I don't believe any of that shyt the Japanese were going to fight till the last man it literally thr culture. But nukes are never to be used.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Do you agree with Truman's decision?
- Thread starter acri1
- Start date
I'd encourage anyone who agrees with the bombings to read this book:
It follows 6 survivors of the Hiroshima bomb and what they seen/ the aftermath.
Horrifying is an understatement
The descriptions I’ve heard are horrific, can’t imagine a whole book
TravexdaGod
Rookie
I'll try, try, try and keep this brief....but yes, I agree. Perhaps a necessary evil. They haven't been used in warfare since because of Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
The Japanese had an opportunity to surrender, but didn't. The Potsdam Declaration made some assurances about maintaining the Imperial system, but demanded that they surrender or face utter destruction. The Japanese rejected it, because while they were willing to consider an armistice agreement with the Soviet Union acting as intermediary, they were as yet not open to surrender and a subsequent occupation of the home islands.
The original plan for the invasion of Japan was to have the Russians tie down Japan's million-man Kwantung Army in Manchuria while the Allies would invade the home islands. The U.S. was pressing for the Russians to become a part of the operation since the Russians promised to enter the war three months after Germany's defeat. Using the bomb to flex on the Russians out of some geopolitical rivalry or out of racism doesn't make sense when the Americans and Russians were working together, though very minimally, to take down Japan.
Speaking of which, why would Russia invade Japan? They were going to regain territory taken from them by the Japanese during the Russo-Japanese War, but the Russians had a small navy comparably speaking and little to no experience in amphibious warfare. What could they have possibly done against a vastly larger, vastly more experienced US Navy who had blockaded the home islands, had mastered amphibious warfare around the world after doing it the past few years up to this point, and had nuclear weapons?
The whole point of the atomic bomb project was a race to be the first to have them, or in the case of the British & Americans, to develop one before the Germans did. Had the bomb or bombs been ready in time, the Allies would've certainly used them against Germany. By the time they were ready for use, the war in Europe was over or about to be, and it wouldn't have made sense to drop a nuke in Germany when Allied forces are racing to invade the country from east, west, south, and continuing to bomb the country into rubble from the air.
The fighting in the Pacific became more intense and the casualties became higher the closer the fighting got to Japan proper. The Japanese all throughout the war have demonstrated and publicly pronounced that they were willing to fight literally to the last man and woman in defense of the Emperor and the country, no matter what the cost. If they have no problem throwing over 2,000 kamikazes at you during the the Battle of Okinawa, what can you anticipate they'll do in defense of the home islands? What do you do next when the Japanese refuse to give in after firebombing Tokyo into ash and leaving over 1 million homeless? Truman's presidency would've been strangled in the cradle had the American people and even the Allies found out that he possessed a weapon that was developed after years of arduous effort and sacrifices by the American taxpayer that could've shortened the war and saved lives and refused to use it.
No one at the time could anticipate how devastating the bomb would be, or what it's impact would be on the Japanese government. It was all theoretical up until the first test in July 1945. But it should be noted that after two atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the Japanese were still deadlocked on whether to continue the war or not. The Americans knew this because they could read the Japanese diplomatic correspondence, which is why they dropped the Hiroshima bomb in the first place. It took the Emperor to break the deadlock, and even then, there were those who were willing to overthrow the government to keep Japan in the war, but their planned coup failed. And even then, there were Japanese soldiers who were still fighting years after the war ended throughout Asia & the Pacific.
As for the reason that Japan surrendered, it was because of the two atomic bombs and the Soviet break in relations. I don't know whether one is more important than the other, or if it should even be argued. But I think the shock of one bomb followed by the Soviet break of relations and commencing hostilities, followed immediately by another bomb with the Americans continuing air raids across your country not knowing how many more nukes they may possess must've finally crushed Japan's spirit. For what it's worth, the Emperor's address to the Japanese people made reference to the bomb (or bombs) being the reason as to why Japan had to endure the unendurable.
