Some facts on dropping the two bombs

[nadinbrzezinski]

Fact 1....Strategic bombing as practiced by all sides, including the Japanese, killed far more people than the two A bombs ever did...Dresden and Tokyo saw far more casualties in a few hours than either, or even both Hiroshima or Nagasaki ever did. This includes the Hiroshima maidens, followed to this day.

Fact 2... The high command truly was surprised at what those devices did in a matter of minutes. They truly did not expect it.

Fact 3...total war, which all combatants engaged in, is nasty business. And all did, from the strategic campaigns of the Germans and the British and Americans, see Dresden and Tokyo. To the war in Asia practiced by Japan, see the Rape of Nanking for example...or the bombing of London and the Battle of Britain.

Fact 4... Which you obviously do not know, targeting in both cities focused on military facilities. Granted, the type of bomb meant that this affected civilians.

Fact 5...best case Japan was divided in half at the high command about surrender.

Fact 6... Even after Nagasaki, and the Emperor's speech, a Major attempted a coup, to continue fighting.

Fact 7... Yes, casualties, allied casualties were estimated at a million plus, and Japanese civilians were trained to resist the allies. I personally doubt it would have been that high after the initial phase...but estimates are what they are.

Fact 8...which does not shock me you do not know...check when the Russians declared war on Japan, when Russian troops moved into China, and the demands from the Russians.

I could continue, in giving context...but to some Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened in a magical vacuum, completely separate from the war

Finally, chew on this...there was a race to develop a nuclear bomb. If the Germans completed it, they were in the process of developing a strategic bomber with range to New York. They sent near the end of the war, an Uranium shipment to their allies in Japan in a Sub. The Japanese also had a nuclear program, and they would have used it, if they were first.

We know now the Russians had a project in diapers as well.

Nukes have done something else...they have prevented WW III...I am convinced the Cold War would have gone not just hot, but very hot if nukes and Mutually Assured Destruction was not present.

But serious, every year we have the same ignorant posts positing that the bombings happened in a historic vacuum, and personally...they signify a willful ignorance of history that is just face palm worthy.

[jberryhill]

1. About those Russians

Well, thank goodness we didn't end up fighting communists in Asia after 1945!

[leftstreet]

3. snarf

[Aerows]

16. Ahem. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

28. in Asia after 1945 with atomic weapons.

There, finished that sentence for you.

[Sherman A1]

2. If I had been in Truman's shoes at the time,

I would not have hesitated to use the newly developed weapon. It was total war and the faster it ended the fewer losses for all involved.

[Phillyindy]

24. So the citizens of a nation

Can be righteously be scorched to the earth because of the actions of their leaders?

I'll remember that when any number of middle eastern nations drop a nuke right over your families neighborhood.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Though I generally defend their use

I consider the necessity regrettable.

Very unfortunate that 68 years on, to see that sort of vitriol over a most serious issue.

[nolabear]

59. This exact post was hidden in another thread.

Apparently vitriol trumps an actual attempt at discussion.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Looks like the juries are 2/2

[hobbit709]

4. Studying history is not a strong point with a lot of people.

[brewens]

5. It could easily be that the bombs saved a lot of Japanese lives. Even if we

continued conventional bombing, even though we were pretty much out of good military targets and continued the blockade, how much better would that have been? I'd think that as long as they were likely to hold out, civilian deaths could have been pretty high.

We could have played it that way but you're right about our side thinking they might come up with some secret WMD. We know now that's not likely. That's kind of like knowing blackouts on the west coast after Pearl Harbor were silly. They didn't know that then.

[Aristus]

6. Fact #4 - not so factual.

The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was the Aioi Bridge, located near the center of the city, and the center of the civilian population density. It was not aimed at a military target.

Just a correction. Otherwise, I'm staying out of the fists-and-fur screeching match over the morality of the atomic bombing attack.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. I will take it

Though the Mitsubishi plant was in the city.

