Hiroshima 60 years later

[IRfly]

<sad shrug> Amazing how mere decades later, the most magnanimous winner probably in the history of warfare is skewered as the "bad guy."

 

[The Chief]

... the 30 million figure came from "Flyboys" I believe. Regardless of the number, they still murdered chinese because they were chinese. No other reason, it's sick and they did it. ...

And of course, during that same period, millions more Chinese were killed by the Communists Chinese in their take-over and later millions more in the "Cultural Revolution".

In Russian, Uncle Joe Stalin did his part by killing millions of his own countrymen, with a couple million more Poles, Hungarians, and etc. We saw what Hitler did. Look out your window to the Sudan today. Well this list goes on.

Yes, we get skewered by some for mistreatment of prisoners, we (read US Military) are compared by Stalin et al, but some of our Senators (Durbin) because some of us put a pair of ladies panties over the head of a "enemy combatant".

Our (military) only option is to suck it up, move on, as we are the best hope for humanity. We must look forward and do the very best we can.

Just my .02C worth in the angry early morning hours.

 

[eddie]

they still murdered chinese because they were chinese. No other reason, it's sick and they did it.

Noze... that's an over-simplification at best.

 

[NozeMan]

Oh I know Im simplifying it. But the truth was (and maybe is today) that the Japanese felt they were the superior race in the region, especially compared to the Chinese.

 

[Fly Navy]

Noze... that's an over-simplification at best.

Murder is murder man. Throwing babies in the air and catching them on your bayonets, or cutting the wombs of pregnant women open as a way to kill them... or just beheading anyone you want to.... the list goes on. The Japanese were sick fvcks, and the best part, most of current Japanese society doesn't have a clue what happened.

 

[bunk22]

I for one feel the droping of the bombs was justified. Of course I'm not a subject matter expert and there are good arguements on both sides of the fence about whether it was really necessay. I know General Eisenhower didn't believe dropping the bombs was necessary. I think the general concensus is we spent 2 billion on the project so justifing the price was necessary. We wanted to demonstrate to the Soviets that we had this technology and were willing to use it. Revenge for Pearl Harbor and other atrocities were cited as well. Cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki (along with the back-up targets) had been spared from US bombing so the effects from the atomic bomb blast could better be determined. It's possible the Japanese were ready to committ to unconditional surrender as well but even dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, they weren't entirely committed (die hard military types held out). Obviously if we had invaded Japan, losses on both sides would have been severe. Here are some numbers:

Tarawa: 1,092 Marines killed in 3 days
Saipain: 2,000+ killed in half a month
Iwo Jim: 6,000+ US service members killed in 36 days
Okinawa: 12,000+ US service members killed in two months of fighting

Two B-29's vs Hiroshima/Nagasaki: No US service memebers killed (other than those in POW camps) and the war ended.

 

[Fly Navy]

It's possible the Japanese were ready to committ to unconditional surrender as well but even dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, they weren't entirely committed (die hard military types held out).

Precisely. It took TWO bombs to get them to surrender.

 

[A4sForever]

It doesn't matter whether or not we think the nukes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary .... we did it. There were other things driving the "urgency" to end the conflict, not just the potential casualties from an impending Allied invasion of Japan. A better question might be : would we do it again, and under what circumstances ???

But, was it the "right" thing to do ... ??? Ask the guys who were there at the time. Ask the WW2 generation whether or not THEY think it should have been done. My Dad's unit was getting shipped out from Europe to the Pacific after fighting from D-Day --- they were going to invade mainland Japan --- there's no doubt in his mind the nukes probably saved his life. Law of averages .... Ditto for the thinking of most of his generation .....

I've been to both Japanese cities .... I sometimes think it's interesting to compare my feelings experienced at Hiroshima (and those of the local Japanese) with the feelings of the 80-something-year-old Japanese visiting the Arizona Memorial .... ??? And mine when I see them in Pearl Harbor today .... ???

 

[esday1]

I belive the original target was Kure but it was socked in and Hiroshima was an alternate.

