Hiroshima mark 60th year of bombing
-
Documentary Of The Week: Hiroshima
Hiroshima is the dramatic story set 3 weeks from the first test explosion in New Mexico. The film takes you into the rooms where crucial political decisions are made.
Sun, Aug 7 @ 1930 SST. ChannelNewsAsia -
Yes, but not quite.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Yes, the arms factories are legitimate targets, not the cities. A couple of arms factories and military headquarters do not justify eliminating entire cities. The real reason for targeting Hiroshima is that the city was not damaged much by earlier raids and the Americans wanted to see the effect of this new bomb on a city. Nagasaki was bombed to test out an A-bomb with a different design. They let the Japanese Emperor go although he was just as guilty of war crimes merely because it would be easier to administer post-war Japan with a puppet emperor.
Politics is full of hypocrisy.
Look at Dresden - the targets were the war factories, but ultimately the whole city got wiped out. Why? It wasn't a matter of choice - before the days of precision munitions, carpet bombing was the only way to achieve destruction of the target.
If the Allies wanted to knock out Hiroshima's military facilities with conventional munitions, it would have resulted in similar damage. In fact, the causalties would probably have been higher - the difference between German and Japanese construction methods would have put paid to that.
Yes, they wanted to bomb an intact city to assess bomb damage - as a result Hiroshima was deliberately left relatively untouched by earlier bombing raids.
Nagasaki was bombed because after three days, the Japanese government obviously didn't get the first message clearly enough. -
Like I said earlier, dropping it on an uninhabited spot with few witnesses would not have had much effect.Originally posted by alexkusu:the theory is they could drop the bomb somewhere isolated in Japan to show the awesome power. But Truman wanted to have a demostration..since he spent a lot of cash on it. Also Hiroshima was a low priority target..a sleepy town even though it houses the manufacturing facilities of the army. It was number 5 on the hit list I think.
And the Truman statement has a number of problems with it. First, the Manhattan Project was Roosevelt's baby - Truman only became President on 12 April 1945. Second, it wasn't a question of the amount of cash spent - the US only had two bombs to drop, and sure as hell under those circumstances you don't waste one on a barren rock.
And as I replied to oxford mushroom, Hiroshima was not a low-priority target. It was left untouched for the purposes of assessing Little Boy's effects. -
The doucumentary is coming
-
err... the jap imperial army tot that the allies are bluffing and can do nothing to force them unto unconditional surrender after Hiroshima....but the Allies show that they mean business when another egg fell at Nagasaki. If i were borned at that time, i have reasons to believe that the Allies will drop one bomb at every city of Japan until the island's flattened. A man has got to know his limit.Originally posted by fudgester:Well, proponents of the bombings claim that the event actually saved lives. They claim that if Operation Downfall (Allied invasion of Japan) had been unleashed instead, millions of people would have died.
The argument sounds pretty cavalier..... they're saying that a few hundred thousand deaths is better than a few million. The value of the human soul is lost in the maze of numbers.
It's not without plausibility though - if Iwo Jima and Okinawa are any indication of what to expect, Downfall would certainly have been really bloody.
As for me - well, I don't like the bombings. I felt that one bomb ought to have been dropped instead on an uninhabited Japanese island as a show of force. In other words, give them the message that resistance is futile, and demonstrate the destruction that can be brought upon them if they still persisted in it anyway. It might have cowered the Japs into surrender.
Even if Hiroshima was necessary and expendable, Nagasaki was overkill. Bombing Hiroshima was already a massive show of force. Kurt Vonnegut once said that while the Hiroshima bomb saved the lives of his Army friends (who might have been drawn into Downfall), Nagasaki was proof that the United States was capable of senseless cruelty. -
As noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage." [Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of the American Myth (New York, 1995), p. 523]. The target was the center of the city. Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was such a major military or industrial center is implausible on the face of it. Both cities had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command’s list of the 33 primary targets.Originally posted by Gedanken:Whoever told you that?
The Imperial Army Headquarters had been in Hiroshima since 1894, moved there during the Sino-Japanese War, and following that a whole lot of military facilities were moved there because Hiroshima was the army and navy dispatch point for all of Japan's later wars.
Nagasaki contained two arms factories, a steel works and the Mitsubishi shipyards, which were dedicated to building warships during the war. Some of the Pearl harbour torpedos came from Nagasaki's arms factories.
The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur. [Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of the American Myth (New York, 1995), pp. 320–65, 352, 355–56] The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff, was typical:
"the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . 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 wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." [William D. Leahy, I Was There (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), p. 441.]
Major General J.F.C. Fuller, one of the centuryÂ’s great military historians, wrote in connection with the atomic bombings:
Though to save life is laudable, it in no way justifies the employment of means which run counter to every precept of humanity and the customs of war. Should it do so, then, on the pretext of shortening a war and of saving lives, every imaginable atrocity can be justified. [.F.C. Fuller, The Second World War, 1939–45: A Strategical and Tactical History (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode 1948, p. 392]
In fact, Truman himself had clearly stated that the bomb should only be used on soldiers and civilians:
"I have told the Sec[retaryl of War, Mr. Stimson[,] to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.... The target will be a purely military one."