I get annoyed in the fur fight because of lack of context

[TheLion]

12. Nice try, but...

Hiroshima was the HQ of Japan's Second General Army, responsible for teh defense of Kyushu and southern Honshu and containing most of the remaining troops and equipment in Japan, including

5th Division, based in Hiroshima, Japan's most mobile division in the Home Islands, intended to be the fire brigade in the event of the expected Allied landing

Hiroshima was also the main depot for logistics for the forces defending the South - translate that as 'the biggest arsenal in the Home Islands."

Hiroshima was a major communications and industrial nexus, key to the entire southern half of the country.

The city was a legitimate military target.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. You do know it, but for Aristus sake

Hiroshima was chosen due to its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction due to its being surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_choose_Hiroshima_as_the_first_target_for_the_atomic_bomb

Nagasaki was an important AF manufacturing site for Mitsubishi if my memory serves.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. East Asia Tin Works (300y from blast point) made teddy bears.

[zipplewrath]

7. A particular point

Fact 5...best case Japan was divided in half at the high command about surrender.

Fact 6... Even after Nagasaki, and the Emperor's speech, a Major attempted a coup, to continue fighting.

In this modern age of communication, I think it is especially hard for people to understand communications, especially between Japan and the US. There was no CNN. There was no internet. There were no satellites. Communications took alot of time and between warring parties went throug intermediaries. The fog of war was especially thick. At any given time there are simlutaneous bits of information all present at the same time.

1) Facts you believe to be true that are
2) Facts that you believe to be true that are false
3) Facts that you believe to be false that are false
4) Facts that you believe to be false that are true
5) Facts that are unknown to you that are true

We can sit here now and read alot about what was "known" and not known. But especially for things about which there was no follow through action, it isn't clear what was known AND BELIEVED, and what was believed but not true. People tend to correct their memories after the fact. Information that was believed but false is often lost to history. And in this fog, two people working together still tend not to believe the same set of facts.

During wars there are frequent reports that one side or another is ready to surrender/negotiate. The time delay between when these reports are received, and when they become understood to be true can be weeks. And until two sides ACTUALLY show up at a table, it isn't known, even to history, if both sides were truly ready, or merely trying to manipulate their opponent or their own populations.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. This major was a hard core member of the no surrender club

It is truly a bizarre and little known even, even in Japan today.

When it failed, a general committed Sepuku that morning, the morning of the surrender, several did actually.

Another leader committed Sepuku later

I usually hate wiki, but the bottom can get you hunting for initial sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident

[sarisataka]

11. The coup attempt is a very forgotten piece of history...

the Emperor's speech was recorded. (there was quite the debate about him speaking directly to the people) Hard line military fought (literally) to get that record before it could be broadcast. It was a very close thing, had they succeeded and destroyed the recording the war would have continued even after Nagasaki.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. It was the first time in history the vast majority of Japanese people had ever heard his voice.

Positives and negatives. Wheels within wheels.

[ljm2002]

10. "Which you obviously do not know"...

...and "which does not shock me you do not know"...

Who are you referring to? This is an OP so it is not obviously in response to someone.

In other words: if you're trying to convince your fellow DUers that they may be missing context in the debates about dropping the atomic bombs, you've chosen a poor way to do it.

I agree with you that it is easy to judge things in hindsight, and easy to miss historical context, or judge through the prism of our own times. You are correct to point these things out. But IMHO you should curb the attitude a bit.

There are valid arguments on both sides, even taking into account historical context. Several of the scientists who developed the bombs wrote a letter to Truman urging him not to drop them. Also, we have of course found out over the years, that before and during WWII our government, like all governments, maybe (!) lied to us (!!) just a teeny, weeny little bit (!!!) about various salient facts -- from what actually led up to the war, to what casualties may have occurred had we invaded, and many other things.

Honestly I think yours is an important OP that would be stronger if you dispensed with the loaded remarks.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

13. Sorry, but going to have to disagree with you, Nadin.

I normally agree with you in other matters, but this is going to have to be an anomaly.

Japan was ready to capitulate and was arguing for a conditional surrender to retain their emperor. Obviously, they unconditionally surrendered, but still got to keep their emperor. There was no need to use the bombs.

