60th Anniversary: Americans Divided on Use of A-Bombs in 1945

I will second guess using atomic weapons, firebombings, etc. all that I want.

 

Can we hold this as a standard on this board? If you didn't live through it, don't complain about it. I wish someone had mentioning this during the election. All of those "Kerry was a traitor during Vietnam" arguments made by twentysomethings would have gone away.

 

i have the exact same situation w/ my grandparents. one fought against the germans and was of german ancestry (second generation american). he was kind of the john wayne type (who, in another coincidence was from iowa as well). told war stories about fighting in the battle of the bulge and while not a braggart, didnt hesitate to reference WWII or tell us war stories.

my other one was in the air force against the japanese. he is very humble about his service and even when asked about it, never really gets into detail. clearly would rather not talk about it.

 

MSNBC.com Article: War Without Mercy
War Without Mercy
Sixty years later, veterans of the Pacific War remember: 'Kill or be killed.'

http://g.msn.com/0MN2ET7/2?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853603/site/newsweek&&CM=EmailThis&CE=1

 

I wished we dropped a few more bombs. These guys were sneaky scumbags that killed millions of people. At one of their national museums they have propaganda about their "liberation" of Asia and how the Americans forced them into war. My grandfather still have ill feelings for the Japanese. He doesn't like to talk about the War, which is understandable considering how horrible it was. Whether you agree with the use of atomic bombs or not, in the end you have to decide if American lives are more valued than Japanese lives? Easy choice for me.

 

The prevailing political mood of the people who had endured 4 years of world, war sacrificed their way of life and lost people they loved was Unconditional Surrender. That required the occupation of Japan. The estimated cost for an invasion of the Japanese mainland was one million Allied casualties...easy choice to use the Atomic Bomb to bring about capitultion.

I have always second guessed the choice of civilian targets, wondering why they didn't just drop one over Tokyo Bay as a demonstration, but, the bombing of cities was a precedent already well set early in WW2, first by the Axis powers and later by the Allies so their perspective was different. I assume they didn't drop it on Tokyo because they had to leave the existing power structure in place in order to orchestrate the surrender.

 

http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/htdtisabomb.html

"The History They Didn't Teach You in School"--an occasional series. August 6th: Atomic Bomb dropped On the 58th anniversary of the use of an atomic bomb against Hiroshima, we should look back on the decision to drop the bomb and its consequences.
Rembering Hiroshima: 58 Years of Myths
(Originally published 5 August 2002, revised)

On 6 August 1945, American war planes dropped the first of two Atomic bombs against Japan, hitting Hiroshima and killing perhaps 150,000 people and destroying the city. Three days later, US planes dropped another bomb on Nagasaki, and Japan sued for peace days later, thus ending the war in the Pacific.

Historians and policymakers often refer to 6 August as "Day One," because a new era in mankind was ushered in; cities, perhaps nations, could now be destroyed with a single weapon, in a single day! Since 6 August 1945, the world has witnessed a spiraling arms race, with many trillions of dollars spent on nuclear weapons by over a score of countries, with a corresponding lack of spending and concern for human needs in many places on the globe.
Despite the horrific consequences of the development and use of nuclear weapons, Americans have not been unduly critical, or even curious, about the decision to use the bomb against Japan in 1945. Opinion polls consistently show that overwhelming numbers of people–in the 80-90 percent range–support the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, principally because they believe, as President Harry Truman and others argued in the late 1940s, that the bomb was necessary to avoid a land invasion of Japan that might have cost a million lives.

In the intervening years, however, various scholars have conducted significant and impressive research on the use of the Atomic Bomb and have compellingly called into question the rationale behind the use of the bomb. So, as we commemorate the 58th anniversary of Hiroshima, a look back at the history of the decision to drop the bomb is worthwhile.

The United States had begun the Manhattan Project to develop atomic weapons at the outset of the second world war, eventually bringing its ally Britain in on the project, but not its other ally, the Soviet Union. Germany too had been trying to develop a bomb, but many of its scientists, many of whom were Jewish, had fled the Nazi state, with several emigrating to the US or Soviet Union and working on weapons projects there.