That is right. Also, the handful of American prisoners who were being held in Hiroshima when the bomb hit were from an aircrew that had been shot down over Kure. There's some debate over how valuable a target Kure had even been- I've read sources that said that the naval base there was essentially a decommissioning facility and that the raids there were supposed to be largely symbolic. My grandfather was assigned as a Graves Register investigating officer in Japan after the surrender, which meant that his main job was finding out what happened to U.S. aircrews that had been lost over Japan, including the airmen who died in Hiroshima.

 

[A4sForever]

......There's some debate over how valuable a target Kure had even been- I've read sources that said that the naval base there was essentially a decommissioning facility ......

Kure was probably THE naval base in Japan at the time .... but Kure is right next door to Hiroshima --- about 20 kilometers down the bay from Hiroshima --- so it was relatively easy to reach out and touch them in Hiroshima.

And by this time in the war most of the "decommissioning" of Japanese Naval vessels had already been done by the U.S. Navy ....

 

[RA0203]

Its funny to listen to people talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki today; whether it was right or wrong. People today have this idea that the choice at the time was bomb or invasion, which is simply not true. Using the bombs was a huge gamble...we only had two. Using the bombs was half psychological warfare and half bluff. We dropped two bombs on heavily populated cities to inflict the most casualties. We also dropped the two within 3 days of each other in hopes that the Japanese would think we had an abundant supply.

Honestly, we got lucky that the Japanese fell for the trick and surrendered. If they had called our bluff, which almost happened, we would still have had to invade the mainland. We knew this at the time, which is why we had carrier task groups ready and waiting. And trust me, as a student of Japanese history and culture, if we did invade we would be fighting the entire population, not just the military, and it would be to the death.

 

[esday1]

Holy crap, I screwed the pooch on that one. A4s is right- Kure harbor was a huge target. I heard my grandfather express the opinion (although this is debatable since the boat in question is on the bottom of Kure Harbor) that the particular ship that the "Lonesome Lady" (the B-24 whose crew wound up in Hiroshima) was tasked with hitting was primarily a symbolic target as it had basically been put out of action at that point. I don't know how I got those confused. Anyway, I got that mixed up from a fuzzy memory of a high school project and should have checked my sources first.

 

[The Chief]

Its funny ...

Actually, I remember well when the bomb was dropped. Then, we talked of two alternatives: (1) Use of Bomb and (2) Invasion. Then, there was very little belief that the bomb should not have been used. Only time and the Monday morning syndrome has produced many more theories.

I would be interested in hearing your views on alternatives to these two, realizing of course that there was an atempted coup by the military to prevent the surrender and prolong the war even after the bombs were dropped.

We actually had four bombs at the time, two on-site in Tinnian and two more stateside. Still more were being produced.

 

[A4sForever]

..... Using the bombs was half psychological warfare and half bluff. .....

..... Psychology ??? Bluff ???

I don't EVER want to play poker with this guy ....

Japan was defeated militarily, but would not surrender. The atomic bomb did not alone win the war against Japan, but it most certainly ended it, saving tens of thousands of Allied lives that would have been lost in the invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Again .... it's done .... over .... history .... but as we are a decent people, we still think about the ramifications of what happened in August, 1945.

So what now? It seems logical to me that those who support total war --- in principle --- cannot complain of war against civilians. The crux of the matter, for me, is whether total war in its present form can ever be justifiable, even when it serves a just purpose. I say that as someone who was willing to do my duty in the ultimate event of a nuclear exchange during the Cold War. Armageddon .....

I also asked myself on occasion: the material and spiritual evils that will be the result of total war today --- are they not in fact consequences which far exceed whatever good that might result? And then, what do we do if terrorists attack us with WMD ??? Who do we go after ... ???

When will the "moralists" give us a clear answer to these questions ? The world wonders .....

 

[IRfly]

I'm curious about something... How do the Japanese refer to WWII in their textbooks, colloquial language, etc?