Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Crimes or Reasonable Use of Force?

[Mavorpen]

Ah, no.

Sorry, that's not how it happened.

Not sure how this is an actual refutation.

[Ulvena]

You can argue either way. As someone who dislikes the current state of the West and the crimes of the West, I can see it being argued that America essentially committed two acts of mass murder on civilian targets. However, as someone who's culture was almost completely assimilated by the Japanese, in the context of that time period, it's proper retribution.

Also, it also did do something smaller. Nuclear weapons and such were going to be created. The Nazis were making it as well. Einstein's E=MC^2 basically gauranteed that someone very smart could realize that a single atomic mass has a crapton of energy. So by actually detonating it in real war, it showed how devastating the bomb is far more than any test could. Without it, mutually assured destruction would be be taken a bit less seriously.

The bombs were atrocitys plain and simple

The bombs shortened the war... it's that plain and simple.

Why kick up such a big fuss about the bombs when they killed less people than in the fire bombings of Tokyo and other use of conventional weapons against civilians?

You know... what was an atrocity in World War II?

How about EVERY BLOODY SINGLE ACTION AGAINST CIVILIANS?!

LIKE THE WHOLE WAR?!!!

What's so special about the atomic bombings? It's just a more efficient way of doing what was being done throughout the entire war (terror bombing).

The Japanese were basically done after the Phillipines was retaken. And you're right. The entire war was an atrocity and both the Americans, Axis Powers, and everyone else in the Allies committed horrible war crimes. Unit 731 vs. Nuclear Bombs. Take your pick.

[Mavorpen]

The only problem with that is that the second bomb was dropped on the same day the Soviets started their invasion of Manchuria (August 9). So it's really impossible to say which had the greater effect...

I... what? The Soviet invasion occurred at midnight. That's in the morning. The meeting took place in the morning. The bomb dropped later that day.

Furthermore, the Emperor's own intervention in the final decision to surrender had a far greater effect on the final decision than any of the councillor's meeting on their own... and THAT personal intervention by the Emperor definitely happened AFTER the second bomb was dropped and not during the Soviet invasion before the second bombing.

Crazy idea: the Emperor's decision was influenced by the council meeting since the emperor was a member of the council.

The general consensus among historians seems to be that both events played a part in forcing Japan to surrender. You can theorize about whether one of these (Soviet attack or second bomb) by itself could have forced a surrender on its own but that's just speculation...

Except that's not my argument.

I think saying that the bombs were completely unnecessary might be overstretching it. After all... who cares if the Soviets took out Manchuria? The Japanese could still fight to the death on their home islands as they had planned to do long before.

Not with the Soviets they didn't. They were trying quite a lot to maintain peace and terminate the war through the Soviets.

The A Bomb showed the Japanese that the US had the capability to decimate entire cities without losing a single of their own soldiers. That's a HUGE psychological blow one would think (and especially because japan did not KNOW the US only had two bombs)...

Yes, one would think so. Unfortunately, the Japanese elite at that time weren't exactly the "sanest" of the bunch.

[NERVUN]

Invading two islands off of Hokkaido was a bit different than knocking on their door. The Soviets weren't going to make mainland Japan anytime soon.


Or maybe the situation is far more complex than you're giving credit to involving a number of different factors of which the Soviet entry into the war was indeed an important one, but not the way you're thinking (It was more along the lines that the attack meant that the Showa Emperor's hopes were well and truly dashed that Moscow could arrange a ceasefire) just as the bombs did end the war, just not in the OMG! NUKES! way that many Americans claim.

Which is fairly suprising though. Clearly the hierarchy wasn't sane, when your enemy has the ability to annhilate you via super-bomb that wipes out the majority of a city, I'd be begging for allowing me the ability to surrender. Not only do I not want my balls dropping off from radiation, I also don't like being vaporized instantly via nuclear blast. Then again, the Japanese didn't make that many wise moves in the first place during the war.

You had bits of the military wanting to fight no matter what, you had those who doubted that it was atomic, or that the US could continue it, you had the peace faction (If it could be called that), you had a lot of voices with very little consensus, something that the Japanese style of government needed in order to operate.

Frankly that period in time was a right mess.

[NERVUN]

Invading two islands off of Hokkaido was a bit different than knocking on their door. The Soviets weren't going to make mainland Japan anytime soon.

Poor wording on my part.

