Bahu Virupaksha Bahu Virupaksha

The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

A Tribute on Hiroshima Day

The great historian E J Hobsbawm has rightly caalled the twentieth century an "age of extremes". The German Holocaust during the course of the World War and the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will for ever be seared in the momory of humankind as the most horrendous instances of mans' inhumanity ro fellow human beings. The moral evivalence between the two cannot be disputed because both were political decisions taken in order to achieve certain strategic and political goals during the course of the war. To this litany of horrors can be added,of course, the brutalities of Stalin and the Pol Pot genocide making the history of the 20th century a history of genocide. In fact the century began with the massacre of the bushmen by the Germans in Africa and the often forgotten Armenian Massacre carried out by Turkish Troops.

The American intellectuals are always uncomfortable over the issue of Hiroshimaa and Nagasdaki. Afterall the USA is the only country in the world to have used atomic weapons against civillian non combatants in History and Harry Truman's decision to use the boms will not ever be justified by right thinking people including quite a few conservatives who feel that it was an immoral and immproper decision.

An American historian Gar Aperovitz has come up with an excellent book on this decision. Entitled The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb this book is an indepth analysis of the factors both political and military that prompted the decision and on Hiroshim,a Day as we remember the Victims of the Atomic Bombing let us see whether that fateful decision was indeed justified.

One of the myths ardently propagated by the proponents of the decision to use the Atomic Boms is that the Japanese wopuld have otherwise faught on leading to several thousand casualities. This argument is essentiaslly a non sequter and like the case of the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction rests soley on unbridled speculation and mmotivated inlelligence. The precurssor of the CIA, the Office of Strategic Services estimated a few thousand deaths in the evwent of an invasion of the mainland of Japan.

The most controversial feature of the decision to use the Atomic Bomb was the fact that the American Military establishment had advised against its use. In fact the Admiral of the Pacific Fleet Admiral Nimitz was vehement against its use and cautioned against the use of the weapon of mass destruction on a civillian target. The military brass of the American Army was also gaaist the use saying that the Atomic Bomb was developed only for use against Germany which was known to have had a nuclear research programme and even by the time the first test took place on July 16 1945 at Nevada the German Army had surrendered and the US Air Borne Division was in command over Berlin. So the justification for using the weapon was not there on the ground, so to speak.

The real reason seems to be to forestalll the possible Soviet moves in the Japanese Islands. At Postdam, the American leadership virtually begged Stalin to break his treaty with the Japanese and declare war. Stalin ever alert to ther possibllity that the Americans may be making him pull their chestnuts out of the fire wanted to make sure that any projected Soviet invasion of Japan would be to the advantage of the Russians and not the Americans. Once the America acquired the nuclead bombs, the pressure to stop the war before the Soviets came on tio the scene became acute and therefore the decision to use the nuclear boms not once but twice. In fact even before Hiroshima there were indications of a possible Japanese surrender and the US leadership knew this because the codes had been broken. Yet the Truman Adminiustration took the extreme decision to drop the bomb making the conscience of the American Nation for ever seared like the German conscience is by the guit of the Holocaust.
21,937 views 57 replies
Reply #26 Top
Was it a horrible regretable act that we dropped the atomic bomb not once, but twice on civilian targets (though they both were home to large war plants and other key military infrastructure points)? Yes. It is always horrible and regretable when anyone attacks non-military targets. No one likes to see innocent civilians harmed.

Was it an unnecceary act? One that we could have avoided completely and seen the same quick cesation of hostilities through other peaceful means? We don't know. We simply do not know. Based on recently declassified intelligence filings from our global SIGINT network, it would imply that the Japanese were nowhere near surrender, and the diplomats in Moscow and Washington were lobbying for peace without the knowledge or support of their own governments. They were attempting to persuade the Allies to back down on their own. Military intercepts from Japan also indicated that if a surrender was to happen, Japan would dictate the terms, under no circumstances were they going to accept an unconditional surrender. They were in fact instructing their men and civilian population that they were to fight to the very last man, and to make the invaders pay in blood for every inch of ground taken. They wanted to make an invasion so incredibly unpleasant that the Allies would offer Japan the option of a conditional surrender to avoid bloodshed. They knew our civilian population couldn't support a war effort that saw us losing more than we gained.

