Thanks polycarp, I learnt something new today.
I’m not good with dates…
That’s really an exaggeration. They went to war to secure themselves a free hand in China in particular and East Asia in general. I don’t think even the most strident Japanese leader at the end thought Japan would manage to hang on to her overseas possessions under any negotiated surrender.
The Hiroshima peace memorial museum doesn’t make me sad. The Nagasaki peace memorial ceremony makes me sad.
If they’d surrendered after that first bombing, maybe we’d still agonize over it. Oh, we’d point back to what American decision-makers believed and why, but we’d never really know: was it the minimum necessary amount of force, or was it far too much? But, as it happens, we know the first one wasn’t too much; it wasn’t even enough. We could hypothetically argue over whether the Nagasaki bombing was excessive, but Hiroshima obviously wasn’t – which strengthens any doubt that Nagasaki was.
It might be possible (and I am only speculating) that one of the reasons for a complete unconditional surrender may be the belief that failure to get one from Germany in 1918 was what laid the ground work for the Second World War.
I have heard it stated that the Second World War (in Europe, anyway) could be considered a continuation of the First.
With all the blood spilled on both sides in the Second, don’t leave the job half finished. Make sure we don’t have to go through all this again.
If my speculation is correct, then it absolutely makes sense that the Japanese surrender terms (which appears to be almost a return to the status quo) were completely unacceptable.
It’s incredible to me that after launching 8 years of bloody war, involving some of the most hideous abuses of enemy soldiers and civilians on record, that not allowing the Japanese to dictate peace terms is considered in some way immoral.
We gave them less than 3 days to digest what happened to them. It was a horrific event that left the whole world in shock. We were going to drop the second bomb anyway.
That’s the most ridiculous justification ever. “In shock”? They knew the terms, they were unwilling to meet them. So they got the second barrell.
We were going to drop the second bomb even if they surrendered first? :dubious:
Indeed. The world was “in shock”? First I’ve heard about that.
gonzomax seems to be illustrating the type of person I outlined in post #46.
It’s easy to sit back in your slippers and smoking jacket 60+ years after the fact, and condemn the policy decisions made back then, using knowledge and a belief system that just wasn’t around much at the time.
Might as well blame FDR (and the oil embargo) for pushing Japan into a corner.
Personally I think the US was completely justified in dropping the two bombs.
As grist for the mill though I have seen some suggest that at least the first bomb should have been dropped as a demonstration without actually killing anyone. Basically some uninhabited place but in full view of the Japanese military/government so they could see what it did.
I somehow doubt that would have worked. Afterall it didn’t work when Hiroshima went up in smoke but the people at the time wouldn’t have known that. So, kinda like one shot across the bow then one in the side if they didn’t stop.
Anyone think that would have been reasonable?
Even by the conventional standards of bullshit, this is bullshit. Worse stuff than Hiroshima had been happening pretty much continually since 1942. The significance of Hiroshima is demontrating that six squadrons’ worth of firebombing could be accomplished with a single plane.
Fuck, if all you had to do to win a war was administer “shock”, Germany could have been conquered just by blanketing it with leaflets of a nude Eleanor Roosevelt.
I’ve seen that argument made and it is not a worthless argument. Of course even if you think he did force the situation one could still say he was doing the right thing on that count.
Personally I think inaction on FDR’s part would have been insupportable. He did the right thing.
Tricky. What if the demo bomb doesn’t work? The technology was very new, after all, and the failure might embolden the Japanese leadership. Besides, what does “full view” mean? One of the small inlands surrounding the Japanese mainland?
I can’t provide a cite, but one of my History profs did say they mulled blowing the top off of Mt. Fuji. He said it was rejected, IIRC, because they didn’t want to destroy such a potent cultural symbol. Or words to that effect.
No idea. 
Whatever someone smarter than me and more familiar with the area thinks it would mean. I presume someone could figure a way to do it as a demonstration that would be seen by enough (and the right) people to make the point.
Point taken though that it would not be good if we made a big deal of telling them to watch us erase an island and then nothing happens.
My understanding is that was why Mt. Fuji was considered. It has the most visibility to the most people.
A demonstration bombing would not have the same impact (so to speak) at all, IMO.
The backdrop of the ruins of Hiroshima provides context, increased emotional impact, and clearly demonstrates the damage the device can do (as well as our ability to deliver it) far better than some bare rock off the northern end of the Izu Islands.
Any number of reluctant war ministers can be brought to Hiroshima, and see for themselves the destruction. Not so, with some other remote location, considering that the Third Fleet was sinking anything that even twitches by that point.
Also, it could be interpreted that by not using the weapon on a live city, that the U.S. lacked the conviction to do so.
Seems to me if you could gather enough of the Japanese leadership to stage your demo, screw the A-bomb - just shoot them all.
Quote from Goering:
“My eyes! My eyes!”