By 1945 it was clear that Germany was not close to developing nuclear capabilities, while the Manhattan Project was on the verge of creating an atomic bomb. At that point, American decisionmakers in the Roosevelt and then the Truman administration began to plan to end World War II and for the potential use of the atomic bomb.
Often, historians and history buffs get bogged down in the precise dates at which events occur and lose sight of the bigger picture. But when discussing the atomic bomb, the timeline is critical:

----In February 1945, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin met at Yalta to discuss the postwar world. There, Stalin agreed that the Soviet would enter the war against Japan precisely three months after the European phase of the war was over [in exchange for territorial concessions in Japan].

--American war planners were at this time busy preparing for a military conquest of Japan, and they had two important assumptions in their planning. First, they believed that Japan was already devastated from the grind of war and unremitting air attacks–including incendiary bombing–from the US. Second, they contended that a Soviet declaration of war by itself–prior to an attack –would almost surely force Japan to surrender.

----In the Spring of 1945, American officials, via MAGIC intercepts of Japanese messages, learned that Japan was making overtures for and had a delegation working with the Soviet to develop a settlement/surrender with one major condition–that they would retain their emperor, Hirohito. The US had already announced a policy of Unconditional Surrender, so did not pick up on the Japanese entreaties. In the US, however, there was a strong media push to end the war promptly, even if this meant keeping the emperor in place.

----On 8 May, the war in Europe ended, meaning that the Soviet pledge to attack Japan would be effective on 8 August.

-----In the first half of 1945, US military planners, unquestionably aware of and assuming that Japan was desperate, began planning for an invasion of Japan. They assumed that the earliest date for a limited invasion, of the Ryuku Islands, was 1 November 1945, while the earliest date for an invasion of the Japanese mainland was 1 January 1946–both dates are significantly later than the 8 August Soviet promise of intervention, which planners maintained would force a Japanese surrender by itself. Planners, led by General George Marshall, also assumed that the US could expect about 25,000 casualties as the result of a land invasion.

----On 17 July President Truman met with British PM Clement Attlee and Stalin at Potsdam. The US had delayed the meeting for a couple weeks, claiming pressing budget matters. More likely, Truman was buying time to allow for a test of the Atomic Bomb scheduled for Almogordo, New Mexico. At Potsdam, Staling reaffirmed Soviet intentions to enter the war, but the US was now not eager for Stalin's help. While at Potsdam, Truman received word that the A-Bomb test had been a success. He then began, as his aide James Byrnes described it, to "carry the bomb around on his hip." His previously diplomatic and conciliatory tone gave way to an aggressive bluster and he began to issue ultimatums to Soviet Foreign Minister Vyasheslev Molotov.

----On 6 August, just days before the Soviet Union was to enter the war, and months before any US invasion, limited or full, was possible, and aware that Japan was prostrate and desperate, Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima, then Nagasaki. Japan surrendered within the week. Hirohito was retained as emperor!

The initial public reaction to the use of the bomb was not as overwhelmingly positive as one might think. The country was split about evenly on its use. Many Americans, including the National Council of Bishops and conservatives like William Buckley Sr., criticized Truman's decision on moral and practical grounds. Many if not most of the president's military advisors, including Generals Dwight Eisehnower, Douglas MacArthur and Curtis LeMay, had cautioned against using the A-Bomb, finding it unnecessary and provocative.

In 1947, however, public perceptions on the bomb began to change. Truman published an article, ghosted by Henry Stimson, in which he claimed he dropped the bomb to prevent an invasion of Japan that would have cost one million American lives. With the horror of that scenario in their minds, Americans began to change their opinions on the use of the bomb and have consistently supported it since then.

In the interim, though, scientists and historians have begun to correct the historical record. The bomb's use, many contend, was an example of "atomic diplomacy." The bomb was not dropped to end the war but to assert US hegemony, to send a message to the Soviet Union that the US would use its nuclear monopoly to shape the postwar world in its image.

The decision to use the bomb is still emotional and controversial, as evidenced by the mid-1990s controversy at the Smithsonian, where politicians and veterans groups killed an exhibit on the bomb that would have been displayed at the Air and Space Museum. Myth continues to substitute for history, and we continue to face the prospects of nuclear war daily.


Recommended Readings:

Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb; and Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam.
P.M.S. Blackett, Fear, War, and the Bomb
John Hersey, Hiroshima
Martin Sherwin, The Willing Weapon
J. Samuel Walker, Prompt and Utter Destruction
Gregg Herken, Counsels of War
Ronald Takaki, Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb
Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell, Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial
David Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb

 

BTW, a book on the topic I recommend is Gar Alperovitz's book, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.