We don't know all the circumstances that led to those bombings, we only know the results. A war that was looking to cost us a LOT more men was ended abrubtly and with minimal loss on our side. The effects on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only temporary. Both rebuilt, both are populated again and are normal cities. Many many people died in those bombings, many people who had nothing to do with the war directly, and that is a great tragedy that we must never forget (just as we must never forget the Japanese Internment camps, or the Holocaust, or Stalin's purges and gulags... they all represent Humanity doing the worst possible things to fellow humans in the name of a national cause). But what is done is done, those responsible for it are dead. Those who vividly remember WWII and the bombings are soon to be gone from us as well. We can not continue to punish a nation for what can not possibly be undone.

We know what happened, and we can but guess and what COULD HAVE happened if we didn't drop the bombs, but we simply do not know. We can't play the armchair quarterback with the assumption that we would have done it better, no one here was there, no one here has all the facts of the situation, and I don't think even with all the documents and intercepts could we really make a truely informed decision now since we'd be separate from the time, from the situation and the attitude.

We did it, we ended a bloody war fast, we had to get dirty doing it, but it was done. We can't undo it. We can't say for sure what the alternative results would have been. It's in the past, it's time to move on from it.
Reply #27 Top
Unconditional surrender was something that the Japanese people needed desperately. Not the *wink wink* sort where the leaders on either side agree to have each other's backs, but real, start-from-the-beginning, restructuring.

Why? Because had we conceded to allowing the Japanese to handle their rebuilding, we would have been inviting the same situation that plagued Germany after WW1. It was obvious that 'unconditional' wasn't what the the leaders there really meant when they talked about surrender.

So, had we accepted the kind of half-hearted surrender that was coming, we either would have starved Japan and left them to wallow under the same sickness that provoked and empowered Germany's Nazi era, or we would have allowed Stalin to march in and do far worse things.
Reply #28 Top
The Japanese did not quite understand the term "Unconditional Surrender". Maybe it was the difficulty of trasnlatingb English inot Japanese or else they did not think it proper that their Emperor should be made in any way responsible for the outcome. They only wanted time to mull over the point relating to the status of the Emperor. I think the USA dropped the bomb on Japan without a second thought probably due to the anti orientalist sentiment in USA at that time. Whatever be the justification, the Atomic Bombing was a great human tragedy, Baker Street , and not a tirade against the USA.
Reply #29 Top
So the bomb was dropped out of racism and the fact that the Japanese didn't have a good enough translator to understand "unconditional surrender?" Sorry, but you aren't even trying now. The Japanese knew exactly what unconditional surrender meant, they simply wanted to avoid it as much as possible. To allow them to do so would have been to invite the problems Germany suffered after WW1, and what eventually led to Hitler's reich.

I suggest strongly that you go back and look at the devestation that was suffered during the bombing of Tokyo. You're setting this apart because it was a nuclear weapon, and ignoring the fact that a full-scale invasion of Japan, whether by the US or the Soviet Union, would have been VASTLY more devestating.
Reply #30 Top
Bahu, do you have any understanding at all of history? Do you have any clue as to the culture in Japan at the time? The attitude towards war and honor? Do you have the first clue as to what led up to the decision to drop the bomb?

Your last comment implies that you actually know next to nothing about the war or the bomb.
Reply #31 Top
I think the USA dropped the bomb on Japan without a second thought probably due to the anti orientalist sentiment in USA at that time.


We built the bomb to drop on Germans, would it have been considered anti-Germanic to drop the bomb on Germany alone? People always cry about equal opportunity. (I know that was a bad one) With the Japanese Honor belief system in place, the fanatical blood bath of an invasion would have happened because of their loyalty to their own race. Just look at the mass suicides of Japanese citizens on islands leading up to Japan.