Or maybe the situation is far more complex than you're giving credit to involving a number of different factors of which the Soviet entry into the war was indeed an important one, but not the way you're thinking (It was more along the lines that the attack meant that the Showa Emperor's hopes were well and truly dashed that Moscow could arrange a ceasefire) just as the bombs did end the war, just not in the OMG! NUKES! way that many Americans claim.

Not sure why you're arguing against something I'm not claiming. Nowhere am I claiming that the bombs didn't play a factor in the surrender. I AM claiming, that the notion that the bombs played a larger role than the Soviet breaking their neutrality pact isn't that historically backed up. Again, I'm not seeing how the bombs ended the war, when the Japanese policies for terminating the war didn't change, as well as their apparent lack of showing any sort of significant "shock value."

My apologies then.

In any case, the bombs provided the means of surrender, something that was being looked for. The Keeper of the Privy Seal noted them as thus, a gift from heaven he called them, a way to end the war with the Showa Emperor looking heroic as he was able to state that he was ending it to keep the world from being destroyed and thus tamp down on any justification for the fall of the imperial system, at least by native Japanese. I would agree that they didn't cause Japan to surrender though.

[Mavorpen]

My apologies then.

In any case, the bombs provided the means of surrender, something that was being looked for. The Keeper of the Privy Seal noted them as thus, a gift from heaven he called them, a way to end the war with the Showa Emperor looking heroic as he was able to state that he was ending it to keep the world from being destroyed and thus tamp down on any justification for the fall of the imperial system, at least by native Japanese. I would agree that they didn't cause Japan to surrender though.

That makes sense. I can accept this compromise.

[NERVUN]

Ah, no.

Sorry, that's not how it happened.

Not sure how this is an actual refutation.

To elaborate, to say that the supreme council's actions denote greater shock value over the Soviet invasion than the bombs ignores the time lines of just what was happening. The sudden loss of Hiroshima threw the government into panic as they tried to figure out what happened (Which meant sending people to Hiroshima) and then dithering about it.

You must understand that the way those council meetings happened is that everything would be decided before the meetings to decide things actually happened (Japan continues to work this way, btw, I don't know how many formal meetings I've had to go to where everyone knows exactly what will be decided because it already has been, but we're going to go through the motions anyway). What you see in days between the bombs was a government trying desperately to figure out what its response should be, and unable to come to consensus.

No consensus, no meeting.

[Mavorpen]

Not sure how this is an actual refutation.

To elaborate, to say that the supreme council's actions denote greater shock value over the Soviet invasion than the bombs ignores the time lines of just what was happening. The sudden loss of Hiroshima threw the government into panic as they tried to figure out what happened (Which meant sending people to Hiroshima) and then dithering about it.

You must understand that the way those council meetings happened is that everything would be decided before the meetings to decide things actually happened (Japan continues to work this way, btw, I don't know how many formal meetings I've had to go to where everyone knows exactly what will be decided because it already has been, but we're going to go through the motions anyway). What you see in days between the bombs was a government trying desperately to figure out what its response should be, and unable to come to consensus.

No consensus, no meeting.

Actually, the reason for the delay was expressed as being, "because some military leaders had prior commitments..." There's sort of a gap in your statement. If they would wait for a consensus on decisions, then wouldn't they need to assess the Soviet invasion, something they tried very hard to prevent and push it to later?

Furthermore, IIRC, the meetings actually changed between the night of April 8 (before the Soviets invaded) and April 9, due to the news that the Soviets invaded.

[NERVUN]

To elaborate, to say that the supreme council's actions denote greater shock value over the Soviet invasion than the bombs ignores the time lines of just what was happening. The sudden loss of Hiroshima threw the government into panic as they tried to figure out what happened (Which meant sending people to Hiroshima) and then dithering about it.

You must understand that the way those council meetings happened is that everything would be decided before the meetings to decide things actually happened (Japan continues to work this way, btw, I don't know how many formal meetings I've had to go to where everyone knows exactly what will be decided because it already has been, but we're going to go through the motions anyway). What you see in days between the bombs was a government trying desperately to figure out what its response should be, and unable to come to consensus.

No consensus, no meeting.

Actually, the reason for the delay was expressed as being, "because some military leaders had prior commitments..." There's sort of a gap in your statement. If they would wait for a consensus on decisions, then wouldn't they need to assess the Soviet invasion, something they tried very hard to prevent and push it to later?

