared to surrender on the Condition that they kept their emperor? That it was about occupying Japan for the coming cold war with Russia? I never learned any of that in school.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't like the Idea that you are absolutely a fair target for murder based on actions of your government. Whether that's Nuking civilian population centers, terrorists flying planes into the twin towers, firebombing Dresden etc. In no case do I think it's justified.

Unfortunately for you, there are many people in the world that have no qualms of doing just that to you. And if you are not prepared to unleash all hell on your war-time enemies, you will only encourage them by your perceived weakness to attack you. Maybe if our modern wars were bloodier, the repulsiveness would serve two purposes: cause our enemies to tremble with the thought of the retaliation the would surely and quickly come their way and/or prevent the police-action, interventionists from dragging us into every Iraq and Yugoslavian do-gooder conflict around the world.

 

[Bull1315]

Here, Here

Unfortunately for you, there are many people in the world that have no qualms of doing just that to you. And if you are not prepared to unleash all hell on your war-time enemies, you will only encourage them by your perceived weakness to attack you. Maybe if our modern wars were bloodier, the repulsiveness would serve two purposes: cause our enemies to tremble with the thought of the retaliation the would surely and quickly come their way and/or prevent the police-action, interventionists from dragging us into every Iraq and Yugoslavian do-gooder conflict around the world.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So Ike was wrong when he said the Japanese were already defeated?

Keep it in context. Japanese were conditioned that surrender was to dishonor yourself and your family. It was one of the reasons the Japanese treated POWs so incredibly poorly, they viewed them in the same light as we might view child molesters, as pariahs. Japanese units that were "already defeated", as in they couldn't prevail on the battlefield, still often fought to the last man. In the same way, Japan was already defeated. We had gutted their industrial system. The Japanese had set up a literal cottage industry with factory machinery in residential homes because actual factories were destroyed by bombing raids. Their agriculture was stretched beyond capacity. They simply no longer had the manpower or resources to win the war, and as such were defeated. That didn't mean they were ready to surrender.

The Japanese murdered hundreds of POWs and thousands of civilians held in slavery rather them allow them to be liberated. A slow invasion would have let them carry this out on the remaining POWs.

And yes, this was taught in high school. If you missed out, if you get a chance, read "Unbroken: A World War II story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption."

 

[cobber]

No one told me in school that:
the Japanese were willing to surrender if they were allowed to keep their emperor, a condition we honored after securing unconditional surrender.
the Russians were sweeping through Manchuria and going to be in position to invade Japan.
the top US brass was against dropping the bomb.
the vital importance occupying Japan held coming into the Cold War.
While it was always harped upon that 500,000 US servicemen were estimated casualties in an invasion, no one mentioned an invasion wasn't necessary as Japan had already been decimated.
All very important details usually left out of this discussion.

The Russians were NEVER in a position to invade Japan. Total lack of amphibious capability. Too far to swim.

Manchuria was a prize in its own right. Heavy industry, coal, agriculture, and a port. They got kicked out by the Japanese in 1905 and wanted it back.

Japan was not of vital importance yet. Later the US needed Japan as part of a Pacific orientation (like Obama in 2012). No Cold War yet in 1945. While we didn't like the Soviets, there was no Yalta deal to divvy up Asia as there was in Eastern Europe. In the alternative we could have razed Japanese industry and left it to the Russians. But even Japan was not useful without Indochina, Malaysia and Indonesia (lack of natural resources).

I don't know why you think a "decimated" enemy is unable to fight. Think Volkssturm, and add women and children in. It would have been Fallujah times 1000. Bushido did not recognize surrender as an option. "Death before dishonor" was part of the samurai credo. It would have been bloody beyond belief.

With respect to the "details" usually left out of the discussion, those are largely opinions formed after Japan was defeated and we had the luxury of Zen-like meditation. Much of what you cite is the product of 30-40 years of revisionism in the academy. Interesting for discussion, like 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin', but of dubious use to those who actually make decisions involving the survival of the Republic.

In 1945, I submit that the US would have come out of a ground war on the Japanese home islands in far worse shape. We had been fighting total war on two fronts for years. Truman could not have reasonably expected Americans to forgo using A-bombs if the alternative meant more young American men coming home in pine boxes.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In 1945, I submit that the US would have come out of a ground war on the Japanese home islands in far worse shape. We had been fighting total war on two fronts for years. Truman could not have reasonably expected Americans to forgo using A-bombs if the alternative meant more young American men coming home in pine boxes.

Good point. If I try to picture myself as a parent, brother, sister, etc. of a service member fighting back then and if I had the option of choosing between having more of my family put at risk of death in a protracted invasion or using our technology to speed up the end of the war--I would have chosen the latter and I'll bet the vast majority of others would have too.

 

[cobber]

Good point. If I try to picture myself as a parent, brother, sister, etc. of a service member fighting back then and if I had the option of choosing between having more of my family put at risk of death in a protracted invasion or using our technology to speed up the end of the war--I would have chosen the latter and I'll bet the vast majority of others would have too.

In those days Americans would have marched on Washington with the pitchforks and torches if they found we had suffered high casualties rather than employ such an advanced weapon.

 

[Rhoadmar]

If our response to being attacked by an enemy is to initiate a campaign of remorseless destruction in retaliation, who would want to attack us again. War with rules is ridiculous. War is terrible and should not be watered down to make it more acceptable.