Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Verto, Clearly the Japanese military was fanatical and were willing to die - for what? For the Emperor. But THAT is precisely why the only person who could force a surrender on the Japanese side was the Emperor.

The Japanese military governments (Bakufu in the pre-Meiji days) had a long history of arranging imperial successions, or "escorting" the emperor to secret locations "for his own safety." The emperor as a notion, was the basis for a cult, but if one emperor displeased the government, there was always an heir in the line of sucession, so the tragic loss of one emperor for the greater good didn't affect the functioning of the cult. Hell, the Japanese people would barely have known the difference - they never saw the emperor, or heard his voice, or could even say his name.

The other thing about that fanatical willingness to die was that it was NOT driven by the emperor - the fanatic view was that even the destruction of the entire nation, and the imperial family and household and all things Japanese, was preferable to surrender. If you're not familiar with them, read about Chushingura, then read Hagakure and Yamamoto Tsunetomo's criticism of the "weak, calculating Osaka merchant's ethic" of samurai of his era. Mishima, in Hagakure Nyumon (written after the war, like all of Mishima's works, of course) then expounds on the failing of the 47 ronin in Chushingura, according to the standards of Hagakure.

Surrender was a disgrace, death was an honor.

Now on to more disengenuousness. Truman orders the bomb be used against a pure military target to avoid killing women and children - at least according to his notes. His Chief of Staff then orders the bombing of Hiroshima, which we know, is not a pure military target. What does this imply?

That there are no purely military targets, and these are the best of the bunch according to the standard frag list criteria?

[Ned]

MtG, One of us has a real problem with reading comprehension. Here is Truman's statement. He definitely states that the target will be a purely military target.

"I have told the secretary of war, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.(8) He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives."

As I said above, he stated in his announcement to the American people on August 6, 1945, that the bomb had been used on a military base.

All I am suggesting is that Truman is a either liar, stupid or his orders were disobeyed. I do not believe he was stupid or that he was disobeyed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
I'm sorry, MtG, but are you simply ignoring that the Stalin told Truman that they had received an a telegram from the Emperor. This is not intercepted communiques. Here is the exact quote from Truman's note.

Of course I'm ignoring it. They received a telegram from someone. The technology to authenticate who the originator was, and the technology to authenticate who authorized the originator, didn't exist. Or do you think they had Class 3 digital signatures and CA's back then?



Hey, I've received a telegram from the emperor of Japan, and he'd like to invite you, Ned, over for sushi to discuss the whole issue.

There you go, from the horse's mouth.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, One of us has a real problem with reading comprehension. Here is Truman's statement. He definitely states that the target will be a purely military target.

"I have told the secretary of war, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.(8) He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives."

As I said above, he stated in his annoucement to the American people on August 6, 1945, that the bomb had been used on a military base.

All I am suggesting is that Truman is a either liar, stupid or his orders were disobeyed. I do not believe he was stupid or that he was disobeyed.

The Japanese didn't have the courtesy to isolate all civilians from their military production facilities (besides, who do you think works there?), rail nets (a legitimate military target), military bases (another military target), etc.

Like I said, ever been there? I've been to both, lived within sight of ground zero in Nagasaki. They were dense military targets, which also had civilians around them. Too bad.

[Ned]

MtG, it hard to understand how any Japanese survived to modern times if there was no surrender and only suicide.

However, we all know that the primary obstacle to surrender prior to use of the bomb was that the Japanese insisted on retaining the Emperor. Even after being hit twice with nuclear weapons, they did not drop this demand. The people who switched positions and allowed a Japanese surrender were the people in the White House who finally accepted the Japanese conditions. I suspect, if we look closer into the matter, that Truman had some feedback about the reaction of the American people to what he was doing. They were horrified by Dresden, after all. Even in 1991, Bush had to call a halt after the Highway of Death was shown to shocked Americans.

[Ned]

MtG, Hiroshima can hardly be called a "pure" military target that could be hit without killing women and children.

Moreover, Hiroshima is not a military base. The clear import of Truman's statement on August 6 was that we had killed Japanese military.

I suspect that at least some educated Americans knew that Hiroshima was not a military base, but a city with women and children. The word of Truman's deception must have spread quickly to every avenue in America.

[Ned]

MtG, are you willing even this day to tell the Mayor of Hiroshima that his city was a "military base" and was therefor a "pure" military target that could be struck without killing women and children? He would kill you immediately, IMHO.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So why aren't you spending all this energy railing about Bush and Rumsfeld for their killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan? After all, they said they're not targeting civilians either. They've never targeted civilians, have they? Gee, I guess they must have.

The sighting target was the Aioi bridge, a T-shaped structure, at the south end of the 5th Division base shown:

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, are you willing even this day to tell the Mayor of Hiroshima that his city was a "military base" and was therefor a "pure" military target that could be struck without killing women and children? He would kill you immediately, IMHO.

You're the one hung up on semantics. IF we'd wanted to make a point for the civilian population, there were plenty of areas in Tokyo and Osaka where we could have killed four or five times as many in the immediate blast, and had 10-20 times the aftereffects casualties.

As for whether it was a justifiable target, a lot of Japanese understand that it was, particularly those who lived at that time. Doesn't mean they (or anyone else) like it or feel good about it.

Tell you what, I'll go you one further, as someone who's lived there (Nagasaki) and known survivors and people who lost relatives. Given what was known at the time about the military situation, not speculation and whatifs and hindsight, but knowing the effects of the bomb as we know it now, I would have authorized dropping it. I wouldn't have authorized the second one in three days (that was Curtis LeMay's call), but if the Japanese hadn't shown real solid, clear movement towards surrender and hadn't issued standdown orders to their forces in the field within a couple of weeks, I'd have dropped the second one.

[Ned]

MtG, Bush and Rumsfeld did not drop a nuclear weapon on Baghdad in order to kill Saddam. Had they done so, I would have been among the first to condemn such a action. If you recall, I argued even before the war and during it that we would never use nuclear weapons on Baghdad even if Saddam somehow were to use WoMD on our troops in the area or even on New York City. The reason I said this is that the enemy is Saddam, not the people of Iraq.

Your map demonstrates clearly that Hiroshima has a number of military bases within it. But this does not change the fact that it was, by no stretch of the imagination, a pure military target that could be struck without killing women and children.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
However, we all know that the primary obstacle to surrender prior to use of the bomb was that the Japanese insisted on retaining the Emperor. Even after being hit twice with nuclear weapons, they did not drop this demand. The people who switched positions and allowed a Japanese surrender were the people in the White House who finally accepted the Japanese conditions. I suspect, if we look closer into the matter, that Truman had some feedback about the reaction of the American people to what he was doing. They were horrified by Dresden, after all.

In 1941-1945, we were "surprise attacked" by the Japs, we'd had tens of thousands of wounded and maimed young men come back from that front who described how the Japanese fought, we had what we knew about their conduct in China (an ally), we knew about the Bataan death march, murder of civilian prisoners, etc. etc. A lot of Americans had no qualms about killing Japanese, and lots of them.

The Japanese also substantially modified their bit about the emperor - they went from insisting that he remain "in power" without any change (i.e. as a living god) and as the nominal head of government, to merely insisting (a) he not be executed, and (b) that he be allowed to remain as emperor, but with no power or role in government, even in a nominal way. They accepted the requirement of the emperor making the Ningen Sengen declaration, which still galls the ultranationalist right wing fringe in Japan.

[Kramerman]

ever read the book Hiroshima (hershy)? it clearly describes form what i remember that hiroshima was an industrial complex and military center. strategic bombing throughout the war, tho rarely specificly targeting civilians, had been indifferent about civillian casualties and definately did not go out of their way to avoid them. Hiroshima was no different than any other strategic crapet bombing raid from anyside of the war, except that it used only a small flight of bombers that dropped a single, extremely powerful bomb instead of thousands of small, incediary ones.

Re japan being warned

the japanese were warned not only by warnings to the government, but also by raining leaflets down on japanese cities. the leadership th did not want their citizens to red the 'propaganda' and ordered that no one shall read the leaflets. being the good disciplined people they were, everyone obeyd without question, to the best of my knowledge.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, Bush and Rumsfeld did not drop a nuclear weapon on Baghdad in order to kill Saddam. Had they done so, I would have been among the first to condemn such a action. If you recall, I argued even before the war and during it that we would never use nuclear weapons on Baghdad even if Saddam somehow were to use WoMD on our troops in the area or even on New York City. The reason I said this is that the enemy is Saddam, not the people of Iraq.

So it's ok to kill civilians as long as you don't nuke a city? Such a double standard.


Your map demonstrates clearly that Hiroshima has a number of military bases within it. But this does not change the fact that it was, by no stretch of the imagination, a pure military target that could be struck without killing women and children. [/QUOTE]

Every strategic bombing raid in WW2 killed women and children.

[Ned]

MtG, I think the bomb should have been used on a "pure" military target, just has Truman stated in his notes. I am sure that LeMay could have found something that was purely military if he were given THAT order. Instead, he was ordered to bomb Hiroshima.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kramerman
Re japan being warned

the japanese were warned not only by warnings to the government, but also by raining leaflets down on japanese cities. the leadership th did not want their citizens to red the 'propaganda' and ordered that no one shall read the leaflets. being the good disciplined people they were, everyone obeyd without question, to the best of my knowledge.

The penalty for disobedience was also death, and the disgrace that extended to any "traitor" and his/her family.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, I think the bomb should have been used on a "pure" military target, just has Truman stated in his notes. I am sure that LeMay could have found something that was purely military if he were given THAT order. Instead, he was ordered to bomb Hiroshima.

You yourself said you didn't know of any such target within the lethal blast of a bomb that size.

[Ned]

MtG, this is becoming almost too much to bear. There are vast differences between killing a handful of civilians who can't get out of the way of combat, and dropping a nuclear weapon on a heavily populated city. The laws of war recognize the difference.

You do know that these use of nuclear weapons on cities today would be considered a war crime. When you say that you would, even today knowing all the facts, personally authorize the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a few weeks later is astounding. By your own logic, we should have nuked Baghdad on the first day and threatened to nuke every other Iraqi city until Saddam surrendered.

[Arrian]

A handful, Ned? Are you familiar with the effects of conventional area bombing raids in WWII?

The comparisons to Iraq are weak at best. Iraq vs. the US does not come CLOSE to WWII Japan vs. US, first off. Second, the bomb was dropped in the context of a conflict which was filled with the aforementioned bombing raids on cities, which killed thousands upon thousands of civilians. WWII was "total war."

Your trolling is becoming too much to bear.

-Arrian

[Ned]

K, AFAIK, we used the Norden bomb site in our daylight bombing of miliary and industrial targets in Germany. We did not carpet bomb cities ala the Brits.

[Arrian]

The hell we didn't. That bomb sight wasn't all that effective, you know.

I'm not saying that the USAAF deliberately targetted civilians, but it also didn't give two shits if in the process of blasting a factory into oblivion it took a bunch of civvies along.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
A handful, Ned? Are you familiar with the effects of conventional area bombing raids in WWII?

The comparisons to Iraq are weak at best. Iraq vs. the US does not come CLOSE to WWII Japan vs. US, first off. Second, the bomb was dropped in the context of a conflict which was filled with the aforementioned bombing raids on cities, which killed thousands upon thousands of civilians. WWII was "total war."

Your trolling is becoming too much to bear.

-Arrian

Arrian, we dropped leaflets in Japan because precision bombing had proven useless and we had to resort to firebombing instead. We did our best to avoid civilian casualties. Even Truman own notes acknowleges our duties as a civilized nation to avoid killing women and children.

WE, the US, did not engage in total war in the sense that we deliberately targeted civilians - that is, until Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But in all three cases, these attacks were ordered by the president of the United States.

I pointed to quotes from US miliary at the time to show that almost to a man they were horrified at what Truman did.

[Arrian]

Arrian, we dropped leaflets in Japan because precision bombing had proven useless and we had to resort to firebombing instead.

emphasis mine.

Yeah, well, conventional bombing, destroying their fleet and industry, crushing their airforce, and capturing everything up to the home islands didn't do the job, so we had to drop the A-bomb.

"Had to" is pretty subjective. In both cases, however, the #1 priority was to win the war via unconditional surrender. Concerns about civilian loss of life were decidedly secondary. Deal with it.

-Arrian

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Ned
K, AFAIK, we used the Norden bomb site in our daylight bombing of miliary and industrial targets in Germany. We did not carpet bomb cities ala the Brits.

Didn't you firebomb mostly wooden Japenese cities in high winds in order to kill and destroy as much as possible?

Regardless, I've always felt one bomb was justified just to properly illustrate the horrors of atomic warfare. If they hadn't been used at the end of the war they surely would have been used at the start of the next, and then they would be used as often as possible until the end of that war, which would have been a far worse outcome.

[Ned]

Arrian, please, if you would, show me an order that authorized an American bomber pilot to dump his bombload on a city if he could not see his target.

I am afraid that the people here are not making critical distinctions. There is a major difference between some civilian casualties due to inaccuracies and the like, and the deliberate targeting of civilians.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Arrian


The hell we didn't. That bomb sight wasn't all that effective, you know.

I'm not saying that the USAAF deliberately targetted civilians, but it also didn't give two shits if in the process of blasting a factory into oblivion it took a bunch of civvies along.

-Arrian

exactly. and at that time, in that conflict, civilian deaths were not a problem. it was "total war", as arrian said. people crying about civlian deaths some 60 some odd years later need to get a grip on the reality of the time. it was not an imperialist war, or war of convenience, it was genuinely seen as a war of survival, on all sides.

It was gruesome, and the most deadly forms of 'conventional' weaponry were used. the only reason why no one dared use chemical weapons was not because of the agreement not to use them after world war I (all agreements were out the window), but because of fear of retaliation with chemical weapons... much like how nuclear weapons kept themselves from ever being used in the cold war. but nuclear weapons were completey new, and the US was the first to get them, so no one could use them in retaliation. it was our trump card that was seen as an oppertunity to end the war swiftly, by utterly crushing the japanese spirit and will to fight on, as they pledged to do.

[Kramerman]

Didn't you firebomb mostly wooden Japenese cities in high winds in order to kill and destroy as much as possible?

japanese houses were made out of rice paper.... meaning they burnt really easily. i know we puropsely firebombed them knowing this, whether we did this deliberately in high winds to maximize the effects i havent heard, but it would not suprise me.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Garth Vader


Didn't you firebomb mostly wooden Japenese cities in high winds in order to kill and destroy as much as possible?

Destroy, yes. Kill, no. We dropped leaflets warning of the impending attacks so that the civilians could get out of the way.

Regardless, I've always felt one bomb was justified just to properly illustrate the horrors of atomic warfare. If they hadn't been used at the end of the war they surely would have been used at the start of the next, and then they would be used as often as possible until the end of that war, which would have been a far worse outcome.

I think that Truman wanted to use the bomb just for such a purpose - to scare the world so much that war would never happen again. To some extent, Truman proved right. There has been no major war since and none involving nuclear powers.

[Arrian]

Arrian, please, if you would, show me an order that authorized an American bomber pilot to dump his bombload on a city if he could not see his target.

I am afraid that the people here are not making critical distinctions. There is a major difference between some civilian casualties due to inaccuracies and the like, and the deliberate targeting of civilians.

There sure is a difference.

As MtG has attempted to show you, Hiroshima was chock full of legit military targets, surrounded by civilians. Now, if we had send 500 bombers loaded with conventional bombs (firebombs, perhaps?) and dumped them on the city for a few days running, there probably wouldn't have been much left either. The only major difference was the effect of radiation, which at the time wasn't really known, or understood.

And there was certainly an element of "shock and awe" to the whole thing. 1 bomb = 1 city wiped off the face of the earth. That makes a statement, to be sure.

-Arrian

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

The Japanese military governments (Bakufu in the pre-Meiji days) had a long history of arranging imperial successions, or "escorting" the emperor to secret locations "for his own safety." The emperor as a notion, was the basis for a cult, but if one emperor displeased the government, there was always an heir in the line of sucession, so the tragic loss of one emperor for the greater good didn't affect the functioning of the cult. Hell, the Japanese people would barely have known the difference - they never saw the emperor, or heard his voice, or could even say his name.

The other thing about that fanatical willingness to die was that it was NOT driven by the emperor - the fanatic view was that even the destruction of the entire nation, and the imperial family and household and all things Japanese, was preferable to surrender. If you're not familiar with them, read about Chushingura, then read Hagakure and Yamamoto Tsunetomo's criticism of the "weak, calculating Osaka merchant's ethic" of samurai of his era. Mishima, in Hagakure Nyumon (written after the war, like all of Mishima's works, of course) then expounds on the failing of the 47 ronin in Chushingura, according to the standards of Hagakure.

Surrender was a disgrace, death was an honor.

That there are no purely military targets, and these are the best of the bunch according to the standard frag list criteria?

But,
as the Meiji Restoration ended the rule of the Bakufu, and a civilian Government was established, as well as the Samurai as a caste officially ceased to exist, wouldn´t it have made any coups against the Emperor more difficulty?

After all, yes, even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was a try amongst some military leaders to seize the Recordings of the Emperors Speech of Surrender. But it failed, because there were enough people among the military which were loyal to the emperor.
So, couldn´t it be that the Military was already divided before Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that enough Generals would have supported Hirohito if he had announced a Ceasefire or conditional Surrender prior to the Bombs? (with one of the Conditions being, that he himself would remain japanese Empror)

[Ned]

Arrian, et al., here is a translation of one of the leaflets we dropped on Japan prior to conventional attacks. We intended to destroy military infrastructure while not harming civilians. I remember reading somewhere that we dropped leaflets on Hiroshima prior to our attack, I am not sure.

"The B-29 did not always drop bombs. They also dropped leaflets warning of future bombing raids. This is the text translated from a leaflet that was dropped on Japan during World War II:
An Announcement to the People of Japan
Haven't you thought about saving your own life, as well as the lives of your parents, siblings and friends? If you want to save them, read this handbill carefully.
Within a few days, the United States Army Air Force will bomb military facilities located in a few cities; all of these cities are written on the back of this paper.
In these cities, there are military facilities and factories which manufacture munitions. Although the United States Army Air Force will destroy all the ordnance being used by the military to prolong this war which you have no chance of winning, because bombs don't have eyes we don't know where they will fall. With your assistance, the humanitarian America doesn't want to hurt innocent people, so please evacuate the cities written on the reverse side of this paper.
You are not America's enemy. Your enemy is your own military, which is dragging out this war. What America thinks of as peace is no more than delivering you from the oppression of the military. If we do so, a much better Japan will arise.
How would it be if peace were restored, and new leaders who would end the war were established?
Maybe cities other than those written on the back of this paper will be bombed, but at least those few cities on the back of this paper will certainly be bombed.
To reiterate our previous warning--please evacuate the cities written on the back of this paper.

Cities listed on the back:
Nagano
Takaoka
Kurume
Fukuyama
Toyama
Maizuru
Otsu
Nishinomiya
Maebashi
Suido
Hachioji
Koriyama "

http://www.airpowermuseum.org/trleaflt.html