Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Verto, Clearly the Japanese military was fanatical and were willing to die - for what? For the Emperor. But THAT is precisely why the only person who could force a surrender on the Japanese side was the Emperor.

The Japanese military governments (Bakufu in the pre-Meiji days) had a long history of arranging imperial successions, or "escorting" the emperor to secret locations "for his own safety." The emperor as a notion, was the basis for a cult, but if one emperor displeased the government, there was always an heir in the line of sucession, so the tragic loss of one emperor for the greater good didn't affect the functioning of the cult. Hell, the Japanese people would barely have known the difference - they never saw the emperor, or heard his voice, or could even say his name.

The other thing about that fanatical willingness to die was that it was NOT driven by the emperor - the fanatic view was that even the destruction of the entire nation, and the imperial family and household and all things Japanese, was preferable to surrender. If you're not familiar with them, read about Chushingura, then read Hagakure and Yamamoto Tsunetomo's criticism of the "weak, calculating Osaka merchant's ethic" of samurai of his era. Mishima, in Hagakure Nyumon (written after the war, like all of Mishima's works, of course) then expounds on the failing of the 47 ronin in Chushingura, according to the standards of Hagakure.

Surrender was a disgrace, death was an honor.

Now on to more disengenuousness. Truman orders the bomb be used against a pure military target to avoid killing women and children - at least according to his notes. His Chief of Staff then orders the bombing of Hiroshima, which we know, is not a pure military target. What does this imply?

That there are no purely military targets, and these are the best of the bunch according to the standard frag list criteria?

[Ned]

MtG, One of us has a real problem with reading comprehension. Here is Truman's statement. He definitely states that the target will be a purely military target.

"I have told the secretary of war, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.(8) He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives."

As I said above, he stated in his announcement to the American people on August 6, 1945, that the bomb had been used on a military base.

All I am suggesting is that Truman is a either liar, stupid or his orders were disobeyed. I do not believe he was stupid or that he was disobeyed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
I'm sorry, MtG, but are you simply ignoring that the Stalin told Truman that they had received an a telegram from the Emperor. This is not intercepted communiques. Here is the exact quote from Truman's note.

Of course I'm ignoring it. They received a telegram from someone. The technology to authenticate who the originator was, and the technology to authenticate who authorized the originator, didn't exist. Or do you think they had Class 3 digital signatures and CA's back then?



Hey, I've received a telegram from the emperor of Japan, and he'd like to invite you, Ned, over for sushi to discuss the whole issue.

There you go, from the horse's mouth.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, One of us has a real problem with reading comprehension. Here is Truman's statement. He definitely states that the target will be a purely military target.

"I have told the secretary of war, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.(8) He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives."

As I said above, he stated in his annoucement to the American people on August 6, 1945, that the bomb had been used on a military base.

All I am suggesting is that Truman is a either liar, stupid or his orders were disobeyed. I do not believe he was stupid or that he was disobeyed.

The Japanese didn't have the courtesy to isolate all civilians from their military production facilities (besides, who do you think works there?), rail nets (a legitimate military target), military bases (another military target), etc.

Like I said, ever been there? I've been to both, lived within sight of ground zero in Nagasaki. They were dense military targets, which also had civilians around them. Too bad.

[Ned]

MtG, it hard to understand how any Japanese survived to modern times if there was no surrender and only suicide.

However, we all know that the primary obstacle to surrender prior to use of the bomb was that the Japanese insisted on retaining the Emperor. Even after being hit twice with nuclear weapons, they did not drop this demand. The people who switched positions and allowed a Japanese surrender were the people in the White House who finally accepted the Japanese conditions. I suspect, if we look closer into the matter, that Truman had some feedback about the reaction of the American people to what he was doing. They were horrified by Dresden, after all. Even in 1991, Bush had to call a halt after the Highway of Death was shown to shocked Americans.

[Ned]

MtG, Hiroshima can hardly be called a "pure" military target that could be hit without killing women and children.

Moreover, Hiroshima is not a military base. The clear import of Truman's statement on August 6 was that we had killed Japanese military.

I suspect that at least some educated Americans knew that Hiroshima was not a military base, but a city with women and children. The word of Truman's deception must have spread quickly to every avenue in America.

[Ned]

MtG, are you willing even this day to tell the Mayor of Hiroshima that his city was a "military base" and was therefor a "pure" military target that could be struck without killing women and children? He would kill you immediately, IMHO.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So why aren't you spending all this energy railing about Bush and Rumsfeld for their killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan? After all, they said they're not targeting civilians either. They've never targeted civilians, have they? Gee, I guess they must have.

The sighting target was the Aioi bridge, a T-shaped structure, at the south end of the 5th Division base shown:

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, are you willing even this day to tell the Mayor of Hiroshima that his city was a "military base" and was therefor a "pure" military target that could be struck without killing women and children? He would kill you immediately, IMHO.

You're the one hung up on semantics. IF we'd wanted to make a point for the civilian population, there were plenty of areas in Tokyo and Osaka where we could have killed four or five times as many in the immediate blast, and had 10-20 times the aftereffects casualties.

As for whether it was a justifiable target, a lot of Japanese understand that it was, particularly those who lived at that time. Doesn't mean they (or anyone else) like it or feel good about it.

Tell you what, I'll go you one further, as someone who's lived there (Nagasaki) and known survivors and people who lost relatives. Given what was known at the time about the military situation, not speculation and whatifs and hindsight, but knowing the effects of the bomb as we know it now, I would have authorized dropping it. I wouldn't have authorized the second one in three days (that was Curtis LeMay's call), but if the Japanese hadn't shown real solid, clear movement towards surrender and hadn't issued standdown orders to their forces in the field within a couple of weeks, I'd have dropped the second one.

[Ned]

MtG, Bush and Rumsfeld did not drop a nuclear weapon on Baghdad in order to kill Saddam. Had they done so, I would have been among the first to condemn such a action. If you recall, I argued even before the war and during it that we would never use nuclear weapons on Baghdad even if Saddam somehow were to use WoMD on our troops in the area or even on New York City. The reason I said this is that the enemy is Saddam, not the people of Iraq.

Your map demonstrates clearly that Hiroshima has a number of military bases within it. But this does not change the fact that it was, by no stretch of the imagination, a pure military target that could be struck without killing women and children.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
However, we all know that the primary obstacle to surrender prior to use of the bomb was that the Japanese insisted on retaining the Emperor. Even after being hit twice with nuclear weapons, they did not drop this demand. The people who switched positions and allowed a Japanese surrender were the people in the White House who finally accepted the Japanese conditions. I suspect, if we look closer into the matter, that Truman had some feedback about the reaction of the American people to what he was doing. They were horrified by Dresden, after all.

In 1941-1945, we were "surprise attacked" by the Japs, we'd had tens of thousands of wounded and maimed young men come back from that front who described how the Japanese fought, we had what we knew about their conduct in China (an ally), we knew about the Bataan death march, murder of civilian prisoners, etc. etc. A lot of Americans had no qualms about killing Japanese, and lots of them.

The Japanese also substantially modified their bit about the emperor - they went from insisting that he remain "in power" without any change (i.e. as a living god) and as the nominal head of government, to merely insisting (a) he not be executed, and (b) that he be allowed to remain as emperor, but with no power or role in government, even in a nominal way. They accepted the requirement of the emperor making the Ningen Sengen declaration, which still galls the ultranationalist right wing fringe in Japan.

[Kramerman]

ever read the book Hiroshima (hershy)? it clearly describes form what i remember that hiroshima was an industrial complex and military center. strategic bombing throughout the war, tho rarely specificly targeting civilians, had been indifferent about civillian casualties and definately did not go out of their way to avoid them. Hiroshima was no different than any other strategic crapet bombing raid from anyside of the war, except that it used only a small flight of bombers that dropped a single, extremely powerful bomb instead of thousands of small, incediary ones.

Re japan being warned

the japanese were warned not only by warnings to the government, but also by raining leaflets down on japanese cities. the leadership th did not want their citizens to red the 'propaganda' and ordered that no one shall read the leaflets. being the good disciplined people they were, everyone obeyd without question, to the best of my knowledge.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, Bush and Rumsfeld did not drop a nuclear weapon on Baghdad in order to kill Saddam. Had they done so, I would have been among the first to condemn such a action. If you recall, I argued even before the war and during it that we would never use nuclear weapons on Baghdad even if Saddam somehow were to use WoMD on our troops in the area or even on New York City. The reason I said this is that the enemy is Saddam, not the people of Iraq.

So it's ok to kill civilians as long as you don't nuke a city? Such a double standard.


Your map demonstrates clearly that Hiroshima has a number of military bases within it. But this does not change the fact that it was, by no stretch of the imagination, a pure military target that could be struck without killing women and children. [/QUOTE]

Every strategic bombing raid in WW2 killed women and children.

[Ned]

MtG, I think the bomb should have been used on a "pure" military target, just has Truman stated in his notes. I am sure that LeMay could have found something that was purely military if he were given THAT order. Instead, he was ordered to bomb Hiroshima.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kramerman
Re japan being warned

the japanese were warned not only by warnings to the government, but also by raining leaflets down on japanese cities. the leadership th did not want their citizens to red the 'propaganda' and ordered that no one shall read the leaflets. being the good disciplined people they were, everyone obeyd without question, to the best of my knowledge.

The penalty for disobedience was also death, and the disgrace that extended to any "traitor" and his/her family.