Hansel and Shodan have said virtually everything I wanted to say when I opened the thread, and I want to thank them for cogent presentations of the pertinent data.
There was an excellent book out about five years ago which gave the background on the proposals for the invasion of Japan, including the various casualty estimates (some of which were much higher than the million noted here).
I think it’s important to realize that hindsight is 20:20 and that Truman was operating with what data he had at the time when he made the decision. If it was secretly in the Japanese Premier’s mind to surrender on September 1 but nobody in the world but him knew this, or any other set of real or hypothetical situations that have come to light or been proposed since then, for Truman to decide on the atomic bombing or alternatively for the invasion was not immoral, it was his job as President and Commander-in-Chief of a nation at war.
The question is what the U.S. government knew itself to be faced with in August 1945, and the best solution therefor, not what might have happened if, say, Stalin had invaded Hokkaido or the Pope had gone to Tokyo.
Was it moral for Bush to have us invade Afghanistan? Does your answer change if, in 2025, it’s discovered that the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan had made a secret alliance that would likely have overthrown the Taliban within six months without our invasion?
Furthermore, there is no justification for saying that Truman et. al. would have made a different decision if they had had the information that is now available.
The people in Japan who were in charge could not have been in any doubt as to the outcome any case. Japan had already lost the resources that they had gone to war to secure in the first place. US B29 bombers operated virtually unopposed every night firebombing cities. Those who fret over the fate of the residents of Hiroshima might also want to consider those in Yokohama, Tokyo, Osaka etc. who would have been subjected to more months of attacks of this nature. And after the bombing of Hiroshima the Japanese war leaders still didn’t want to quit. Only after Nagasaki was bombed did the Emporer say, in effect, enough is enough, STOP.
I thought I remembered hearing, though, that information on Hiroshima hadn’t travelled that fast… what were the dates between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and do we know that Japan’s military officials knew the extent of the damage at Hiroshima?
How far away could that mushroom cloud be seen, BTW?
Though it did bring an end to the war, the major figures in Japan who brought the war upon us did not suffer and die, while many innocent civilians who had no part in the war were being punished.
I guess I am, and when you put it that way it does sound silly. Maybe it is. If I may reiterate, I am not arguing that Hiroshima wasn’t for the greater good. If you can make a case that Japan would not have surrendered otherwise (and I will concede there is compelling evidence) logically it was. The point I’m trying to make is that when dealing with a level of human suffering this profound it is not enough to simply reason from logic, not unless all you want to do is quantify ethics on a broad scale. And I don’t think that the broad ethics of global war effectively illustrate just how unique and terrifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually were. I think they are horrible enough that I would be uncomfortable using words like “justified” and “ethical” to describe them, since these words tend to simplify the issue and ignore any ambivalence that might characterize it for those who endured it.
-Matt
Actually, we hanged Tojo and other Japanese war criminals after the war just as we did the Nazis. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki were engaged in supporting the Japanese war effort as much as any other city in Japan was.
If we cared nothing about human life, or if we just wanted to kill Japanese, we would have bombed Tokyo first. The message being sent was that the Japanese had no leverage left at all to try to negotiate a surrender. With the A-bomb, we could destroy their cities one by one at no cost in American lives at all. And we were willing to do it. Even so, they didn’t surrender after the first bomb. There was even a party that tried to prevent the surrender after the second bombing as well.
And I frankly don’t understand Gorky Park’s reasoning. Why does the added benefit of scaring off the USSR from a direct attack on the US make the other moral considerations (ending the war at the smallest possible cost in human life - an invasion vs. the A-bomb) irrelevant? Remember that Stalin was the head of the USSR at that point - a greater mass murderer than Hitler. I would argue that the A-bomb prevented a war between the US and the USSR for the remainder of the twentieth century. Both sides knew that an all-out nuclear exchange would be the end for both of them, partly because they saw what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and partly because the USSR, the more dangerous of the two parties to the Cold War, got a good clear look at what happens to those who piss the USA off.
No, it was war. More specifically, it was an action designed to bring about an end to a war. I am sorry to say I don’t think your desire to discount the attempt to minimize casualties and label the bombing immoral regardless makes any sense. If we don’t need to bother about how many we kill, why would the bombing be such a bad thing?
Who was dying? The people of Japan? How were they dying? By being bombed.
Who would die in an invasion? The people of Japan. How would they die? From being bombed. And shot, and burned, and in numbers about eight times greater, and all over Japan.
I am not sure what the factor is that makes killing a lot of people with an A-bomb terrible but killing many more people with conventional bombs a better alternative. Because it eliminated Hiroshima and Nagasaki forever? Hardly - both are thriving cities today. Because the idea of atom bombs bothers you? The idea of allowing ex post facto squeamishness to prevent my country from doing its best to spare the lives even of our enemies bothers me a hell of a lot more than simply dismissing the idea as ‘battlefield math’.