Basically, he contends rather convincly to me, that the consensus in policy circles was that Japan was already defeated, the bomb was not a military necessity, and that it was used to send a signal to the USSR about US power in the postwar period. Compelling book--I recommend it highly.

 

My mother is/was a High School history teacher. About ten years ago she told me that she began to hear her students say that the Soviet Union would have never been our enemy if we had just been nice to them.

The following quote from A Distant Mirror by the great Barbara Tuchman sums the nature of historical reflection quite well;

History is seen through the lens of the historian's perspective. I think there is reasonable evidence that at least some people thought the Atomic Bomb was the cleanest way to force a surrender. I'm sure other people had other views, and many of them for different reasons.

But in a world where people were brought up under the specter of mutually assured destruction, I find it difficult to believe that criticisms of Truman by people of the baby boomer generation are not, despite what I’m sure are earnest efforts to the contrary, seen through the lens of the critic's own Cold War perspective.

 

So the alternative was invading the mainland of Japan?

Sorely weakend as it was Japan still had a million man army and a Samuri tradition. The Japanese had sued for peace with terms but the Allied policy was unconditional surrender, requiring occupation.

I don't think my Dad gave a rats ass about Russia and Stalin after being in the Pacific for four years, haviing his buddies die all around him without one R and R trip to see his fiancee'. He wanted those bastards to give up so he could go home. If it meant melting the entire population I'm sure he would have been OK with it. That was the US mentality at the time.

You think losing 57,000 US troops in Viet Nam shaped the political landscape? Try 300,000 dead and 600,000 wounded.

I've still never seen a rational explanation of targeting Hiroshima and Nagasaki though.

Scaring Stalin was just a bonus. He didn't scare anyway because he had little reguard for his population.

 

BTW, if the decision to drop the bomb was done to make a point, I don't think for a minute that that calculus would have been made by Harry Truman. In many ways he was a simple man, and he was very anti-Communist, but he was also very much a man of middle-american simple values.

I can't believe that it was in his nature to drop the bombs knowing the deaths that would result only to make a point to the Soviet Union.

 

Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee

Truman's Diary
http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html
Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Truman told his diary on July 25, 1945, that he had ordered the bomb used.
Emphasis has been added to highlight Truman's apparent belief that he had ordered the bomb dropped on a "purely military" target, so that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.

Anyway we "think" we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. 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 that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

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. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...

Truman quoted in Robert H. Ferrell, Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman (New York: Harper and Row, 1980) pp. 55-56. Truman's writings are in the public domain.

 

Alperovitz is simply wrong. I am not surprised that he has duped you.

 

The following leaflets were dropped on Japan:

Nagasaki was a different bird alltogether. It was a secondary target chosen when cloud cover over Kokura was deemed too heavy. It did contain oranance factories and a shipyard, but was not in any way as significant to the war effort as Hiroshima.

There are plenty of people who support the use of the first bomb but not the second, including author Kurt Vonegut.

 

Nice counter-argument.

Not surprising coming from you though.

 

War in and of itself is wrong. It's as wrong to kill civilians with fire-bombs as it is with nuclear bombs as it is with bayonets as it is with muskets.

I have a personal history with this...my father's adopted father who I share my last name with fought in the Pacific. He was well on his way to the mainland when news came of the surrender. I have no way of knowing for sure if Japan would have surrendered otherwise (I've read commentaries suggesting either)...I have no way of knowing exactly how many would be killed...i have no way of recreating history. But I know he didn't ultimately invade the mainland of Japan, because they surrendered, not long after the atomic bomb was dropped. In a very selfish way, I doubt I would have known this man, otherwise.

But I can't defend it. I can't defend any of it. War sucks. There is no calculus that makes taking lives palatable to me...at all. There's no, "if we do this we save this many lives" that works for me as a "best" option. But in war...when people make decisions...these are the sorts of guesses at analysis they're asked to do. I'm thankful it's not me making that call.

 

i think it was their status as a couple of the bigger industrial centers in japan.

 

I've actually posted in great detail on this. Blaming America first is a Pavlovian response for you, all Alperovitz has to do is ring the bell.

 

Blame America first?

OK, whatever you say...

 

ask people in China, especially Nanjinj if it was neccessary to use the bomb.