Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing...but you leave out a poignant fact-- the Japanese were trying to surrender. Our government intelligence had long since cracked their communications' codes, and knew that they were going so far as to try to have Russia broker a peace treaty with America. The government and Truman knew this. However, the decision was still made to drop the bomb on a civilian target. Was that necessary? I think not. A military target, or even a show of force by dropping the bomb just off their coast would have more than sufficient in my opinion, espeicially considering that they wanted to surrender...
Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing...but you leave out a poignant fact-- the Japanese were trying to surrender. Our government intelligence had long since cracked their communications' codes, and knew that they were going so far as to try to have Russia broker a peace treaty with America. The government and Truman knew this. However, the decision was still made to drop the bomb on a civilian target. Was that necessary? I think not. A military target, or even a show of force by dropping the bomb just off their coast would have more than sufficient in my opinion, espeicially considering that they wanted to surrender...
See, that's where you A-bomb opponents get it wrong: The United States gave Japan an ultimatum: Surrender unconditionally. They refused.
That crap about negotiating through the Russians is just that: Crap. There was nothing to negotiate, and they knew it. All they had to to was surrender.
And I guess the fact that they were arming women and children with bamboo spears and training them how to fight was part of their surrender plan?
Now there were some of the diplomats that wanted to negotiate a surrender, no doubt, but to say that Japan as a whole was trying to surrender is pure BS. The majority of the military wanted no such thing, and they were, for the most part, the ones in power.
That crap about negotiating through the Russians is just that: Crap. There was nothing to negotiate, and they knew it. All they had to to was surrender.
And I guess the fact that they were arming women and children with bamboo spears and training them how to fight was part of their surrender plan?
Now there were some of the diplomats that wanted to negotiate a surrender, no doubt, but to say that Japan as a whole was trying to surrender is pure BS. The majority of the military wanted no such thing, and they were, for the most part, the ones in power.
wasnt italy part of the axis as well? What do you guys think woudl have happened to them? (hitler turning on them too?)
this is a good topic, i watched the history channel's program on dropping the bomb last night, is this thread in response to that?
this is a good topic, i watched the history channel's program on dropping the bomb last night, is this thread in response to that?
Settle down their guy. lol. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. What the Japanese wanted was to retain an Emperor--to them, he was like a God on earth. That's a major reason for their shunning unconditional surrender. It's intriguing how you just bypassed the whole idea of bombing 200,000+ civilians as nothing. Are they sub-human to you? Do they not count because they're not American? Truman wrote in his diary that he wanted the targets to be military, yet the order to strike said no such thing, and Truman himself called Hiroshima a military target. At the start of WW2, it was considered barbaric by all sides to bomb civilians...the Germans and Allies abandoned that as the war progressed. My point is this: I firmly believe that the INTENTIONAL targeting of civilians is unacceptable when other alternatives are available. And "to say Japan as a whole was trying to surrender is pure BS"... the majority of the government was trying to find a way to save face and surrender, but they weren't going to be unprepared for an invasion. Use your common sense. Lack of compassion and rhetoric does not make your argument any stronger. I would have been perfectly fine with them dropping the A-bomb on a military target. It's the civilian targeting that's attrocious. No doubt it was due to racism--the kind of propaganda coming out of America during WW2 against Japan was horrendous--they were considered sub-human.
I agree that there was a lot of racism towards the japanese, but i dont think it was just that. There was also the possibility of revenge, and more importantly, the US wanted to end the war soon so that Russia would not invade Japan. Japan was taking its time, i think they probably would have surrendered eventually, but it would have probably taken longer than the US wanted. In addition, the US really wanted to impress the RUssians by exploding the A-bomb. I dont think that using the A-bomb was completely nessesary, but looking at the situation, i dont know of a better idea. It certainly is very sad that so many people died, but we also need to consider what woudl have happened had the russians taken over japan...
People would certainly bitch about America less. Speaking German and/or Japanese would be almost worth that.
If the Axis won, I bet there would be a war between them. They were all greedy at that time and Japan and Germany both seem to believe in segregation.