Lastly, the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were deemed military targets. I don't think the U.S. set out to deliberately attack civilians -- they just happened to be in the way. The U.S. for years had advocated precision bombing on strategic targets as opposed to the British preference of what they called area-bombing. It's unfortunate, but war can be & often is ugly and barbaric. So while not perfect, I don't think this makes the U.S. or the Allies in this case any worse than say the Japanese who had no qualms bombing Asian cities full of civilians for years among many other cruel, sadistic things that they did (or even their attacks on North America); or say the French who had no problem collaborating with Nazis during a harsh occupation of their country, or doing things like handing over their Jewish citizens for them to be murdered and giving out pieces of their oppressive colonial empire for the Japanese to use against the Allies.
The Japanese had an opportunity to surrender, but didn't. The Potsdam Declaration made some assurances about maintaining the Imperial system, but demanded that they surrender or face utter destruction. The Japanese rejected it, because while they were willing to consider an armistice agreement with the Soviet Union acting as intermediary, they were as yet not open to surrender and a subsequent occupation of the home islands.
The original plan for the invasion of Japan was to have the Russians tie down Japan's million-man Kwantung Army in Manchuria while the Allies would invade the home islands. The U.S. was pressing for the Russians to become a part of the operation since the Russians promised to enter the war three months after Germany's defeat. Using the bomb to flex on the Russians out of some geopolitical rivalry or out of racism doesn't make sense when the Americans and Russians were working together, though very minimally, to take down Japan.
Speaking of which, why would Russia invade Japan? They were going to regain territory taken from them by the Japanese during the Russo-Japanese War, but the Russians had a small navy comparably speaking and little to no experience in amphibious warfare. What could they have possibly done against a vastly larger, vastly more experienced US Navy who had blockaded the home islands, had mastered amphibious warfare around the world after doing it the past few years up to this point, and had nuclear weapons?
The whole point of the atomic bomb project was a race to be the first to have them, or in the case of the British & Americans, to develop one before the Germans did. Had the bomb or bombs been ready in time, the Allies would've certainly used them against Germany. By the time they were ready for use, the war in Europe was over or about to be, and it wouldn't have made sense to drop a nuke in Germany when Allied forces are racing to invade the country from east, west, south, and continuing to bomb the country into rubble from the air.
The fighting in the Pacific became more intense and the casualties became higher the closer the fighting got to Japan proper. The Japanese all throughout the war have demonstrated and publicly pronounced that they were willing to fight literally to the last man and woman in defense of the Emperor and the country, no matter what the cost. If they have no problem throwing over 2,000 kamikazes at you during the the Battle of Okinawa, what can you anticipate they'll do in defense of the home islands? What do you do next when the Japanese refuse to give in after firebombing Tokyo into ash and leaving over 1 million homeless? Truman's presidency would've been strangled in the cradle had the American people and even the Allies found out that he possessed a weapon that was developed after years of arduous effort and sacrifices by the American taxpayer that could've shortened the war and saved lives and refused to use it.
No one at the time could anticipate how devastating the bomb would be, or what it's impact would be on the Japanese government. It was all theoretical up until the first test in July 1945. But it should be noted that after two atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the Japanese were still deadlocked on whether to continue the war or not. The Americans knew this because they could read the Japanese diplomatic correspondence, which is why they dropped the Hiroshima bomb in the first place. It took the Emperor to break the deadlock, and even then, there were those who were willing to overthrow the government to keep Japan in the war, but their planned coup failed. And even then, there were Japanese soldiers who were still fighting years after the war ended throughout Asia & the Pacific.
As for the reason that Japan surrendered, it was because of the two atomic bombs and the Soviet break in relations. I don't know whether one is more important than the other, or if it should even be argued. But I think the shock of one bomb followed by the Soviet break of relations and commencing hostilities, followed immediately by another bomb with the Americans continuing air raids across your country not knowing how many more nukes they may possess must've finally crushed Japan's spirit. For what it's worth, the Emperor's address to the Japanese people made reference to the bomb (or bombs) being the reason as to why Japan had to endure the unendurable.
Lastly, the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were deemed military targets. I don't think the U.S. set out to deliberately attack civilians -- they just happened to be in the way. The U.S. for years had advocated precision bombing on strategic targets as opposed to the British preference of what they called area-bombing. It's unfortunate, but war can be & often is ugly and barbaric. So while not perfect, I don't think this makes the U.S. or the Allies in this case any worse than say the Japanese who had no qualms bombing Asian cities full of civilians for years among many other cruel, sadistic things that they did (or even their attacks on North America); or say the French who had no problem collaborating with Nazis during a harsh occupation of their country, or doing things like handing over their Jewish citizens for them to be murdered and giving out pieces of their oppressive colonial empire for the Japanese to use against the Allies.
Ozymandeas
Veteran
IDK the right answer here but, it is weird as fukk that we bombed Japan and not Germany.
Seems backwards.
Seems backwards.
Except they "literally didn't" fight to the last man. This whole thing about the Japanese being some sort of super-savages who would never give up and are way worse than Nazis/Russians/blah blah blah is just racist bullshyt. If they were so about that life, then what about the bomb would have suddenly changed the equation anyway? The firebombing of Tokyo was just as devastating as the nukes, military Japanese government didn't give a shyt about civilian casualties either way, and at the time they surrendered most Japanese hadn't been to the bomb sites and knew very little about what had happened yet but they laid down their weapons anyway because the government surrendered. Imperial government had been contemplating surrender for months, and the vast majority of the Japanese people were going to stop fighting when their government gave up, bomb or no bomb.
Plus, how the hell do you "fight to the last man" from an island when you have no remaining naval or air capability of note? Allies didn't even have to invade the mainland, they could just wait if they wanted. And the USA's own interior assessments, both those made before the bomb was dropped and after the bomb was dropped, developed from both massive quantities of intercepted Japanese cables as well as interviews with Japanese after the fact, state they certainly would have given up within weeks even if no bombs were dropped and Russia/USA never invaded.
What do you know that they don't?
Wow ok bro whatever you say
Invade the home islands and millions on both sides are killed in attrition warfare or Drop a couple nukes on some cities and kill civilians. There was no good choice either way.
Those AREN'T the only choices. Did you not read any of the thread?
"Give the Japanese assurances of the emperor cause they're ready to surrender right now" was an option.
"Just wait it out with the full naval blockade already in place because their air and naval forces are already totally destroyed and they can't do jack shyt to us" was an option.
Nearly every single military and intelligence expert of note already knew Japan was done for. Truman had literally circled the date of Russian entry into the war in his diary and wrote "Japan fini" on it months beforehand. Invasion was never a necessity, it's just been an excuse.
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
Nope
Bullshyt, the Potsdam Declaration was public propaganda that wasn't even sent to Japan first like a serious diplomatic offer, and it said "There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan." Nothing in there stated the emperor could remain, which was a fukk-up I already pointed out:
"But though we gained a victory, it was soon to be canceled out by the Potsdam Declaration and the way it was handled. Instead of being a diplomatic instrument, transmitted through regular diplomatic channels and giving the Japanese a chance to answer, it was put on the radio as a propaganda instrument pure and simple. The whole maneuver, in fact, completely disregarded all essential psychological factors dealing with Japan."
"The Potsdam Declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed."
- Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias
"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."
- Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
- William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
"The diary of Walter Brown--an assistant to Secretary of State James F. Byrnes-- records that aboard ship returning from Potsdam on August 3, 1945 the President, Byrnes and Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to the President, "agreed Japas looking for peace. (Leahy had another report from Pacific) President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden."
Literally everyone already knew the USSR vs. USA rivalry was the MAIN geopolitical rivalry now that Germany and Japan were finished. That was already obvious years earlier. If that doesn't make sense to you than you have no clue what you're talking about
That ceased to be the "whole point" long before they were dropped. It was already clear far earlier that no one else was going to develop a bomb.
Total bullshyt. In fact, after the targets were picked back in May the USA purposely avoided bombing those cities for three months, because they wanted to be able to measure the full impact of the bomb. If they were such important military targets in May, then how could they justify ignoring them militarily for until August solely so the nuke experiment would look better?