I agree (unsurprisingly) with Polycarp and David Simmons. I am not aware of any later information that has been made public that changes my agreement with Truman’s decision to go ahead and use the weapons that had been developed.
And I have heard too many attempts at revisionist history that will scratch for practically any reason to condemn the actions of the US to let this one go unchallenged. It reminds me, in fact, of a lot of the discussion of the war on terrorism. Is it a horrible thing? Indeed it is. Is it a necessary one? Absolutely. And can war be waged with honor? It can - and it should be. Hiroshima is an example of how this is possible.
Bomb the piss out of them first - they need it. Then spend billions to rebuild them into the second largest economy on earth.
I would be interested in hearing, Shodan, why you dismiss the demonstration option: Drop an atom bomb on an empty off-shore site, near where a large population could see the effects. Failing a positive response, then drop a bomb on Hiroshima.
Also, I didn’t notice that anyone corrected Sajon’s belief that the bomb was just dropped on unsuspecting civilians: There was a very large leaflet drop warning the citizens of Hiroshima to leave the City–that it was about to be destroyed with a new and horrible type of bomb.
I’m not suggesting that we care nothing for human life, just perhaps not as much as we could have. But those are just my own feelings. There are really beside the point I was trying to make.
Well, it just depends on which term you are more comfortable with. War can be a form of mass-murder, I think. Why mince words?
Not by the ethical thought that Americans traditionally find comforting, no.
The point here was that it was an atomic bomb, and that an atomic bomb isn’t just a bomb. At least in convetional warfare we would have known the full extent of our actions, terrible as they might have been. We ourselves did not know exactly what the bomb was capable of and I think considering how experimental it was the U.S. put it to practical use more quickly than it could have.
You are misunderstanding me. I would ask you to please read my additional posts. My original post was motivated more by emotion, and I wasn’t even sure how I felt myself when I wrote it… save that the bombing of Hiroshima was a terrible and that it shouldn’t be rationalized. After some responses it became more clear to me, and I thereafter stated and repeated that I am in no way suggesting that the invasion of Japan would have been a more ethical alternative to using the atomic bomb. What I am trying to argue is for a position that freely and openly addresses paradox and ambivalence, that it is possible to be simultaneously right and wrong, and that no amount of moral math will erase the pain of those who suffered a nuclear attack. Now, if you interpret that as meaning that we shouldn’t have bombed Hiroshima that is something you are adding to it. I am saying no such thing. What I am saying is that I refuse to feel good about the fact that we did.
I’m not squeamish. I am trying to be compassionate and honest. I would not prevent the U.S. from taking action, but prevent them from rationalizing themselves into moral comfort afterwards. You seem to think that simply by suggesting something is wrong I am suggesting it shouldn’t be done or that I am better than those who would do such a thing. One does not necessarily imply the other.
Ouch. I can’t say I agree with that. There is nothing honorable about dropping an atomic bomb on civilians or accidentally killing bystanders because of mis-targeting air-strikes. On the other hand, there is nothing dishonorable about defending one’s country from a visible and established threat or taking on a deperate act to end a horrible war. There is no such thing as pure justice, and no honor comes without dishonor. This is an important thing to remember, and it is something that Americans are especially resistant to.
I see how you could think that, yeah. Although I did know about the leaflets, I was under the impression that they didn’t heed them much and thus were “going about their daily lives.”
As for it being fair warning… I’d have to see exactly what the leaflet said and how it was translated from English to Japanese. Also, even if the warning was clear, I find it hard to blame those living in Hiroshima for not understanding the full magnitude of the atomic bomb. Traditionally people could expect to at least see an attack coming and try to get to a shelter or take other survival measures. The notion of a doomsday weapon that could wipe out thousands of people in the blink of an eye is something that no one could have been expected to be prepared for in 1945… and we knew it.
-Matt
For all of the people who say that dropping the bomb was wrong, how many innocent Chinese civilians deserved to die to give the Japanese a chance to get around to deciding to surrender? Or do only the civilians killed by the US count?
Well, come to think of it, the bomb on Hiroshima was a demonstration, and where a large population could see the effects besides. But that didn’t convince the Japanese political leaders that it was time to quit.
It is easy to sit in comfort in front of computer screen and say what should have been done. After all, there are no real consequences that result from making the wrong decision.
But while people were trying to decide about the bomb, real US soldiers were on Okinawa and other places preparing for an invasion. Real Japanese soldiers were being fried in caves by real flame throwing tanks that squirted napalm on them. Actual people were being killed all the time with the real prospect that more would follow. There isn’t time, under those circumstances, to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s. you just have to do the best you can with what you have and get on with the job. That way, people 57 years later can sit in their comfortable surroundings and analyze your actions to their heart’s content.