BUT there was NO need to drop it on CIVILIAN targets. There were a plethora of military targets available. Hell, they could have even dropped it just off the coast of Japan to amaze and shock them into realizing the awesome power that America then wielded. Barring that, then as I've said, drop the damn thing on a military target. The whole of WW2 was an abomination-- but then again, war always is.
That being said, I'm in agreeance that the bomb saved countless lives from an invasion, but I, and others in the Truman administration for that matter, believed it was not necessary (and I believe it was barbaric) to drop it on civilians. Plain and simple as that.
BTW, I agree with you that to say that racism was the only reason is fallacious, but you agree it played a major role though right? The more you dehumanize your opponent, the easier it is to kill them and kill their women and children without a second thought and a clean conscience.
I agree with you there. Probably Germany would have gotten a hold of the a-bomb and used it on Japan and Russia to ensure their own superiority. No honor among thieves you know...
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,284
- 1,998
- 126
Not quite that easy. Dropping one off the coast as a show was discussed, but ultimately rejected as there was a severe shortage of enriched uranium. The test at Alamagordo and the 2 live bombs used up all the weapons grade material available. It would not have been prudent to use one for demonstration because if it didn't work there would not have been enough to actually use. That's been proven as a good tactic because after the first was dropped on Hiroshima the Japs STILL did not surrender. It took a second drop on a real target to force them to give up. With an off shore drop and one live drop, if they did not surrender we were back to facing an invasion that would have cost far more lives. Ultimately, that's what's important and it was the prime motivation in using the bomb. Dropping it was in the long run more humane and cost fewer lives than an invasion would have.
And exactly what military targets in Japan would you have had us attack rather than civilian targets? Japan is mountains, some farmland and heavily concentrated population centers. All the military targets in the country were adjacent to population centers.
Nope,
The Northrop Flying Wing
"In the summer of 1928, John Northrop began his research of flying wing aircraft. He formed a small engineering group known as the Avion Company. He built and test flew one of the first 2mi-flying wing aircraft in the country. Although it did carry the pilot and engine power plant in the wing, it was not a true flying wing because of its small tail carried on twin booms. This plane made numerous flights in 1929 and 1930 and recorded much valuable research data. Unfortunately, the depression of the early 1930?s caused further research to be abandoned.
As years passed and further advancements were made, John Northrop became recognized as the genius behind the Flying Wing design and the leading exponent of flying wing design in the United States. In Germany the flying-wing-design concept advantages were also shared by Alexander Lippisch and the Horton Brothers and in England by Hill. All were designers, who built and flew successful Flying Wing aircraft. Because it had no fuselage, even the Wright Bi-plane can be considered in this category in spite of its multiplicity of wing struts and wires. The Wrights?s plane carried the power plant and pilot directly on the wing system and was controlled longitudinally by a front elevator which was, in fact, a lifting wing surface.
In 1923 John Northrop became interested in the flying wing design after a discussion with Tony Stadlman, who had worked with Northrop in 1917 at the Lockheed factory, then located in Santa Barbara. Stadlman was plant manager of the Douglas Company in Los Angeles at this time and young Northrop was an engineer. Stadlman believed the ideal aircraft of the future was in the true ?flying wing? design. From that day on John Northrop?s goal was to design and perfect the Flying Wing. "
Only IF Germany had developed the nuclear bomb they were working on would bombing over that distance have been a threat. The main failure of pre-war Germany and their air force was in not having a four engine bomber that could carry heavy bomb loads to England or over the Ural mountains in the USSR. The Soviets simply moved their factories out of the range of the German bombers.
The Japanese could have surrendered at any time. They didn't, they got bombed. TS.
I never said that they were part of the Axis!? LOL. Since you had a knee jerk reaction let me "explanify" it for you: Russia big and powerful = hard to actually take over land. Japan = taking over Pacific. --> both big problems in future (this assumes that the Axis have already by some magical wand subdued America). So, what does Germany do to cement their power? Drop the bomb on Japan and Russia when they get a hold of it. Please don't make assumptions, because when you do....