As for the fire bombings, yes, that was another aspect of the war that, since the Allies won, were swept aside. Had the Axis won, I'm sure our leadership would have been hanged at their version of Nuremberg.

Now, don't get me wrong. US and the Allies had justification to wage war - the threat of fascism was too severe and too real. It was, for general purposes, our last justified war. I'm only using the principles of universality when I assert that the use of atomic weapons were absolutely not necessary.

We needed to show the Soviets that we weren't going to fuck around after the war. And many, around the world, could actually call the Cold War, World War III.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. you are disagreeing a lot less

Than you intended

[Fantastic Anarchist]

17. I still love ya!

And am glad you're on my side.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. seriously you disagreed a lot less than you thought

[AtheistCrusader]

38. In fairness...

"Japan was ready to capitulate and was arguing for a conditional surrender to retain their emperor. Obviously, they unconditionally surrendered, but still got to keep their emperor. There was no need to use the bombs."


Nobody in the US command knew that for certain. Some suspected. Some may have even believed it to be true, but until the deal was done, that was not certain. Recall that the ship that delivered the bombs to the forward operating point didn't survive the war. Japan was still inflicting casualties. And insofar as honest negotiations, at least some members of the US government were likely biased to believe offers of surrender/negotiations, precisely because of the manner in which the war started. (Pearl Harbor)

[Posteritatis]

14. Regarding the Soviet invasion..

The western Allies knew when that one was going to happen as they had agreed on it with the Soviet union prior to the defeat of Germany; the Soviets were to enter the war against Japan three months to the day following the German surrender.

Whether the weapons were dropped or not, that part happening on August 9 was graven in stone from V-E day onward.

I agree that the weapons-grade ignorance about the war as a whole is disheartening, though. That aspect of DU on Everyone Becomes An Expert On The Second World War Day seems to get a little more ridiculous each year.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

18. Yes, I understand that there was an agreement.

But when the time came, US command did not want to divide Japan like they did Germany. Hence, the need to bomb people to oblivion. That aspect of the war was just politics by other means.

[Savannahmann]

20. Check out this podcast.

One of the most original discussion on the Bombs I've ever heard.

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-42---(BLITZ)-Logical-Insanity/Second%20World%20War-World%20War%20Two-World%20War%20One

Warning, it is heartbreaking.

[Phillyindy]

21. The only person I see

Acting like these 2 bombings occurred in a vacuum is you.

But I understand you're need to provide a lot of largely false context to justify such an epic, uneccessary atrocity.

[jeff47]

22. You're just a troll.

Your post calling DU a "Democrat Website" was a bit of a slip.

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. I suspect you are right nt

[eggplant]

40. +1

[tumtum]

44. You called it right.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. So tell me, the war never happened?

If these two bombings happened without all the given context, you would have a point. But they did not.

So do tell to the rest of the class, what makes 150K civilians killed so special, over the estimated casualty number of 100 million dead, at least half civilians.

We will wait for your lack of context answer.

[Phillyindy]

39. It's simple...

...there is no justification for dropping 2 nukes on civilian islands for the sole purpose of terror.

End of subject.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. It was not terror son

keep harping on a non context line, that is a matter of belief.

You cannot counter any of what I posted, because this is what you are doing.. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOU.

The discussion on WHY they were dropped is a worthy one to have. But once again, tell me, what makes these killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, so special over the 100 million killed over the course of the war, half of them at least civilian?

They are not special son. They are the last casualties of the war. We should strive NOT TO DO THAT AGAIN, but in the context of the war... they are not that special.

Here, for your comparison

Tokyo

97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded.

Dresden

Between 22,000 and 25,000 people were killed.

Then we have the Battle of Britain.

We also have the Japanese actions in Indo China and the Holocaust.

So tell me, what makes these civilians so special? I will tell you what? They were the last to die in the war... you understand? And the bombs, the two A-Bombs, the damage they did was not even close to what was done to the city of Tokyo alone.

You chose to live ignorant of history. I will once again challenge you to do some reading. Strategic bombing, and it is not an excuse, it is reality, reached it's final stage on August sixth 1945.

[Phillyindy]

51. It was...

The textbook definition of terror/terrorism. You're kidding yourself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. So they are special and everybody else

tough shit?

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Logically invalid.

There are thousands, possibly millions of justifications.

'My toe itches; nuke Japan for terror's sake'.

Whether or not it is a GOOD justification, is debatable.

[Jim Lane]

80. The atomic bombs WERE different.

It's not just a matter of numbers. Our fire-bombing of Tokyo killed more people (and more civilians) than did either of the atomic bombs.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki represented a new type of weapon, though. One plane dropping one bomb could wreak incredible destruction. Furthermore, it's not just 20-20 hindsight to point out that these were the very earliest such bombs. It could reasonably be anticipated that the technology would advance beyond even this horrific starting point.

There's some similarity to an event in more recent history. In 2001, more U.S. citizens died in automobile accidents than in terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, it's the September 11 attacks that still resonate in the public consciousness. Flying planes into skyscrapers really is different from a bunch of people driving drunk or running red lights or whatever each of them did, regardless of the comparative death tolls.

Granted, Washington decisionmakers didn't know all that we know now about these weapons and the threat of all-out nuclear war. They should reasonably have had some understanding that they were turning a corner, though. They knew that certain types of weapons, such as poison gas, were against international law, even though no gas attacks ever killed people in the numbers seen in some of the World War II non-nuclear bombings. International law had no express prohibition on using atomic bombs against civilians, but the question had never arisen before. (There is an argument to be made that, even without that express provision, the bombings violated international law, but that's a different subject. I'm just making the analogy here, to show that there are considerations beyond the bare number of deaths.)

Finally, another point that's different about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, besides the weapon used, is the context. The bombing of Tokyo had occurred several months earlier. By August, it was a lot harder to make the case that causing mass civilian deaths was a military necessity. In fact, the military commanders agreed that the war could have been won without the atomic bombs and without a costly invasion. See "American Military Leaders Urge President Truman not to Drop the Atomic Bomb" for details. A huge August bombing raid that killed the same number of people but by non-nuclear means would also have been subject to serious criticism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. A new type of weapon that I hate to say it

You could not stop it's use.

And on the bright side, there is one, likely stopped WWIII. There is a context to it's use, and that is total war.

I hate to say it, but our commanders were divided, but this is a train that would have been used in Berlin earlier, if it had been ready a year earlier.

It would have also been used by any of the axis powers if developed.

Hindsight is nice.

[William769]

23. kick & recommended.

[SheilaT]

26. Thank you.

I used to read old Life Magazines, back when I was attending a university that had bound issues from the very first one in November of 1936. I spent several years reading them sequentially and as a consequence it is as if I remember the late 30's through March of 1945, which was when I no longer had access to them.

Even though Life was capable of some language that today we would consider racist in regards to the Japanese, they were actually doing an excellent job of reporting on what was going on. There was an article -- more of a photo essay -- in 1943 or 44 showing Japanese women and children committing suicide by jumping off a cliff on some island in the south Pacific, rather than surrender to the Americans who were in the process of taking the island. The anguish of the soldiers who watched the suicides was palpable. They had no problem killing the soldiers, but women and children were to be protected and saved.

Here's something else that I almost never see mentioned. Germany never went to a full war economy. Civilians still had access to ordinary things like food and clothing and books and music until the very end. The conquered countries suffered terribly, but the average German not so much. Which is an important reason we were able to defeat Germany, as hard as it was.

Japan was another story. They were fully committed to the war effort. I recall seeing an article at some point which showed school children doing something -- maybe knitting socks or casting bullets. The details are lost to me because I did this little project before 1982 so it's been a while. The point is that every single man, woman, and child, civilian and military alike, was utterly committed to winning the war. It was so obvious that we'd be fighting house to house the entire length and breadth of the Home Islands, and that we'd be slaughtering millions of innocents in the process, because they weren't very inclined to surrender.

And has been pointed out, the firebombings of various cities during the war killed more per city than the atomic bombs.

I once saw an interview with one of the USO entertainers from that period, maybe one of the Andrews Sisters. In early August she was in the South Pacific entertaining troops she -- and they -- knew were going to be dead men in a very short time. Then someone came on the stage and handed her a note and she simply started weeping because the note said, "Japan Surrenders" and she knew those men in front of her were going to live.

[lumpy]

56. Thanks for your input

n

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Bold post.

100% agree.

War is dark, dirty stuff. A game best not played at all. When people believe they are fighting for faith, nationalism, or even survival, terrible things follow.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. +1 N/T

[vrp]

33. Sorry...

None of the "facts" you cite show that dropping the bombs were necessary. Even Eisenhower was against it. Japan was defeated and flat on its back when those bombs were dropped. An invasion wasn't even necessary. By August 1945 the end of the war was just a waiting game. The massive civilian life toll caused by these bombs were unnecessary. And sorry, you are dead wrong about our govt not knowing how destructive these bombs were. One was tested and it was understood very well what would happen when dropped. What the bomb did do, however, was show the Soviet Union who was boss.

It has been demonstrated over and over again that dropping those bombs was unnecessary. The only "real" excuse for dropping them was that "the bastards deserved it!"

You are the one operating in the historical vacuum. And those of us with that study history with an open mind don't appreciate being called "ignorant."

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. The argument of the necessity started as early as 1947

that does not mean that what I cited is out of context, or did not happen.

So tell me, WW II never happened?

[vrp]

47. ?

Classic non-sequitur! The dropping of those bombs can only be defended by those exercising irrational thought processes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Welcome to my ignore list

I no longer alert You engage in such an obvious personal attack, you go to ignore.

Suffice it to say, this is what children do. So WW II never happened... that is good to know.

Good bye

[L0oniX]

37. Irony much?

So you the history expert should know about the reaction to us troops ...the enemy jumped off ledges/killed themselves rather than surrender ...but you go on and think they wouldn't have resisted to the end. pffft what ever

[AtheistCrusader]

48. The people of Hiroshima were busy ripping down their own homes, digging bunkers

for fire lanes and troops, the day the bomb was dropped.

They were preparing to fight. When a homeowner will tear down his own home, board by board to make a fire lane for the war's sake, that says something right there.

[miyazaki]

41. I'd sign the Szilárd petition then nail it to the totem pole you squat on everyday here.

[reusrename]

42. Fukushima will be worse.

Much worse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. absolutely, but that has to do with contant release

not almost ending of fissible material in a fireball

[reusrename]

63. Sure. Now to go back on topic, I've always been split on this.

Hiroshima was probably necessary, Nagasaki not so much.

The second bomb could have been detonated over an unpopulated target with the same effect.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. They had that debate, even before hiroshima

it's easy for us to say that, but the problem they had is that once Nagasaki was done. let's assume for a second Japan did not surrender... and they needed a third... they had no material left, and would have taken about six months to get another device in the pipeline.

That is why they decided against it, even before Hiroshima. We can judge them, but it is one of those rare events in history that most historians agree, there were no good choices before them.

Why the context matters, a lot.

[reusrename]

65. There were no good choices for decades to follow.

Under Cheney we had folks arguing for a nuclear first strike against Iran.

Obama, to his credit, has walked that back a considerable distance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Absolutely,

and again playing what iff? Let's say we did not use them back then, which I find to be very problematic, even if I get the context of use. What are the chances that they would have been used as early as the Korean War? What are the chances a few of the crisis between the USSR and the US would have gone nuclear? I fear history would be very different... to paraphrase Einstein, WW III would already happened, and we would be very well on our way to WW IV with sticks and stones.

I prefer to think, perhaps it is a justification, that the horrors of WW II, including this, have prevented WW III. Now we are all getting old, and the young 'uns are starting to think it could never be that bad... and that worries me.

[reusrename]

78. I, too, worry about what will be done to the young 'uns.

Someone will eventually propose nuclear winter as a cure for global warming.

I'm still very optimistic though. It's true that the arc of history bends toward justice. I have a lot of confidence that equitable solutions can be found and implemented as long as the will of the people is not thwarted. This is how I come to the belief that our most immediate threat to the next generation is probably the surveillance state.

Everything seems to come back to that discussion for me. It does remind me of the debates over Mutually Assured Destruction and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Sometimes I don't think people are a smart as they used to be.

[Th1onein]

45. 4 and 5 are not facts, and you need links to support your other "facts"

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. You are right, it is not true

Fact 4... Which you obviously do not know, targeting in both cities focused on military facilities. Granted, the type of bomb meant that this affected civilians.

Hiroshima was chosen due to its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction due to its being surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_choose_Hiroshima_as_the_first_target_for_the_atomic_bomb

Here, you go for a little more nuance on this

http://csis.org/blog/understanding-decision-drop-bomb-hiroshima-and-nagasaki

It includes possible alternatives... by the way.

Fact 5...best case Japan was divided in half at the high command about surrender.

You might want to read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident

There are days I wonder about the willful ignorance in this place. The argument is not whether we were right to drop the bomb... that has been debated since 1947 or so, seriously debated. Given the context of WW II, I don't think you could have stopped it, and if any other of the combatants got it, we might be discussing the destruction of NYC for example.

That was the world that existed at the time. To ignore that is willful ignorance at best. I have more choice words on that.

[Th1onein]

60. Nadine, they were negotiating peace with us before we dropped the bomb on them.

http://hnn.us/articles/129964.html

They were starving to death, and trying to surrender. I think that we dropped the bomb on them because we wanted to show Russia what we had.

And, we killed our own POWs with the bomb. http://www.thenation.com/blog/162596/hidden-history-american-pows-were-killed-hiroshima#axzz2bEP1Ayty

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Not quite, they were talking to the swiss representatives

trying to talk to us, and that is one of the two factions in the high command. When the vote came, even after hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was 3:3 broken by the Emperor.

I cannot make this less gray than it was.

We can have the discussion, in my view, of the effects of the bomb, or why we used them, it was not just a demonstration to the Japanese people, and the high command. It was also about Iosef Stalin... but it was also about the Japanese high command. I will remind you, many of those officers committed Sepukku rather than see their land soiled by Gaijin.

Sorry if history is less clean than people want it to be. We are dealing with people after all, and people are crazy little critters that at times surprise you, since common sense is not what it should be, or as common as people think.

[Th1onein]

77. I don't think that you are correct.

http://hnn.us/articles/129964.html

Walter Trohan, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune with impeccable credentials for integrity and accuracy, reported that two days before President Roosevelt left for the Yalta conference with Churchill and Stalin in early February 1945, he was shown a forty-page memorandum drafted by General MacArthur outlining a Japanese offer for surrender almost identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, President Truman. The single difference was the Japanese insistence on retention of the emperor, which was not acceptable to the American strategists at the time, though it was ultimately allowed in the final peace terms. Trohan relates that he was given a copy of this communication by Admiral Leahy who swore him to secrecy with the pledge not to release the story until the war was over. Trohan honored his pledge and reported his story in the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald on August 19, 1945. According to historian Anthony Kubek, Roosevelt, in the presence of witnesses, read the memorandum and dismissed it with a curt "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician." [1]

Specifically, the terms of the Japanese peace offers of late January 1945 were as follows:
•Full surrender of the Japanese forces, air, land and sea, at home and in all occupied countries.

•Surrender of all arms and ammunition.

•Agreement of the Japanese to occupation of their homeland and island possessions.

•Relinquishment of Manchuria, Korea and Formosa.

•Regulation of Japanese industry.

•Surrender of designated war criminals for trial.

•Release of all prisoners.

Other than retention of the emperor these terms were identical to the final surrender terms. Harry Elmer Barnes, in his essay “Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe,” published in the May 10, 1958 issue of the National Review, tells the same story.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Yes, but the division in the high command was real

it is a well known historical fact at least among historians. Realize, and I have referred today to the attempted coup on the 14 a few times already. that is an event that is not just obscure in the US. but for many internal reasons, it is also obscure in Japan.

Moreover, no, they did not have direct contact with Americans until very late in the process. As in after Hiroshima.