Furthermore, IIRC, the meetings actually changed between the night of April 8 (before the Soviets invaded) and April 9, due to the news that the Soviets invaded.

That's a kind of Japanese euphemism there.

If you look at the reactions of the council at the time, things are a bit different.

[Mavorpen]

Actually, the reason for the delay was expressed as being, "because some military leaders had prior commitments..." There's sort of a gap in your statement. If they would wait for a consensus on decisions, then wouldn't they need to assess the Soviet invasion, something they tried very hard to prevent and push it to later?

Furthermore, IIRC, the meetings actually changed between the night of April 8 (before the Soviets invaded) and April 9, due to the news that the Soviets invaded.

That's a kind of Japanese euphemism there.

If you look at the reactions of the council at the time, things are a bit different.

Could you tell me which page you're specifically talking about please?

[Nazi Flower Power]

I'm not a fan of the poll. I don't believe that using nuclear weapons is a war crime, and it has nothing to do with either of the reasons that are given as options in the poll. It's not a war crime because it served a strategic military purpose.

Tu quoque defenses weren't allowed at Nuremberg, and if I don't get to use them as a Nazi, then neither does the US. The fact that the Japanese committed atrocities is irrelevant. The fact that Japan was putting up one hell of a fight and stubbornly refusing to surrender without being nuked is the only reason why the use of nukes was justified.

In the end, the death toll from the nukes was probably lower than what would have happened if the war continued, but there is no way to know for sure.

[NERVUN]

That's a kind of Japanese euphemism there.

If you look at the reactions of the council at the time, things are a bit different.

Could you tell me which page you're specifically talking about please?

Whole article. Not the book, the article.

[Battenburgia]

As I understand events, japan were already discussing surrender, the only issue to be resolved was the japanese emperor's role after the war.

America bombed these people just to show off their shiny new weaponry so they could ride roughshod over the rest of the world once the war was over.....but don't take my word for it, listen to some americans


DWIGHT EISENHOWER, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe

"...in 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so 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..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380




ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"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.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

[Novus Niciae]

Operation Olympic was the alternative plan if the bomb proved to be unusable.

It is estimated that approximately 1,000,000 allied soldiers would of died in this operation and many times more Japanese civilians would of also died depending on the level of resistance.

So the dropping of the atomic bombs actually saved lives on both sides, and while it was tragic it was necessary since it prevented an invasion that would of caused an even worse loss of life had it gone ahead.

[New Babylonia]

The only problem with that is that the second bomb was dropped on the same day the Soviets started their invasion of Manchuria (August 9). So it's really impossible to say which had the greater effect...

I... what? The Soviet invasion occurred at midnight. That's in the morning. The meeting took place in the morning. The bomb dropped later that day.

Furthermore, the Emperor's own intervention in the final decision to surrender had a far greater effect on the final decision than any of the councillor's meeting on their own... and THAT personal intervention by the Emperor definitely happened AFTER the second bomb was dropped and not during the Soviet invasion before the second bombing.

Crazy idea: the Emperor's decision was influenced by the council meeting since the emperor was a member of the council.

The general consensus among historians seems to be that both events played a part in forcing Japan to surrender. You can theorize about whether one of these (Soviet attack or second bomb) by itself could have forced a surrender on its own but that's just speculation...

Except that's not my argument.

I think saying that the bombs were completely unnecessary might be overstretching it. After all... who cares if the Soviets took out Manchuria? The Japanese could still fight to the death on their home islands as they had planned to do long before.

Not with the Soviets they didn't. They were trying quite a lot to maintain peace and terminate the war through the Soviets.

The A Bomb showed the Japanese that the US had the capability to decimate entire cities without losing a single of their own soldiers. That's a HUGE psychological blow one would think (and especially because japan did not KNOW the US only had two bombs)...

Yes, one would think so. Unfortunately, the Japanese elite at that time weren't exactly the "sanest" of the bunch.

Actually, we were ready to produce a thrid, with the threat of hitting Tokyo.

Also, to mention. The U.S. had 9 infantry divisions to invade Japan. On the day of the invasion, Japan had thirteen at the site. Not to mention, that, as seen in other Pecific islands, the civilians would have killed themselves, or fought to the death, upon seeing American soldiers. In reality, the bombs probably saved alot of civilians too. Strange, yes, but true. Better to drop a couple bombs, and kill a few hundred thousand civilians, than invade, kill millions of civlians and lose millions of soldiers.