Years later we have learned that even the final surrender from the emperor himself almost did not happen. The surrender notification had to be hidden from the Japanese military government in power at the time. This is an indication that even dropping of the atomic bombs was almost not going to stop the war. It was the Emperor’s own self preservation that ended Japan's fight. The US could have bombed the Imperial palace long before, but never did because of cultural sensitivity and the belief that ultimately it would take the Emperor to defies his Government to end the war and not an uprising by the people. The bombing was not a second thought; it was a calculated move playing on the fears/sorrow of one semi westernized man, because the Japanese racial superiority beliefs at the time prevented the common Japanese citizen to even think about dishonoring themselves by surrender.
Reply #32 Top
I just love how all mention of how the cities in question were also, war factories, slave labor camps, weaponry inserted into hospitals, schools.

But this is what to expect from america hating children, 1/2 truths the rest fabrications.
Reply #33 Top
Interesting article, but if you asked my 90-year old uncle Arthur, who had been in the war in Europe since 1942, and was headed for the South Pacific after the surrender of Germany, he'd tell you that it was worth the deaths of the few thousand who died in an instant and even those who died from the effects, rather than to live through the hell of yet another destructive war. And with an even more fanatical enemy, at that. The Germans didn't throw their babies off cliffs, then jump after them, I might inject.
It's easy to judge the actions or inactions of people like Truman, or anyone who lived in the past.
What if he hadn't dropped the bomb at all, and been a humanitarian and spared those two cities? What if he'd done that, and the war actually had dragged on for another horrible, bloody year or two? You'd be calling him a fool rather than a terrorist and war criminal. You'd be saying things like "he had the chance to end it all right quick, and he didn't take it! Idiot!"
Truman may have dropped a terribly destructive weapon on innocent people, but at least he didn't herd them into camps and execute them en masse or work or starve them to death. He didn't send armies to rape and pillage their cities (*cough* Nanking *cough*).
No, we destroyed their cities, then occupied them, then rebuilt them to the tune of tens of billions of (1940s) dollars, then helped the people in them on the road to recovery. A road on which they have since outraced us and have irreparably damaged our economy and became an economic powerhouse of the world. Shame on us for such barbaric behavior. Terrorists!
Reply #34 Top
To those Americans that say no, you shouldn't have dropped the bomb think on this. Would you rather than things like the "Death March on Battan" be allowed to continue, or to go unpunished?
Reply #35 Top
Would you rather than things like the "Death March on Battan" be allowed to continue, or to go unpunished?


They don't care about things like that RedNeck
All they care about is condemning America for anything they can; everything and everyone else just falls by the wayside. America the Great and Terrible. That's us.
Reply #36 Top
My dad was in the Pacific in the summer of 1945 and he said all he could say after they were dropped was WHEW!!!
Reply #37 Top
My dad was in the Pacific in the summer of 1945 and he said all he could say after they were dropped was WHEW!!!


The sentiment of every soldier, sailor, Marine and airman at the time. I'm sure the two people kissing in Times Square, and all the smiling, cheering people around them in that famous picture, were really concerned about the Japanese atomic bomb victims. Boo-hoo.
Reply #38 Top
two defenceless cities
---Bahu

Two defenseless cities that were, as industrial sites and such, protected by anti-aircraft weapons, just as was every other major city. Let's not pretend that Japan was some martyr state that left itself wide open to attack or sacrificed its innocents or something. Nothing would be further from the truth.
Reply #39 Top
All they care about is condemning America for anything they can; everything and everyone else just falls by the wayside. America


The sentiment of every soldier, sailor, Marine and airman at the time. I'm sure the two people kissing in Times Square, and all the smiling, cheering


execute them en masse or work or starve them to death. He didn't send armies to rape and pillage their cities (*cough* Nanking *cough*). No, we destroyed t