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
As was said above, hindsight is 20/20 -- the fact of the matter is, Germany was not that far behind us in A-Bomb technology, and we knew they were sharing research info with japan. So, as a military commander you know:
1. Your enemy may only be a few months away from their own bomb.
2. An invasion is pending -- you know that soon, the bloodiest invasion in human history is going to be launched.
3. Conditional Surrender is not an option -- we felt that if the Japanese thought that they had gotten their way evel slightly, resistance might remain / occupation would be more problematic.
That said, if you have the bomb, and you only have two (more bombs were many months away), are you going to waste it bombing some water, in hopes of scaring them, or are you going to use it on a live target to be sure that your point gets across?
Northrop researched Horton's design back in the 80s, that's a fact. Do a little more research beyond a quick google search for God's sake man before you just say "nope." I never said it was the one vision of the B2 spirit, but it was a part of the whole process (and it was a fact that Germany had some of the most brilliant aero-engies ever. If you want to watch a video, look at the History Channel's series on Luftwaffe's Secret Planes of World War 2, look at what we have today, and then let your jaw drop. I'm damn glad that the Axis bastards didn't have time to complete their projects, I'll tell you that much.)
And as far as Japan being able to surrender after the first bomb, they were given 3 days! God damn you people are cold hearted if you can't see the inhumanity in that. Hell, the Russians had just invaded Manchuria and the Japanese were just realizing that they couldn't get anything better than unconditional surrender (again, they wanted to maintain an Emperor).
Again, if you've got 2 bombs drop it on A MILITARY target, any civilians killed would unfortunately be casualties of war. But to blatantly pick civilian targets...that's what I've got a problem with. Obviously, some of you don't. And that's your perogative. Neither of us is going to convince the other to change their view of the use of the A-bomb on civilians. I've got to go to work tomorrow...good night. :beer:
And as far as Japan being able to surrender after the first bomb, they were given 3 days! God damn you people are cold hearted if you can't see the inhumanity in that. Hell, the Russians had just invaded Manchuria and the Japanese were just realizing that they couldn't get anything better than unconditional surrender (again, they wanted to maintain an Emperor).
Again, if you've got 2 bombs drop it on A MILITARY target, any civilians killed would unfortunately be casualties of war. But to blatantly pick civilian targets...that's what I've got a problem with. Obviously, some of you don't. And that's your perogative. Neither of us is going to convince the other to change their view of the use of the A-bomb on civilians. I've got to go to work tomorrow...good night. :beer:
"Like Hiroshima, Nagasaki was chosen as a target because it was a major naval and shipbuilding center. In fact at the time of the bombing, the Nagasaki shipyards were the largest privately-owned shipyards in Japan. Nagasaki was not the intended target of the bomb dropped on 9th August - this was Kokura, near Fukuoka. However, cloud cover made it impossible to drop the bomb on Kokura, and it was dropped on the fallback target of Nagasaki instead.
Civilian targets, huh?
And no, I'm not just dismissing 200.000 deaths as nothing. I'm simply saying that whether they died from one bomb or one thousand bombs, they are just as dead. One Tokyo fire bombing raid killed over 100,000 people. They burned up. In my book, that's just as horrible as getting fried by a nuclear explosion.
I think that the atom bombs were more symbolic than anything. The US could have killed just as many people if they sent 1,000 B-29's over Hiroshima, and we wouln't have been sitting here today discussing how terrible that was. The fact that nuclear bomb technology grew to what it is today makes everyone shudder and think that today's bomb is what was used in Japan. It isn't even close.
Look, the Japanese weren't necessarily sub-humans, but you have got to admit.....they thought there Emperor was a god!!! They weren't exactly up with the times, either. Ever heard of kamakazi attacks? Think any other modern nation's soldiers back then would have done that? Of course not.
Ever hear of the Rape of Nanking? The Japanese, to my knowledge, have never acknowledged this event, and many others like it, much less apologized for it. They still, TO THIS DAY, don't teach their people of the atrocities their soldiers committed.
You also have to realize what the general opinion of the Japanese was back then. It's easy for us to do a few google searches and bring up tons of info that may or may not have been available to Truman and company back then, but it wasn't so easy for them to put all the pieces together.
That's not what happened. Read up on the subject and get back with us. Hiroshima and Nagasaki both had lots of legitimate military targets and smaller civilian populations than some of the major cities.
