The bomb

[IIIII 2]

I was just reading a few articles on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This one in particular

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4724793.stm

 

So here's a poll to see what we think.

 

On the 60th anniversary of the destruction of Hiroshima, new questions are being asked about whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb - and whether the bomb was really responsible for the Japanese surrender.

[giggsy 0]

I'd be interested to know what Japanese people thought.

[Siren 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1540683,00.html

 

Thanks to Bush and Blair, we might not go out with a whimper after all.

[Yuki's Passion 1]

After living in Hiroshima for many years Ive had more conversations about the A-bomb with J-peeps than I have about me being able to use chopsticks and eat sashimi. You could always see it coming from a mile away... I never minded discussing what happened with people as long as they were considerate.

 

Sitting in Onsens around Hiroshima with my mate, Ian, we would just be in our own world chattin away. And, at some point, some of the men would always say something to us. Once they saw we could speak to them subject quite often went to the bomb....

 

A few of my good Ossan friends, and Ex-GF, there had lost family members, either instantly or slowly due to radiation fall-out and the stories they told me about post-destruction are just horrendous

 

Something shocking to me was how many people avoided the subject of Pearl Harbor or just said it was insignificant

[slow 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Yamakashi:
Something shocking to me was how many people avoided the subject of Pearl Harbor or just said it was insignificant

Yama, it's the outcome of our Japanese history education. In history textbook at school and Japanese media, they try to tell us that we were victims of the atomic bombs. How atomic bombs were bad. They don't emphasize why the war occured or what Japanese military did in Asian countries. It's easy for Japanese people to believe that we were just victims. It is the history education, every country sees the history from their own side, isn't it?

We must not use atomic bomb in ANY situation. Those people who said it was necessary sounds like barbarians to me. Atomic bomb is not just weapon of indiscriminate mass killing. It kills human beings and destroys the earth with savage brutality.

[soubriquet 0]

Pearl Harbor wasn't insignificant. It was a brilliant tactical victory. It was a total humiliation for the US Navy, caught fast asleep in the middle of WWII at a time of heightened regional tension.

[grungy-gonads 54]

Yeah and it hardly gets a mention in Japan. Funny, that.

[slow 0]

Oh, what will happen if Japanese history text book says Pearl Harbor was a brilliant tactical victory. It'll develop into an international problem.

[soubriquet 0]

Precisely. They were being polite.

[grungy-gonads 54]

(What I was implying was that Pearl Harbour hardly seems to get a mention at all - brilliant or otherwise... and the focus is on the atomic bombs and Japan being the victims of those.)

[soubriquet 0]

I grew up near Coventry. The centre of the city was waste. Locals weren't concerned about Dresden or Hiroshima. My mother was happy because it meant my father wouldn't have to go to Asia after North Africa, Sicily and Italy. Moral decisions are easy in hindsight. They are different when you are fighting for your life.

[scouser 4]

There's a documentary on here Sunday night called Hiroshima. It will be interesting to see what angle it takes on it all.

[NutteyCubey 0]

One thing's almost certain - you won't have to put up with a team of tarento contributing their reasoned comments.

[NoFakie 45]

 Quote:

Originally posted by soubriquet:
Pearl Harbor wasn't insignificant. It was a brilliant tactical victory. It was a total humiliation for the US Navy, caught fast asleep in the middle of WWII at a time of heightened regional tension.

It might have been "a brilliant tactical victory" if they'd gone back for the planned third wave and destroyed the dry docks and fuel dumps. Maybe if the carriers had been in port too. To defeat an enemy as large as the United States, you have to do more than humiliate them.

As for the bomb, it seems unnecessary. Prebomb, the Allies pushed for unconditional surrender. Even postbomb, the Japanese refused to surrender unconditionally. They only surrendered after the offer of keeping the Emperor as a constitional monarchy was given. This offer was not made prebomb, although leading officials like Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy were perfectly aware that it was a key issue.

http://www.doug-long.com/mccloy.htm

You can see McCloy himself recounting this in "The World At War" ITV series from the 1970s. Western history books do not go out of their way to mention it, of course. It's all "samurai spirit" and whathaveyou.

[soubriquet 0]

Thanks Mr W. A tactical victory and a strategic failure indeed. I take no pleasure from US losses, but the Navy was asleep.

 

Thanks for your take. It is news to me, but I haven't been paying attention.

[taguchi 0]

That was very interesting.

[Yuki's Passion 1]

I belive it was the book, Japan's Longest Day, which deals with this and how the war came to an end...

[Mr Christopher 0]

Recently read that book, very interesting and sombre read it was too.

[window-cleaner 0]

Was anyone in Hiroshima for the things yesterday? On the news it looked like there was a lot going on.

[e2 0]

Good link Mr Wiggles, in case people missed it this page as well.

[sava 0]

It's been a while since I studied WW2, however from that site there are a few issues...

 

"Late on the morning of August 9th, the U.S. dropped a second atomic bomb without a second thought, this time on the people of Nagasaki."

 

To say that it was without a second thought is a huge misrepresentation.

 

"Rather than wait to see if the Hiroshima bomb would bring surrender..."

 

They did wait to see if they would surrender, this is why the second bomb was dropped on the 9th.

 

I think it was Black Rain by Masuji Ibuse

(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/087011364X/qid=1123458993/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-4784649-4731153?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

amongst others who said that there was no surrender directly after hiroshima because many reports weren't believed of the destruction.

 

There's more from the site that misrepresent what happened in my opinion, but I think it was a very, very awkward situation.

 

It gets more complicated with the peace offers that were being made with the Russians (althought it wasn't clear as to whether these would actually materialise). This wasn't what the Americans wanted as it would have left the Japanese military in existance even if they did occur.

 

Need to go now, will comment more later

[Ocean11 0]

It was the Russians invading the Northern Islands that ended Japan's war, not the bombs. As for the Russians accepting Japanese peace offers, nobody who looked honestly at Stalin's strict adherence to treaties and agreements in the past would have had any reason to believe he would make a separate peace with Japan.

[js 0]

O11 – to suggest Russia invading the northern islands ended the war is not entirely correct. The sequencing is very close and each step was a nail in their proverbial coffin:

 

6th August – Hiroshima

8th August – USSR invades Manchuria (Japanese held China)

9th August - Nagasaki

14th August – Japan Surrenders

2nd September – Signing of surrender on Missouri.

 

As for the other postings made by some members suggesting that the A-bombs weren’t necessary:

 

1. 20/20 hindsight is a soft position.

2. Along with the other two Axis powers, they were after all the instigators of the war.

3. At that time in history, Japan had a military expansionist ideology and was far from being a democratic country (or democratic monarchy for that matter.)

4. China had been invaded in the 30’s by Japan e.g. 1937 Nanjing Massacre, in which more than 300,000 unarmed Chinese service men and civilians were killed.

5. The allies, predominantly the British and Australian forces, including the Indians, Malays, etc, had a gut-full of brutal treatment as either POW’s or under occupation.

6. The US also had a gut full of the massacres they experienced during the island hopping operations. Admittedly, those massacres were often the subject of bad leadership and fighting techniques.

7. The calcs were done at the time – if the allies did a land-based invasion they would’ve faced huge casualties for a net gain of nothing. One or two bombs = utter devastation and acknowledgement that land based invasion is not necessary = capitulation and saving of Allied lives. (To think that anyone in that era cared about saving the enemy's lives is ludicrous!)

 

I think softening of attitudes towards the brutalities conducted by the Axis powers is disgusting - today’s touchy-feely, limp-wristed armchair generals should close their mouths and open their minds to what happened.

 

Whether its 5 years or 65 years time doesn’t lower the importance of a crime – murder and genocide remains murder and genocide.

 

Don’t even try to compare the European/North African conflicts with what happened in the Pacific – the ideology and warfare were totally different. (Perhaps the German vs Russian, AKA Stalingrad, campaigns best describe the mentality?)

 

PS: I have close family who fought in North Africa, the Pacific and were POW’s of the Japanese – there’s no resentment, just severe irritation that some people want to gloss over or hide the facts.

[Ocean11 0]

> I think softening of attitudes towards the brutalities conducted by the Axis powers is disgusting - today’s touchy-feely, limp-wristed armchair generals should close their mouths and open their minds to what happened.

 

"Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, who stated bluntly in a 1963 Newsweek interview that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”" That well known pinko Eisenhower...

 

http://www.ncesa.org/html/hiroshima.html

[js 0]

In my opinion, it was done as much to save Allied lives as an act of retribution for all the Allied lives lost. (Fair enough too.)

 

Retribution was also commonly metered out by prison guards (soldiers) and occupation forces – a bit of get even for brutalised and murdered mates. (Can't say I'd/we'd be any different in similar circumstances either.)

 

It’s a sad fact, murder begets murder.

 

At the end of the day, the Axis powers were the instigators of the world war and deserved what they got – in fact, most of them deserved more than what they got.