Starting with the last post: Rape of Nanking is a WAR CRIME and the Japannese Military leadership paid for it with Death in the Tokyo War Cimes Trial after the WAr. Are you seriously saying that the Atom Bombings are justified on the bais of the behaviour of the Japanese Army. What role had the citizens in the Rape of Nanking. Are yopum not forgetting the Internmnet of Japanese Americans in Camps due to an Excecutive Order of the Great Liberal Roosevelt. These are facts and cay be verified from any book on American History writeen by a Professional historian.David Stanard is agood source. As for the other posts I can understand the feeling but soldiers are soldiers and must do their job. Dropping Atom Bombs on Women and Children is not the right way to win the war. The USA had other contingency palns to invade Japan and the death toll in that eventualuty would have been far less than what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The USA wanted to bring the war to a quick end because of the Soviet factor and demonstrate to Stalin that if they have used the Bomb once , twice, they will not hesitatye tom use it on him. Thus the Cold War.
Reply #40 Top
i can't prove it, but i'm pretty much convinced nobody but the physicists who created the bomb understood its power or its effects...and even they knew less about it than most of us. i'm basing this partly on the plan to use atomic bombs to clear a beachhead prior to any invasion of kyushu and partially on the experiments conducted during the late 40s/early 50s.
Reply #41 Top
Are you seriously saying that the Atom Bombings are justified on the bais of the behaviour of the Japanese Army. What role had the citizens in the Rape of Nanking. Are yopum not forgetting the Internmnet of Japanese Americans in Camps due to an Excecutive Order of the Great Liberal Roosevelt. These are facts and cay be verified from any book on American History writeen by a Professional historian.David Stanard is agood source. As for the other posts I can understand the feeling but soldiers are soldiers and must do their job. Dropping Atom Bombs on Women and Children is not the right way to win the war.


Bull puckey!

The USA had other contingency palns to invade Japan and the death toll in that eventualuty would have been far less than what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


To your first question...Hell YES! And you need to go study a little more at the war college on your other remark. Ain't NO way, ain't NO how the death toll would have been less. On top of Japanese casuties add the US ones! Sort of changes your figures, don't it? I just wish I could actually tell you where to stick your obvious anti-american attitude!
Reply #42 Top
Starting with the last post: Rape of Nanking is a WAR CRIME and the Japannese Military leadership paid for it with Death in the Tokyo War Cimes Trial after the WAr.


That wasn't my point, but okay. My point was that some here were trying to pin Truman as a war criminal. Horsedoody. He did what any good war leader would do with a new and powerful weapon. He used it. When faced, as he was, with possibly extending a prolonged, protracted conflict and possessing the means to end it quickly, who wouldn't use it?

Are yopum not forgetting the Internmnet of Japanese Americans in Camps due to an Excecutive Order of the Great Liberal Roosevelt.


Uuuh...Well, I'm not sure I ever heard of anyone at those internment camps being forced to work, starved to death or executed for minor infractions. It was a dark blot on our record, yes. It was wrong, but you can't seriously compare that to what the Japs did to our men on Bataan, for example? Unless they died of illness, accident or old age while incarcerated, all the people who went in those camps came out.

The rape of Nanking's death toll was 300,000 plus....the death toll of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was less than 200,000.
The people of Nanking were just as innocent as the people in the two target cities, maybe less so, since none of them were aggressors, and the level of brutality and barbarism involved in the bombings was, oh, just a teensy bit less. On a cosmic scale, in my opinion, the Japs got what was coming to them. Justice was served and then some.

Dropping Atom Bombs on Women and Children is not the right way to win the war.


With a name like Bahu Virupaksha, if that's you're real name, you could only be Indian or Pakistani. Depending upon your age, I'd be curious to hear what your grandparents or older aunts and uncles would have to say about your position, considering that the Japanese adventures in Asia took them to the border of India. Would their outlook be as sympathetic to their former enemies as is yours?
Reply #43 Top
The USA wanted to bring the war to a quick end because of the Soviet factor and demonstrate to Stalin that if they have used the Bomb once , twice, they will not hesitatye tom use it on him. Thus the Cold War.


True and also to bring the war to a suceessful conclusion with the least number of Amerincan casualties.

IG
Reply #44 Top
infractions. It was a dark blot on our record, yes. It was wrong, but you can't seriously compare that to what the Japs did to our men on Bataan, for example? Unless they died of illness, accident or old age while incarcerated, all the people who went in those camps came


I am not equating the two and I agree that with the Apology of the Ameican Senate passed on the motion of Senator Dan Inoye of Hawaii in 1984, raking up the Intwernment iserves only to remind, as I did in my Blog that an anti oriental mind set was at work and the Atomic Bombing was a consequence of that. There are no credible estimates about the casualty fgures and in any case all historians now agree that the figures generated during the run up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki are gross exaggerations. Yet the horrible Japanese War Record of the Army does not still justify the atomic attack.
Reply #45 Top
age, I'd be curious to hear what your grandparents or older aunts and uncles would have to say about your position, considering that the Japanese adventures in Asia took them to the border of India.


