1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

The WWII Atomic Bomb Attacks Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Xerobull, Dec 7, 2010.

  1. Xerobull

    Xerobull You son of a b!tch! I'm in!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    34,899
    Likes Received:
    33,026
    My first D&D post- I usually post in the hangout but figured this was a polarizing topic that would get booted here anyway. The Dec 7 thread in the hangout had turned to this but I figured it deserved it's own discussion.

    In a nutshell, the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in WWII weren't entirely necessary. We were bombing them into the stone age without nukes. I'm not saying that it was good or bad, just wanted the facts out there.

    My argument, backed up:

    I'm currently reading a book called 'Why the Allies Won' by Richard Overy, a preeminent WWII historian. I scanned pages 126-127 just for my fellow CFers.

    This is probably the most accurate representation of what was really going on at the end of the war with Japan. Check out the book, Overy sites his sources. As you can see, the Japanese were already discussing surrender before the atomic bomb.


    P126

    With so much power to inflict massive physical destruction it was difficult
    to resist the temptation to turn the bombing weapon against Japan. For
    long geography had been Japan's salvation. But by the spring of 1945 the
    American forces in the Pacific had finally secured island bases from which
    it was possible to hit Japanese cities. The air forces, now equipped with a
    new heavy-bomber, the B-29 Super-Fortress, were ordered to do what they
    had done in Europe, to soften up mainland Japan to ease the America
    conquest of the home islands. But against a flimsy air defence quite
    unprepared for the aerial onslaught the bombers were able to deslroy
    almost at will. In the end air power alone was able to bring Japan to the
    point of surrender.

    In the six months between April and August 1945 21st Bomber Command,
    under the direction of General Curtis LeMay, devastated most of
    Japan's major cities. One by one the urban areas were ticked off as vast
    quantities of incendiary bombs were poured on to houses of wood, bamboo
    and paper. So poor were the defences that the B-29s could fly in at just 7,000
    feet to release their bombs. Against the firestorms they caused there was
    little the emergency services could do. Using only a fraction of the bomb
    tonnage disgorged on Europe the Command destroyed 40 per cent of the
    built-up area of 66 cities. In desperate efforts to halt the spread of the
    conflagrations the Japanese authorities knocked down over half a million
    houses to form fire breaks. The terrified populations fled into the hills and
    the countryside. Over eight million refugees clogged the villages; in the
    factories absenteeism rose to 50 per cent. A combination of sea blockade
    and bombing reduced most Japanese industries to a mere fraction of their
    wartime peak - by July aluminium production was reduced to 9 per cent, oil
    refining and steel production to 15 per cent. All except the most diehard
    militarists could see that Japan was defeated.

    In Tokyo the politicians and generals squabbled over the terms of a
    possible surrender while American bombers remorselessly ate away at _
    very fabric of Japanese life. The equivocation cost Japan dear. At long last
    the Americans had not only a 'super-bomber' but also a 'super-bomb".

    Science fiction became science fact. On 16 July in the heart of the New
    Mexico desert the first atomic device was successfully exploded. A second
    was shipped in a lead casket across the Pacific. Months before, LeMay
    been told to reserve some Japanese cities for special treatment, and the fire-
    bombers left alone Kyoto, Hiroshima and Niigata. On 24 July the 20th air
    force was ordered to prepare for atomic attacks on two Japanese cities
    Hiroshima was selected for the first, Niigata was rejected as too far north.

    p127

    For the second LeMay proposed Nagasaki, farther south down the coast,
    which he had not yet reached on his city hit-list. America's new President,
    Harry Truman, gave his approval to destroy what he insisted on calling a
    'military base', when everyone knew Hiroshima was an ordinary city, like so
    many of those already torched.

    For the inhabitants of Hiroshima their neglect by LeMay's bombers was
    welcome but unnerving. Superstitions quickly spread. It was widely believed
    that rubbing a pickled onion over the scalp, to symbolise a bombing,
    rendered immunity. The rumour spread through the city that President
    Truman's mother was Japanese and lived in seclusion in Hiroshima. The
    reality was nightmarishly, almost absurdly different. On the morning of 6
    August a single atomic bomb was loaded on to a B-29, christened the Enola
    Gay a few days before. As it approached Hiroshima the air-raid alarms
    began, but on the sight of only one aircraft the all-clear was sounded. A few
    minutes later a single bomb destroyed in seconds 50 per cent of the city and
    killed forty thousand people. Here was Super-Armageddon with a vengeance.
    Everything around the bomb was shrivelled to ash. The thick black
    clay tiles which covered most Japanese roofs boiled and bubbled over a mile
    from the explosion. Windows shattered 5 miles away. Demented survivors
    staggered into the suburbs, ghoulish, doomed. A young student observed
    them: 'Their faces were all burned and the meat on their faces was hanging
    down, the lymph dripping all over their bodies.' As for Hiroshima,
    'everything - as far as the eye could reach - is a waste of ashes and ruin.