That is the part you are missing.

Also, I did state somewhere in this thread, that while keeping the Emperor in place was not in the Postdam conditions, Gen. MacArthur (fun fact, can't spell his name today) kindly let that one slide, not just because FDR was dead... but because he understood Japanese Culture.

I have also said in this thread that the decision was NOT JUST about Japan... read the OP, I mentioned the Russians for a reason.

But it is not as black and white as many folks here like to make it to be. It was one of those decisions that most historians agree these days, was bedeviled from the beginning with controversy. In fact, you can justify the decision from here to Sunday, or be critical of it from here to Sunday. I am troubled by it, but I understand the context and realize that it was probably the best choice at the time, with the knowledge of the time.

It has also quite likely prevented WW III, which will be a nuclear exchange. It has also reduced the violence of future conflicts, including Korea, where MacArthur, speaking off, wanted to use nukes, and was fired for it.

I also know this for a fact. Americans and Japanese never learn a non sanitized version of their history. I am confident to say that I have, but a lot of it... came in graduate college classes.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Incidentally, we risked lives and the success of the mission to warn civilians out of the cities.

Bing the 'LeMay bombing leaflet'. We told them we were coming. They believed us. Fully 1/4 of the city's population had evacuated to the hills in advance of the bombing.

[reformist2]

55. If the US hadn't used them first, somebody would have wanted to use them later.

From the perspective of all humanity, it's probably better it was done earlier rather than later, as the bombs in 1945 were puny, as far as nukes go. Obviously it was and always will be a horrendous tragedy for the Japanese people.

[Deep13]

58. The Japanese could have stopped the war at any time...

...with an immediate and unconditional surrender.

[roamer65]

68. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "the push" the Japanese needed...

to accept unconditional surrender. The choices otherwise became very bleak. They knew we would drop them as fast as we could make them AND the Russians were ready for revenge for Russo-Japanese War 40 years earlier.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Yes they were. They were more than just that

But they were

[roamer65]

71. I had a relative on the island of Tinian when the bombs were there, Nadin.

The Indianapolis was fresh in their minds and as he told me, everyone was hoping that these mystery guys who showed up were truly the end to the war. They all just wanted it to end. Otherwise, they knew the bloodshed that was coming would be horrendous.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. I know...one of the vets at the Red Cross in Mexico

Was a medic with the 201 pursuit squadron...he said the same thing...one day over soda. They were done, and people knew they were dead men walking...people sang in joy. I am paraphrasing, these days I would have recorded it, that when the message came the war was over people cried of joy and a few thanked the Virgin Mary

[DisgustipatedinCA]

70. #4: an airburst at 10,000 ft is pretty much the opposite of "targeting". n/t

[canonfodder]

74. wrong altitude

Detonation altitude was approx. 1950ft. Kinda short of 10,000.
Makes a big difference.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

75. You're right about the altitude, but from 1950 or from 10,000, precision is not the main benefit

I get that Nadin was saying that the city as a whole was a center of military production, but we obviously didn't care about civilian casualties, and these were not precision bombings (of course, most modern "precision" bombings aren't--precise, that is).

I'm a student of the Second World War, and I'm still not sure how I feel about the bombings, fwiw. Thanks for the correction on the altitude.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. In the context of WW II as you know, that is total war,

This is a statement of fact, if Germany developed this first, New York was the target. The Japanese were thinking Los Angeles.

I hate to say it, but concerns about civilians were academic on all sides. Part of it, was the hardly ever discussed...other context to the war...eugenics and racial purity. Yes, even pure Americans were into that game.

Why the war was an accidental just war

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

73. THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB - For those looking for more than the status quo opinion

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

See also...
H I R O S H I M A : WAS IT NECESSARY?
http://www.doug-long.com

Hiroshima, the 2nd most horrid word in the American lexicon, succeeded only by Nagasaki.

[roamer65]

76. After reading the history...I am never unhappy with a cloudy day.

It is what saved the city of Kokura, Japan from the horrors of atomic war. That is reason why Nagasaki was selected. Kokura was too cloudy and they moved on to Nagasaki.