You are close. The Japanese invaded Southeast Asia and did horrible atocities there. In Singapore the Japanese Army rounded up the Chinese and tortured them. No study has been made of the victims of the Imperial Japanese Army in the then Malaya and Singfapore and I do agree that the Japnese WAr Record is Horrible. Then there is Korea, China and Indonesia. Rightwinger, the point is not the denial of the horrible War Record of the Japanese. The only point is the legitimacy of the use of Atomic Boms on the defenceless citizens of the two cities.
Reply #46 Top
The battle of Okinawa cost 130,000 civilian lives alone, not counting the military deaths and that was just one Island. Think how many more would have died on the main Islands. Link
Reply #47 Top
Intwernment iserves only to remind, as I did in my Blog that an anti oriental mind set was at work and the Atomic Bombing was a consequence of that.


But don't forget that the bomb was actually, and officially, earmarked for use first against the Germans, not the Japanese. It's just that Germany got lucky because they surrendered first.
Reply #48 Top
But don't forget that the bomb was actually, and officially, earmarked for use first against the Germans, not the Japanese. It's just that Germany got lucky because they surrendered first


The bomb was tested on July 16 1945 two months after the surrender of Germany. In fact the Manhattan Project was extended to deal with the Japaanese. There can be no contrafacuals in History, but my informed guess is that America would not have used the Bomb on Germany. Kar Alterovit's book Decision to Use the Atomic Bombs is simply too detailed and he makes out a fairly good case on the lines that we have been arguing. We cannot look at the record of World War II of both the Allies and the Axix from a present day perspective. That world, fortuantely, was far far different.
Reply #49 Top
But don't forget that the bomb was actually, and officially, earmarked for use first against the Germans, not the Japanese. It's just that Germany got lucky because they surrendered first


The bomb was tested on July 16 1945 two months after the surrender of Germany. In fact the Manhattan Project was extended to deal with the Japaanese. There can be no contrafacuals in History, but my informed guess is that America would not have used the Bomb on Germany. Kar Alterovit's book Decision to Use the Atomic Bombs is simply too detailed and he makes out a fairly good case on the lines that we have been arguing. We cannot look at the record of World War II of both the Allies and the Axix from a present day perspective. That world, fortuantely, was far far different.


You seem to forget something. The bomb may have been tested 2 months after Germany surrendered. But it was started loooong before that. By the time the testing actually started, a lot of work had gone into the prep. So the "Manhatten Project" really started "before" Germany surrendered. And "your" informed guess just may be wrong. And by the way try to do a little more research next time so that you at least get the authors name correct. It's Gar Alperovitz NOT Kar Alterovit. And the book is more about his opinion than historical fact.
Reply #50 Top
You must have failed your history classes in school.

1. The Manhattan Project was started to develop the bomb, the intention was to beat the germans to it since there was intel suggesting they were working on their own. The goal was to have one to use against Hitler if needed, to preempt any german bomb being used. The bomb was designed primarily to be used against the Germans as they were our main war target.

2. The bomb was tested after the germans surrendered, true. Just because the germans surrendered didn't mean the war was over, and honestly they had invested millions upon millions in the single largest scientific/technological project in human history, it makes NO sense at all to just cease work on it because Hitler shot himself and the European war ended. Continued effort on the bomb does NOT imply anything close to an anti-japanese mentality. It was simply the continuation of a war project while the war still raged on.

I suggest you pick up a copy of Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes... it's pretty much considered the authority on the development of the bomb, including a lot of political and military decisions and implications. It's probably the closest thing to an accurate record of what the project was really all about. Combine that with the recently (1995) declassified SIGINT materials regarding Japan's government and its position on surrender and how it wanted to handle the end of the war prior to the bombs being dropped.

Go to the history, the source materials and not the political analysis with personal spin. It'll give you a damn good idea of what ACTUALLY happened, not what you would like to believe happened.

Oh, and go apologize to your history teacher, you owe him/her at least that much.