No one knows what would have been the result of the hypothetical scenarios that the critics propound. After all, plans that are never used are always perfect. It’s only the plans that are actually used that are found to contain flaws.
I remember this from my 10th grade history class, I’m wondering how much truth there is to it or how well I remember.
My teacher said that after the Cuban missile crisis was over, Kruschev was asked why he backed down and said, “Because American presidents don’t kill fish,” referring to the fact that the A-bomb was dropped on two cities instead of, say, the Pacific Ocean.
As far as I’m concerned, the Hiroshima bomb was 100% justified. It’s the Nagasaki bombing where you might be able to convince me the U.S. went too far.
"Nagasaki Bombed For The Hell Of It
Other bomb would have just sat around anyway, generals say"
Let’s talk morality. Let’s consider the morality of not using the atom bomb. As noted the atom bombings killed around 100,000 people and ended the war. An invasion (or a prolonged blockade) would have killed around 1,000,000 people before ending the war.
In the spirit of Sajon’s post, how would we explain to one of the 900,000 people who died unnecesarily the decision not to drop the bomb and end the war? What moral excuse can there be for killing that many people when there was an alternative?
no offense, we were all there once,
luckily, my hs history teacher read Zinn,
introduced me to him,
and opened my eyes to the lies and death
the US commits.
Zinn (in “Declarations of Independence”)
“The bomb on Hiroshima left perhaps 140,000 dead; the one on Nagasaki, 70,000 dead. Another 130,000 died in the next five years. Hundreds of thousands of others were left radiated and maimed…”
“The deception and self-deception that accompanied these atrocities was remarkable. Truman told the public, ‘The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.’”
Zinn, 95.
He also has proof (in “A people’s History of the US” I believe) that the Japanese government was seeking negotiations to surrender 3 days before both bombs were dropped. The US wanted to test the effectiveness of the bomb, and wanted to show the Soviet Union (although our ally at that time, it was only to defeat Germany) our strength.
After the bombs were dropped, b-29’s continued on missions. On August 14th, “449 b-290s went out from the Marianas for a daylight strike and 372 more went out that night. Altogether, more than 1,000 planes were sent to bomb Japanese cities. There were no American losses. The last plane had not yet returned when Truman announced the Japanese had surrendered.”
Zinn, 96.
I am personally outraged. If I were Japanese, I’d be even more so. Even more proof that “WE are the terrorists.”
My advice to you, my h.s. friend, is to read Howard Zinn. (for those who aren’t familiar with him, he is Professor Emeritus in History at Boston University, and teaches down in Atlanta now. He is one of the most respected historians of our time.)
Read:
A people’s history of the US
Declarations of INdependence
He has an arguable position, one that it is reasonable to accept. It is not, however, proof. The issue of the Japanese attempts to surrender have been dealt with on several occasions in the threads previously cited (and they began a couple of months earlier, with no great resolution on August 3).
The surrender feelers were sent through the Russians and through the Swiss. There were problems with the translations and with the understandings of the terms that the Japanese sought. There were misunderstandings regarding the call by the U.S. for “unconditional surrender.” There are serious issues with the notion that the small group of Japanese leaders who authorized and issued the truce feelers had the authority to back up their desires had the U.S. chosen to negotiate. (There is no evidence, for example, that the majority of the Japanese ruling council would have reacted favorably had the minority walked into a meeting holding a U.S. agreement to discuss a truce (much less surrender).)
Given the nature of the attack on Pearl Harbor, with its accompanying Declaration of War timed to be delivered within moments of the attack–and actually being delivered after the attack–the U.S. leadership was not inclined to simply believe any diplomatic overtures from Japan.
It is, indeed, possible to put forth the argument that the U.S. was too wrapped up in the prosecution of the war and the “punishment” of Japan to heed what might have been a fruitful overture to peace from the Japanese. It is possible to view the events from a certain perspective and come to the conclusion that that argument is persuasive.
It is not possible to “prove” that the argument that Japan was willing to surrender is valid. Holding that belief, cherishing it, even arguing for it is OK. Believing that it is unquestionably true or has ever been “proven” is silly.
replace proof with citation…we are in agreement. someday I may learn not to use judgemental terms such as “proof” and “fact” - until then I guess I am subject to bombardment. But ask yourself: am I attacking his terminology or his ideology? I am much more interested in the latter.
But thanks for the information, some of it I did not know previously, which I guess makes this all worth it.
I may find Zinn’s exact quote; if so I will post it. Keep in mind that my word “proof” is absent from Zinn’s, although he has citation that I don’t which adds considerable weight to his claim.