Harry S. Truman, 25 July 1945
Since a nuclear bomb could not achieve the stated aim of taking out only military targets, it should not have been used.
Finally, suppose the Japanese or the Nazis had developed the A-bomb and dropped it first. Would you say that they couldn't have been tried for war crimes in this regard because that was perfectly within the rules of warfare? -
double post
-
There is a difference between collateral damage and extermination by weapons of mass destruction.Originally posted by Gedanken:Look at Dresden - the targets were the war factories, but ultimately the whole city got wiped out. Why? It wasn't a matter of choice - before the days of precision munitions, carpet bombing was the only way to achieve destruction of the target. -
Disagree. From the insight you've demonstrated so far, I'm rather surprised that you would not treat "collateral damage" as a euphemism for, "well, we were getting at the target, but these civilians got in the way". You ought to know better than that, OM.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is a difference between collateral damage and extermination by weapons of mass destruction. -
Now you're telling me that at a time when it was known that the Japanese were preparing to launch up to 150,000 suicide attackers, an army/navy dispatch facility was a non-crucial target? Sorry, that just flies straight into the face of all logic.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:As noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage." [Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of the American Myth (New York, 1995), p. 523]. The target was the center of the city. Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was such a major military or industrial center is implausible on the face of it. Both cities had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command’s list of the 33 primary targets.
Hang on, was that the same Eisehower that approved the employment of incendiaries on Dresden? Sure, it was a conventional weapon, just one that created fires hot enough to melt steel beams embedded in concrete.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur. [Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of the American Myth (New York, 1995), pp. 320–65, 352, 355–56] The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff, was typical:
"the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . 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 wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." [William D. Leahy, I Was There (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), p. 441.]
As for Leahy's comments, well, would that not classify the first user of any preceding weapon as a barbarian? Yet millions of bombs, rifles, cannons, aircraft, ships and tanks were employed during the war - it's a bit hypocritical to claim the moral high ground when you're approving the use of weapons on the grounds that someone else used them before.
At the same time, I might point out that Leahy's casualty estimates for Operation Olympic (the invasion of Japan) was 268,000. Was Leahy prepared to trade one Allied life for each Japanese life lost in the bombings? Was his job to look after Allied or Japanese lives?
Well, if we're really going to get onto the morality bandwagon, you'd have to question the morality of the "victims", wouldn't you? What justified the unannounced attack on Peral Harbour? What justified the random rape, robbery and slaughter of civilians? What justified the use of the Kempetai's techniques?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Major General J.F.C. Fuller, one of the centuryÂ’s great military historians, wrote in connection with the atomic bombings:
Though to save life is laudable, it in no way justifies the employment of means which run counter to every precept of humanity and the customs of war. Should it do so, then, on the pretext of shortening a war and of saving lives, every imaginable atrocity can be justified. [.F.C. Fuller, The Second World War, 1939–45: A Strategical and Tactical History (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode 1948, p. 392]
That's very murky waters we're swimming in if we're going to go there.
Hmm - 25 July 1945. About a week before Suzuki spat on the Potsdam Declaration and left the Allies no choice. Yes, it would have been a lot easier for Truman to have been prepared to be civilised on that particular date.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:In fact, Truman himself had clearly stated that the bomb should only be used on soldiers and civilians:
"I have told the Sec[retaryl of War, Mr. Stimson[,] to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.... The target will be a purely military one."
Harry S. Truman, 25 July 1945
Since a nuclear bomb could not achieve the stated aim of taking out only military targets, it should not have been used.
I think the more telling stance was in what Truman said AFTER the bomb was dropped:
When you lose a war, you could be put on trial for tiptoeing through the tulips. It's no real measure for ethics or morality simply because the victors get to write all the rules.Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.[/quote]
Put simply, and to quote Willard Christopher Smith Jr., "Don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin".
Yes, Truman approved the dropping of the bombs in full knowledge of their power. By all accounts, Truman was not insane, so indulge me in assuming that there was some reasoning behind his decision.
Truman's military advisors estimated that anything between 105,000 and 4 million Allied lives would have been lost in Operation Olympic, with up to 10 million japanese casualties. Was dropping the bomb the ideal thing to do? No. Was it the lesser of two evils? The numbers say yes.
[quote]Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Finally, suppose the Japanese or the Nazis had developed the A-bomb and dropped it first. Would you say that they couldn't have been tried for war crimes in this regard because that was perfectly within the rules of warfare?
While we're on the topic of the rules of warfare, Japan agreed in 1942 to abide by the Geneva convention, and then spent the next three years not keeping her word. To have attempted to fight on equal terms a vicious and determined enemy who already demonstrated a capacity to ignore all rules of war conduct would have been plain stupid. If the Allies had decided to go that way, I would advocate putting Allied commanders up for trial, for war crimes against their own people.
What if, instead of a nuclear weapon, the Allies had dropped a fuel-air explosive bomb on Hiroshima? It's almost as destructive, but it's not nuclear. Would it have made a difference?
I don't know about you, but when I was being taught to set up minefields during NS, I was thinking, "Jesus, I hope I never get caught up in one of these - if the AP mines don't get you, the MGs will, and if they don't there's always the Claymores". The design of the ambush was plain vicious, but that's warfare and I had to accept that the enemy could well do the same thing to me - it's simply the facts of life. When you get down to brass tacks, there's nothing pretty, civilised or honourable about it whatsoever. From the Allied perspective, it comes down to the simple point that you do whatever it takes to ensure that you and your friends are not robbed blind, raped and murdered at gunpoint.
I'm not saying that the ends justify the means. In that situation, you don't have the luxury of justification, so you go with the facts and decide what to do, and hope that someone in the future doesn't second-guess you, knowing all the time that they definitely will. -
U seem to know a lot. Are u a journalist? So what are your feelings on this matter?Originally posted by Gedanken:Like I said earlier, dropping it on an uninhabited spot with few witnesses would not have had much effect.
And the Truman statement has a number of problems with it. First, the Manhattan Project was Roosevelt's baby - Truman only became President on 12 April 1945. Second, it wasn't a question of the amount of cash spent - the US only had two bombs to drop, and sure as hell under those circumstances you don't waste one on a barren rock.
And as I replied to oxford mushroom, Hiroshima was not a low-priority target. It was left untouched for the purposes of assessing Little Boy's effects. -
Nah, I'm a psychologist. My interest in this started when I was in Sec 3 and read Stephane Groueff's "The Manhattan Project". Initially, I was horrified, and over the years it's nagged at me about how Truman could have made such a decision, especially since he refused to share the burden of the decision with the other Allied leaders. That kind of a decision is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.Originally posted by alexkusu:U seem to know a lot. Are u a journalist? So what are your feelings on this matter?
Like I said, dropping the bomb isn't an ideal solution by any stretch of the imagination. Getting the Japanese to lay down their arms without bloodshed would have been the best outcome - after all, Sun Tzu did say that the best war fought is one that is won without a single shot being fired - but the Japanese were never going to be succeptible to a "hearts and minds" campaign.
It came down to two things: invasion or dropping the bomb. Based on the invasions of the outer Japanese islands, we may (very conservatively) estimate Japanese causalties to be twice that of Allied casualties, and on the lowest estimates presented to Truman, that would have been 210,000 over 120 days of fighting, with 105,000 Allied losses. Mind you, those are conservative figures. Let me explain.
The invasion of Japan was never going to be easy - an ambhibious assault on Tokyo could only take place on the beaches of Kyushu and Kanto, and the Japanese knew this and had both heavily covered. This would have made Normandy look like a minor skirmish. Mind you, the Battle of Normandy resulted in 209,000 Allied casualties, and that was against an enemy that had been faked out into defending the wrong spot, a mistake which the Japanese were not going to commit.
In light of this, I would personally figure the Allied casualty figures at 300-400,000, and Japanese somewhere between 600-800,000. The total casualty figure of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined was still less than half of the lower end of this estimate.
So it comes down to this: the need for the decision was created by the Japanese, not the Allies, when Suzuki rejected the Potsdam Declaration. The decision taken resulted in half the number of Japanese being killed, and no needless expenditure of Allied lives. So the problem really lies only in the weapon of choice, but for that one point, would you have 3 times the number of deaths on your conscience? I wouldn't.
The nature of history is such that for every decision you make today, there's going to be a whole bunch of people second-guessing you tomorrow with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Rather than making that mistake, I'd leave it at saying that the decision to use the bombs was, quite simply, the lesser of two evils based upon the figures above. -
My grouse is with the killing of innocent lives, and not whether people were sorry for what they did...
Besides, the leadership and the innocent civilians are two separate entities. As you have pointed out, that the japanese leadership was so ruthless that they were more concern how many Allied soldiers are killed rather than their soldier's life.
but i agree, it's the conduct of war and the US did what they thought could win it for them. fairdinkum.
and thanks for the insightful commentaries (especially for those who couldn't be bothered with history in school!)Originally posted by Gedanken:
Rolex, the Germans simply cannot be used as a comparison for the Japanese. Yes, most Germans were not aware of places like Auschwitz during the war, but once they found out about it they went out of their way to make sure it never happened again. And yeah, they break out in a rash when somebody mentions Nazi - I had an unpleasant German classmate I loved to antagonise that way, but that's another story.
On the other hand, to this day, history books in Japanese schools describe WW2 like an excursion through Asia. Also, unless something's changed recently, Japan has never apologised to the countries she raped.
No, none, zero, zip comparison at all. -
Part II is this coming Sunday