And if the Japanese wanted peace with Russia, it would've been simple, i think. Give them back Manchuria and Korea. Problem solved.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Consider it from this perspective:

Dropping the bombs ended the Second World War.

Think about it for a moment.

Truman, and the US Military by proxy, had the capacity to put an end to World War 2.

World. War. 2.

The bloodiest conflict in the history of the entire human species, seven-year war that has literally rewritten maps by the destruction and assimilation of nations. Humans became a warrior race, by the simple fact that entire civilizations were completely geared for war.

Do you realize how tantalizing and important it was to end World War fucking 2!? World War 2 was bloodiest series of conflicts ever, so the ability to drop a bomb that will cease almost all hostilities world wide was a no-brainer decision.

Everything now is just hindsight.

Dropping the bombs was not a choice between dropping bombs and continuing conflict. The plan all along was dropping the bombs and proceeding with a land invasion, and it was a happy accident that this didn't occur.

Well, no. In the run up to, and the immediate wake of, the bombings, the Americans demanded repeated surrender. After the first two bombings, that happened.

Happy accident? Nah. They pretty much planned for it. Else they'd have waited until they had the fiften bombs they planned for Downfall, plus the seven they planned for the actual invasion.

[Octogots]

no because they were the ones that declared war without a good reason. I think they should've hit Tokyo to be sure the japs wouldn't be able to do much anymore

[Samozaryadnyastan]

no because they were the ones that declared war without a good reason. I think they should've hit Tokyo to be sure the japs wouldn't be able to do much anymore

And then they wouldn't have been able to agree to an unconditional surrender.

[Octogots]

no because they were the ones that declared war without a good reason. I think they should've hit Tokyo to be sure the japs wouldn't be able to do much anymore

And then they wouldn't have been able to agree to an unconditional surrender.

who cares ? They'd be beeped for the next 10 decades. They could just be left there,in ruins,without an established leadership to beep themselves while the americans returned home and celebrated.
The ruskies would have taken care of the rest anyway and what better revenge than letting them get invaded by the USSR ? I mean look at North Korea )

[Mkuki]

no because they were the ones that declared war without a good reason. I think they should've hit Tokyo to be sure the japs wouldn't be able to do much anymore

FDR and US military command specifically ruled out Tokyo because it had already been mostly destroyed by regular bombing.

[Octogots]

no because they were the ones that declared war without a good reason. I think they should've hit Tokyo to be sure the japs wouldn't be able to do much anymore

FDR and US military command specifically ruled out Tokyo because it had already been mostly destroyed by regular bombing.

so what ? It's about symbolism too man
What better way to say : beep you Japan ?

[Mkuki]

FDR and US military command specifically ruled out Tokyo because it had already been mostly destroyed by regular bombing.

so what ? It's about symbolism too man
What better way to say : beep you Japan ?

How is it symbolism if you just blow up an already blown up city? Dropping a nuke on Tokyo wouldn't have shown the full power of the atom bomb to either Japan or the USSR.

[Octogots]

so what ? It's about symbolism too man
What better way to say : beep you Japan ?

How is it symbolism if you just blow up an already blown up city? Dropping a nuke on Tokyo wouldn't have shown the full power of the atom bomb to either Japan or the USSR.

because they'd have to start rebuilding from scratch (literally ).
Sooooo,new capital (or death by radiation albeit they didn't know it then )
+ they could always return and bomb them again each time they built a new nuke so they could pretty much obliterate half of japan this way if they didn't think that sent the right message yet

[Samozaryadnyastan]

And then they wouldn't have been able to agree to an unconditional surrender.

who cares ? They'd be beeped for the next 10 decades. They could just be left there,in ruins,without an established leadership to beep themselves while the americans returned home and celebrated.
The ruskies would have taken care of the rest anyway and what better revenge than letting them get invaded by the USSR ? I mean look at North Korea )

Note sure if bigotry or idiocy.

[Octogots]

who cares ? They'd be beeped for the next 10 decades. They could just be left there,in ruins,without an established leadership to beep themselves while the americans returned home and celebrated.
The ruskies would have taken care of the rest anyway and what better revenge than letting them get invaded by the USSR ? I mean look at North Korea )

Note sure if bigotry or idiocy.

what about bigotry ? How is that bigotry ? Also letting the USSR rule a country is getting revenge on that country in my book