So you're killing your entire case - you claimed they "had" to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians to end the war, now you're talking like they had no idea it would end the war and they didn't it on a "hey maybe" bit of bullshyt.
Literally everyone knew the bomb would kill huge #'s of civilians, and numerous military and intelligence leaders had already said it wasn't necessary to end the war. But they did it anyway.
Killing your own case again - they were "still deadlocked" because THE BOMBS DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR DECISION.
Grade A, 100% bullshyt. The decision to drop the Hiroshima bomb was made MONTHS earlier and had nothing to do with Japanese diplomatic correspondence. In fact the officer who prepped those diplomatic intercepts is one of the ones who said it was completely unnecessary.
"we brought them down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."
- Brigadier General Carter Clarke, officer who prepped intercepted Japanese cables for Truman
What do you mean "against the US Navy"? Russia would have been fighting Japan when they invaded, not the USA. Japan had no naval capacity left, all Russia needed to do was get a beachhead and then move their troops in.
The Russians had no problem invading Sakhalin Island and taking half of it from the Japanese and had already planned the invasion of Hokkaido.
Of course he "mentioned" the bombs, the emperor was selling his loss of face to the people and making a speech that says "your lives were immaterial to the decision" doesn't go over as well. Yet all our military and intelligence experts know the emperor's speech had as little to do with the actual Japanese deliberations as any other political speech.
Total bullshyt, the notes of the targeting committee specifically say they're trying to destroy the homes of civilians to eliminate the city's worker base.
And in fact, after the targets were picked the USA purposely avoided bombing those cities for three months, because they wanted to be able to measure the full impact of the bomb. If they were such important military targets, then how could they justify ignoring them militarily for 3 months solely so the nuke experiment would look better?
As has already been pointed out numerous times, there was zero need to invade and the bombing isn't what brought about Japanese surrender.
I quoted two dozen military and intelligence experts at the time on this. What do you know that they didn't?
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war....The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan."
- Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief U.S. Pacific Fleet
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."
- Admiral William F. Halsey Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
- Chairman of Chiefs of Staff William Leahy
"The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air....it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- Commanding General of U.S. Army Air Forces Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
"MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
- Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur
"I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- former President Dwight Eisenhower
But I guess you know more about the war situation than virtually every major US military leader of the time?
Last edited:
A ton of folk are talking ignorantly as if the decision to bomb Japan was made in August 1945 and was based on the military situation. That's a bunch of bs. The decision to nuke Japan was made in April/May 1945 by Truman, Stimson and a few of their lackeys and had nothing to do with the military situation. Military wasn't even consulted in the decision.
Here's a quick timeline.
April 12, 1945 - FDR dies. FDR had not yet authorized the dropping of the bombs on Japan, nor had he even informed Truman of the existence of the bomb (which may show how little he trusted Truman's discernment).
April 25, 1945 - Truman has the bombs described to him in detail for the first time, though he'd been informed of their existence two weeks earlier. Rather than consulting his military experts, he immediately sets up a committee to approve the use of the bombs.
April 27, 1945 - Interim Committee convenes for the first time. It is comprised of:
Henry Stimson, Secretary of War
James F. Byrnes, personal representative of Truman and considered the committee's most influential member
George L. Harrison, President of New York Life Insurance
William L. Clayton, businessman and Undersecretary of State
Ralph Bard, Under-secretary of Navy. Bard opposed the committee's decision to drop the bombs and was the only vote against
4 Manhattan Project scientists, who have said they were ignorant about the decision process, knew nothing of the war situation, and felt they were there just to explain the capabilities of the bomb and rubber-stamp whatever decision was made
That's it. That's the whole committee. The people who chose to drop the bomb were basically President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson, and a few businessmen and scientists who just sat there waiting to approve the decision.
May 28, 1945 - In just its 3rd meeting, the Interim Committee approves the final decision of cities to bomb. The main criteria was that the targets would allow the full impact of the bombs to be tested. Thus the targets had to be:
A. Large cities at least 5km in diameter
B. Mostly untouched by bombing, so the full impact of the nuke could be measured
C. Have no mountains or other blockage in the way that would keep the bomb from having maximum destructive impact of surrounding homes
D. Important, but not important enough that they couldn't be ignored for 3 months while the bombs were being finished.
Oh, and there had to be 2 cities targeted because the USA was developing both a Uranium bomb and an Plutonium bomb, with very different mechanisms, and both needed to be tested. That's why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed so quickly right after the other (just 2 days between) without the Japanese government even having time to meet first, but then they didn't mind waiting a week after the 2nd bomb for Japan to surrender. The intention was always to drop both bombs regardless of the military or diplomatic situation.
Once the targets were chosen, the military was instructed to avoid bombing them for the next 3 months so as not to disturb the experiment. After that decision was made, it was never reconsidered and no military leaders were ever consulted to change it. THAT is how and why the bombs were chosen and targeted. It didn't have jack shyt to do with the military situation in August 1945, Truman had made up his mind long earlier, with little deliberation, and didn't even bother talking it through with the people who mattered.
Anyone who claims the decision to drop the bombs was about the situation in August 1945 is ignoring documented reality.
More details about the decision including full notes of the Interim Committee meetings:
ATOMIC BOMB: DECISION (Hiroshima-Nagasaki)
Here's a quick timeline.
April 12, 1945 - FDR dies. FDR had not yet authorized the dropping of the bombs on Japan, nor had he even informed Truman of the existence of the bomb (which may show how little he trusted Truman's discernment).
April 25, 1945 - Truman has the bombs described to him in detail for the first time, though he'd been informed of their existence two weeks earlier. Rather than consulting his military experts, he immediately sets up a committee to approve the use of the bombs.
April 27, 1945 - Interim Committee convenes for the first time. It is comprised of:
Henry Stimson, Secretary of War
James F. Byrnes, personal representative of Truman and considered the committee's most influential member
George L. Harrison, President of New York Life Insurance
William L. Clayton, businessman and Undersecretary of State
Ralph Bard, Under-secretary of Navy. Bard opposed the committee's decision to drop the bombs and was the only vote against
4 Manhattan Project scientists, who have said they were ignorant about the decision process, knew nothing of the war situation, and felt they were there just to explain the capabilities of the bomb and rubber-stamp whatever decision was made
That's it. That's the whole committee. The people who chose to drop the bomb were basically President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson, and a few businessmen and scientists who just sat there waiting to approve the decision.
May 28, 1945 - In just its 3rd meeting, the Interim Committee approves the final decision of cities to bomb. The main criteria was that the targets would allow the full impact of the bombs to be tested. Thus the targets had to be:
A. Large cities at least 5km in diameter
B. Mostly untouched by bombing, so the full impact of the nuke could be measured
C. Have no mountains or other blockage in the way that would keep the bomb from having maximum destructive impact of surrounding homes
D. Important, but not important enough that they couldn't be ignored for 3 months while the bombs were being finished.
Oh, and there had to be 2 cities targeted because the USA was developing both a Uranium bomb and an Plutonium bomb, with very different mechanisms, and both needed to be tested. That's why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed so quickly right after the other (just 2 days between) without the Japanese government even having time to meet first, but then they didn't mind waiting a week after the 2nd bomb for Japan to surrender. The intention was always to drop both bombs regardless of the military or diplomatic situation.
Once the targets were chosen, the military was instructed to avoid bombing them for the next 3 months so as not to disturb the experiment. After that decision was made, it was never reconsidered and no military leaders were ever consulted to change it. THAT is how and why the bombs were chosen and targeted. It didn't have jack shyt to do with the military situation in August 1945, Truman had made up his mind long earlier, with little deliberation, and didn't even bother talking it through with the people who mattered.
Anyone who claims the decision to drop the bombs was about the situation in August 1945 is ignoring documented reality.
More details about the decision including full notes of the Interim Committee meetings:
ATOMIC BOMB: DECISION (Hiroshima-Nagasaki)
Last edited:
MidwestD
Clyde Frog's Shooter
The descriptions I’ve heard are horrific, can’t imagine a whole book
I read it back in high school and never will again, it's def. a one time only read due to
the nature of the content.