    The Japanese authorities could scarcely believe what had happened.
    Frantic efforts were made to find a surrender formula, but too slowly to
    avoid a second, equally devastating attack on Nagasaki on 9 August. By the
    end of 1945 seventy thousand people, half the city's population, were dead.
    Even Truman was horrified by the results and called a halt to atomic attacks.
    Yet five days later, as the Emperor, Hirohito, prepared to broadcast the
    surrender of Japan, a thousand bombers bearing incendiaries inflicted a
    final, retributive, flourish. The bombers might have failed to bring Germany
    to defeat unaided, but the ruthless destruction of Japanese cities from the
    air made direct invasion here redundant. The war was over.​
     
  2. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost Membar
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    48,304
    Likes Received:
    18,556

    Do you define necessary as something which would have stopped the war?

    If so, since one bomb wasn't enough to stop the war, would you consider it acceptable?
     
  3. Xerobull

    Xerobull You son of a b!tch! I'm in!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    34,899
    Likes Received:
    33,026
    Read the quote, Overy's research shows that they were looking for a way to surrender anyway. A mainland invasion was never going to happen.

    If we had the bomb earlier, absolutely. I'm not for or against it, I just think we used it because we had it. It was war and it was a weapon. But we didn't need to use it, because our 'traditional' bombing campaign was doing the job nicely.
     
  4. Lil Pun

    Lil Pun Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 1999
    Messages:
    34,141
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Dumb question but how are those cities inhabitable now? Wouldn't radiation be present?
     
  5. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost Membar
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    48,304
    Likes Received:
    18,556
    So even though one bomb didn't stop the war, you would consider using it excessive?

    How was America to know what Japanese intentions were?
     
  6. Harrisment

    Harrisment Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2001
    Messages:
    15,392
    Likes Received:
    2,158
    This is an interesting take, thanks Xerobull. I actually have this book on my list of things to read. This subject fascinates me.

    I've always heard that the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki because the Japanese still refused to surrender, even after the first bomb. This paints a different picture.

    I'm also curious what the current state of the cities are.
     
  7. jo mama

    jo mama Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,899
    Likes Received:
    8,158
    my take...

    first bomb can be justified - 2nd cant.

    the japs were not going to surrender - an invasion of the mainland would have been necessary to defeat them, and even then, it was estimated that it would have cost up to 1 million american lives. there would have been women and children waiting on the beaches to fight - it would have been all out. in that sense, the first bomb was justified (forget about the morality of attacking civilian targets for this one).

    however, imo the 2nd bomb was unnecessary - it was all about revenge for pearl harbor - we only gave them 3 days b/t bombs - as the last paragraph in your article says, the japs were still trying to comprehend what happened and figure out how to surrender, which they would have done at that point.

    there was also the geopolitical aspects of using the bomb - it was a show of force or deterrent against the soviets. it was clear even then that the post WWII world would be u.s. vs. ussr.

    i will also add that the firebombing of dresden was just as destructive as the atomic bombs, but history doesnt pay as much attention to that incident. the death toll is arguably not as high, but the overall destruction to the city was just as complete.
     
  8. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    27,039
    Likes Received:
    3,706
    That is one of the most biased piece of crap accounts I have ever read of WWII.
     
  9. jo mama

    jo mama Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,899
    Likes Received:
    8,158
    what do you disagree with?
     
  10. CrazyDave

    CrazyDave Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,027
    Likes Received:
    439
    Moving this here doesn't excuse posting about it today in the thread remembering and honoring those attacked in Peal Harbor.

    Debatable... on another day, maybe.
     
    2 people like this.
  11. Harrisment

    Harrisment Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2001
    Messages:
    15,392
    Likes Received:
    2,158
    We also have to remember the sentiment of most Americans at this time. After Pearl Harbor I'm sure the entire nation was incredibly pissed off and was looking for revenge. Even today, if a state sponsored military attacked us again like that without warning I'm sure that most of us would be calling for our military to nuke them off the map.
     
  12. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    Agreed with jo mama.

    Also I think it is important to note that Pearl Harbor was hardly a "surprise attack". The U.S. code crackers had broken the Japanese Imperial Navy code well before the attack. FDR then goaded the japanese to war by demanding a remission of the axis pact and a complete japanese withdrawal from china - he then embargoed the country to boot. Without the resources from China the japanese war machine would have completely collapsed. Therefore, the only rational alternative the japanese had was to attack first and cripple the U.S. in the pacific, just as FDR foresaw. FDR also ignored Prince Konoye in the critical 1940-1941 era in Japan. Konoye sought a meeting with FDR as he was desperately seeking his support to push the war-hawks out. Konoye even proposed a japanese pull-out of Manchuria and a reduced presence in China in exchange for a stop in the U.S. embargo. FDR refused under the influence of soviet sympathizers in his government pushing a "united front against fascism."

    /end tangent.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    27,039
    Likes Received:
    3,706
    One example

    You yourself just said they would not be surrendering. So why do you think it is spot on?

    also "American bombers remorselessly ate away" like we were some super evil villians for fighting back? No human feelings about the war?

    This writer is a tool.
     
    Nook, jiggyfly and CrazyDave like this.
  14. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    44,511
    Likes Received:
    26,499
    Everything's easier to judge in hindsight.

    These questions are attached on the perception of WW2 being a "just war".

    War is horrible regardless of original cause. They escalate in brutality even when one side is apparently weakened.

    Instead of it being "necessary" we should rather reinforce our notions on whether each war is necessary knowing well ahead that using nukes and new "we didn't know better" WMDs are a possibility or on the horizon.
     
  15. weslinder

    weslinder Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    291
    Somewhat agreed, but for different reasons. The Japanese did want to surrender, but only conditionally, and all of the conditions included leaving the imperial government in place. We could have bombed them into submission with convential bombs, but that may have been just as deadly.
     
  16. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    Yeah, the US stuck to Potsdam and was not interested in seeing Hirohito remain in power. The Japanese tried to appeal to the soviets to aid in their preferred surrender strategy, but the soviets were less than helpful, seeing as they were gearing up to get a big piece of Manchuria.
     
  17. Xerobull

    Xerobull You son of a b!tch! I'm in!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    34,899
    Likes Received:
    33,026
    I think it's important to back up and point out that the Allies agreed to an 'Unconditional Surrender' policy. That alone may have justified the nukes in question by pushing the Japanese leadership into just saying 'I surrender' as opposed to trying to negotiate terms. But I don't doubt that they were absolutely going to surrender at the point of the atomic bombs.

    I fail to see how 'Remorselessly' renders us (Americans) as the bad guys. We were pounding them into submission, it seems the appropriate word, ESPECIALLY given that we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan.

    As for dishonoring the memory of Pearl Harbor... you should probably be applauding me for taking the debate out of the other thread by creating this thread.
     
  18. ima_drummer2k

    ima_drummer2k Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    36,063
    Likes Received:
    8,516
    They weren't trying to figure out HOW to surrender, they were still arguing about whether or not TO surrender.

    Many military leaders opposed surrendering even after the 2nd bomb was dropped. They hoped they could inflict so many casualties on the Allies once they invaded the mainland that they could still win the war. It was only after the Soviets invaded Manchuria that they finally decided to surrender. The Japanese were always more weary of the Soviets than they were the Americans.

    The OP is just one historian's opinion. It shouldn't be taken as fact.
     
  19. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost Membar
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    48,304
    Likes Received:
    18,556
    For a "not surprise" attack, we sure didnt do a great job of preparing for it.

    Your post basically screams that the attack was our own fault, which is not only dubious, but kind of sickening to hear it come from you.
     
    Nook and basso like this.
  20. Dubious

    Dubious Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,317
    Likes Received:
    5,089
    Context, context.context

    It makes all the difference. After 4 years of World War, the atrocities of Bataan and Nanking, the American people of the time wouldn't have given a rat's ass about killing every man woman and child on the Japanese Archipelago. If you look at the costs of the invasion of Okinawa and project it on to an invasion of the main island, the losses of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acceptable, even limited casualties.

    My Dad thought anyone who even bought a Japanese car was a traitor until about 1985.

    I've heard the reason the bomb wasn't dropped on Tokyo was so that you didn't kill the only people that could effect a surrender and placate the people.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now