Edit: Here you go:
"By late July, the group had a list of four cities:
n Kokura, which had one of Japan's largest munitions plants.
n Hiroshima, a major staging area for Japan's army and navy and the site of several industrial plants.
n Niigata, a major port on the Sea of Japan with an oil refinery, a tanker terminal and an iron works.
n Kyoto, the former capital of Japan, a major industrial city with plants producing parts for machinery, aircraft and artillery.
Stimson wanted Kyoto off the list because of its religious and historical significance to Japan."
"Nagasaki was added in Kyoto's place.
Few details are available on how Nagasaki was picked, but the city contained two arms factories, a steel works and the massive Mitsubishi shipyards. One factory made some of the torpedoes used on Pearl Harbor."
Some civilian targets, huh?
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 35,036
- 2,191
- 126
Didn't Heisenburg believe that it was not practical to build an atomic bomb? I'll try to find a link, but I don't think Germany's nuclear program was anywhere near completion.
Edit:
Here's a link. In March of 1945, German nuclear scientists attempted to fire up a reactor, but it didn't hit critical.
You assume that it is impossible to conquer Russia, don't make assumptions, because when you do...
Russia had been conquered before, do some research and you will find out. If the allies were defeated that means Russia would have been defeated as well. You said that Germany would use an a-bomb on Russia to ensure their superiority, why do that when they already had them conquered? To make up for your mistake in that last post? Germany would not attack Japan, their policy was that Japan would dominate the Pacific, parts of Russia and the Far East and Germany would control Europe and parts of Russia. Hitler considered the Japanese "yellow aryans", the superior race in that part of the world, so it doubtful he would attack them to gain control of the East.
Well, I'm glad that you considered the civilian casualties a horrible thing--at least that lets me know that you're not cold hearted. I agree with you that the fire bombings were attrocious. I'm not some anti nuke nutjob. What the Axis bastards did to England, bombing civilian targets, and indeed, vice versa, were all abominations.
I'm not getting my info from google though, but I did see a History Channel special on WW2 the other day.
I know about the attrocities of the Japanese military--never said I was rooting for them. They were scum for what they did to CIVIILIANS as they marched to take over the Pacific.
My whole point is this-- it is a documented and historical fact that Truman had the information available to make an informed decision. EVERYONE of the Allies including Russia knew that Japan wanted to surrender but NOT unconditionally because they wanted to keep their Emperor. Sure, that's a little weird to you and I, but you shouldn't even intimate that their sub-human just because of those beliefs.
Damn, it's midnight! ARGH! Good debate. Thanks for not flaming away, and sorry to the thread maker if he feels we hijacked his thread. lol
From Closing the Circle Edwin P. Hoyt
?Hiroshima was a name unknown to most Americans, but was an important Japanese city, and particularly important to the army and the navy. The Second Area Army headquarters was located here, and it was slot the site of several important naval training schools. The Mitsubishi aircraft company had a factory here. Toyo Industries built naval guns. Equally important , Hiroshima was the communication center for the defense of Kyushu, and the Japanese bby this time expected that the first American landings would be aimed (as was the fact) at Kyushu.
Northrop Corporation - Flying Wing Aircraft
The point I was trying to make was that Northop was also researching flying wing aircraft at the same time as the Horten brothers.
That is all.
Man, you sure do make a lot of assumptions guy. I never said that Russia was not conquerable, and I'm not covering for any mistake because didn't make one-- I never said Russia was part of the Axis. Why you thought that, I don't know. The writing's write their for you to re-read if you want.
My reasoning for dropping the bomb on Russia obviously assumes that Russia had not been conquered by then, and that Japan would be destroyed. I'm just hypothesizing that Germany would want the whole pie, not just one part of it. It's all just hypothetical crap anyway.
But it was not a purely military base though. Truman referred to it as one in his speech. Even given the fact that Hiroshima was bombed, I don't think it was necessary or humane to drop a second even more destructive abomb on Nagasaki just 3 days later.
And if you wanted to talk about tactics, if you've only got 2 abombs available, it's not terribly smart to waste both just 3 days apart. You'd think you'd want to hold onto one just in case....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter