Hiroshima Remembered.

[Boris Godunov]

57 years ago, the city of Hiroshima was hit by the only use of an atomic weapon against an enemy target in history. Over 220,000 deaths are attributed to the dropping of the atomic bomb on the city and its aftermath.

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Ike on Ike," Newsweek, 11/11/63

[Giancarlo]

I don't think Truman had a choice and have to disagree with Ike, the Japanese were ready to fight to the death and American forces would of had to land on Japan itself.

[Ecthy]

3 days later, the city of Nagasaki was hit as well, so it was not the only use of that weapon.

[Simon Darkshade]

Arguments can and have been made from both sides of the case, but one does conclude that, at least in my view, 'twas regretfully necessary. It is not nice that the people had to die, but it was war.
And, sorry to be pedantic, but Nagasaki was bombed also.

[Boris Godunov]

Bah, up yours Ecth--I was referring to the bombings in general as being the only use. Thbbbbbbbllfffffft.

Fez: Most military leaders of the time disagreed with that assessment, including Eisenhower, MacArthur, Admiral Leahy, General Spaatz, General Clarke, and many others. Truman certainly had a choice. He didn't bomb them to end WWII, he bombed them to scare Stalin and start the Cold War.

[Zkribbler]

Re: Hiroshima Remembered.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
the only use of an atomic weapon against an enemy target in history

You're forgetting Nagasaki.


The damaged inflicted upon the population of Hiroshima was horrible. But the bombing was necessary because it gave the Japanese the excuse the needed to "endure the unendurable" and surrender. Without it, they would have fought on.

My dad would have been among the troops to invade the Japanese home island. (Operation Olympia?) We now know the Japanese had deduced exactly where the invasion was to take place and was putting everything it had there. The invasion would have been a bloodbath.

Truman did the right thing.

[Boris Godunov]

Simon, I find the arguments that it was "necessary" don't hold water, especially since Japan had already communicated its willingness to surrender so long as the Emperor could remain. Since that is indeed what happened after the surrender, it is unfathomable as to why the bombs needed to be used.

[Giancarlo]

Boris that is your opinion but this is the one I hold. Truman in my opinion did not have a choice.

[Q Classic]

The bombing was just, albeit horrid.

Why was it just?
1. Rape of Nanking.
2. Occupation of Korea.

those things ALONE make it so that the Japanese deserved some sort of karmic punishment.

do i feel pity for the japanese civilians caught in the blast and the aftermath? yes, i do.
do i think that atomics are a curse bestowed upon an idiotic human race? yes, i do.
do i think truman had a choice? yes, i do.
do i fervently hope that no atmoics will ever be used again? yes, i do.
do i feel that japan deserved them? yes, i do.

germany was lucky-- i feel had the bombs been ready for germany, and used there, i would feel much the same way.

but they weren't. japan was not so lucky. they got hit. but they deserved it.

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Simon, I find the arguments that it was "necessary" don't hold water, especially since Japan had already communicated its willingness to surrender so long as the Emperor could remain. Since that is indeed what happened after the surrender, it is unfathomable as to why the bombs needed to be used.

One is of the view that the Emperor should not have been allowed to come out smelling of innocent roses, but it is a moot point, as it was realpolitik. (Whilst it is not an apt or fair comparison, one just feels like slipping in the devil's advocate question of "What if Germany offered unconditional surrender in early 1945 with the only condition being the survival of the Fuhrer?". Different situation, but it holds that the survival of the Emperor was not a negotiated condition, but rather something that the Allies gave to the Japanese in a gesture of magnamity.)
Nevertheless, there was a great deal of manuevering about the issue.
It is true that warding off the Soviets was one 'beneficial' side effect of the bombing, but it was not the primary motivation.
There was also the notion of punishing Japan for their aggression and atrocities, and the thousands of POWs being held in Japan in appalling conditions.

As long as it saved one Allied life, it was worth it. Now that may be a nasty statement in this day and age, but coming at the bloody end of a very bloody war, it is apt. It has also had the effect of (at least up to now) subduing any militaristic currents in Japanese society or politics.

It is easy to ascribe contemporary morality to such a situation in hindsight, but we cannot fully understand the feeling/mood of the time, or the considerations facing Truman. We can attempt to do so, but not the whole way, unless someone here is his reincarnation.
It is not an issue that can be dismissed in a few lines.

[Ecthy]

punishment for the people, Q Cubedm, for civilians? If that is just in your eyes, then what happened on September 11 is exactly as just, in the same way even. Why?

1. Attack on Libya
2. Attack on Iraq
3. Attack on Sudan

and so on, wherever arab population had to suffer from US interventions...

but that's not the way a western country should think and work

[rah]

Times have changed. Back in WWII, civilians were routinely made targets by ALL sides in the conflict. It was accepted and expected. Fortunately, times have changed, and it is no longer considered acceptable. We have all grown, which we can be thankful for. I don't think a comparison between now and then is really an apples to apples comparison.

Rich

[Q Classic]

punishment for the people, Q Cubed, for civilians?

i said i felt pity and grief for those in the blast, didn't i? i still think it was a horrific weapon, that atomic blast-- and the fact that it was used on civilians makes america almost the bad guy here.

but let's get one thing straight. i think it's just, yes, but i think it's just only in a karmic sense. i don't think two wrongs will ever make one right, but the right wrongs can deter future wrongs.

you want me to feel sorry for the japanese as a whole? they, who desecrated the entire nation of korea by trying to stamp out our culture for forty years? they, who used our young women as battle front whores, our young men as cannon fodder, and our children and elderly as slaves in their own country? the death toll in korea during the years of the occupation is far greater than that of both bombs combined-- blast and aftermath.
and it was the japanese who performed the atrocity known as the rape of nanking. iirc, nanking, population ~800k, was captured by the japanese and looted, sacked, and pillaged for a period of four months or so-- and during that time, approximately 400k perished. men were carted off for mass executions, women for gangraping and other odious crimes.
my pity for the japanese here stretches only so far.

If that is just in your eyes, then what happened on September 11 is exactly as just, in the same way even. Why?

1. Attack on Libya
2. Attack on Iraq
3. Attack on Sudan

and so on, wherever arab population had to suffer from US interventions...

i ask you... did we, as americans or as any other western power EVER do anything like that? did we cart off arab women to be our sex slaves? did we use arab men as cannon fodder? did we sack and pillage a city in that same manner?

i can't think of one instance when we did that. sept 11 was not karmic. it was a terrorist attack.

hiroshima was karmic. it was brutal and horrid, but just.

nagasaki was overkill.

[Boris Godunov]

Rah: If that were the case, how would you explain the outrage by the Americans over the Lusitania disaster in 1915? Certainly that should have been expected as just a part of war.

I don't think the targeting of civilians was expected at all. After all, the Geneva Convention had already explicitly condemned such a thing.

The "they deserved it" line is also appalling. Certainly those who perpetrated war crimes like in Nanking deserved punishment, but innocent civilians? No way.

I'm not trying to exculpate Japanese atrocities at all. But the fact that the Japanese committed them doesn't make it "right" or "fair" that we, who claimed to be better, did the same thing. Same thing goes for Dresden.

[muxec]

Chernobyl remembered (mugwort)