AP was there: US drops atomic bombs on Japan in 1945

[impulse]

World War 2 started in 1939 & ended in May 1945.

Actually, World War 1 started in 1914 and ended in 1989.

Nope. WW1 started in 1914 and hasn't ended. We're on the second break for the "loser" to rearm and get their financial house in order. The first being from 1918 to 1939. Which is why Putin is so scary.

Regarding the bomb(s), nobody seems to mention that Stalin had the will and the army to go all the way to the English Channel after he was done in Germany. The only thing that stopped him was America's demonstrated willingness to nuke the enemy's cities.

And tragic as it was, it's appropriate to recall that the Japanese killed more civilians in Nanking than were killed in both nuclear attacks. Up close and personal...

Edited August 4, 2015 by impulse

[English 1]

It's grossly wrong to say it was a war crime.

The situation was desperate and the Japanese cruel and sadistic bastards.....who would not recognise the Geneva Convention.

They have still not apologised for the Barbaric cruel treatment metered out to thousands of allied soldiers.

Beaten, Starved, Tortured and worked to death building the Death Railway.

Go to the Commonwealth War Graves cemetery and read the ages on the headstones starting at 18.

I will never forgive the Japanese.

[Credo]

I wonder i the Japanese had the bomb if they would have had any reservations about using it? I think not.

War is pretty nasty stuff, Kamikaze pilots were pretty scary too.

The bomb ended the war and it was a fitting and proper conclusion. Japan is much better overall because of the display of power that brought their total surrender.

For the thousands of people killed and maimed, it's sad, but as I said war is pretty nasty stuff.

[impulse]

I wonder i the Japanese had the bomb if they would have had any reservations about using it? I think not.

If you do the torrent thing, look up the documentary called Japan's Atomic Bomb or some similar title. They may have been a lot closer than they let on...

[Kerryd]

One has to consider as well that at the time (1945) the A Bombs were nothing more than really, really big bombs. Each packing more punch than had previously been possible using fleets of bombers. The one bomb dropped on Hiroshima was the equivalent of 3,000 B-29's dropping a full payload on a target simultaneously. A B-29's payload was around 20,000 pounds (10 tons, +/- depending on fuel, mission duration, etc)) of bombs but the TNT equivalent was around 5 tons. Little Boy's yield was estimated at the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT - 15 kilotons (kt).

The firebombing of Japanese cities had been going on for weeks before the a-bombs were dropped. Less than a week before the first a-bomb was dropped, Toyama, a city of 128,000 people, was 99% destroyed in one attack by a fleet of B-29s dropping a mix of incendiary and high explosive bombs. They dropped almost 800,000 pounds (400 tons) of bombs in that one attack. In those bombing attacks, they measured success in the number of square miles of city destroyed.

One single bombing raid on Tokyo in March 1945 by 334 B-29s was estimated to have killed between 88-100,000 Japanese (Tokyo was bombed dozens of times prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Despite all of those raids and the huge number of casualties, Japan showed no willingness to surrender. The Allies were gearing up for the invasion and anticipating huge losses (on both sides). Had they been forced to invade, 10s of thousands of American (and Allied) troops and millions of Japanese civilians and soldiers would have died.

(My step-grandfather was a destroyer captain. He was part of a convoy that was heading to Japan for the invasion when they got the word that the war was over. The cargo ships were ordered to dump their cargo and return to their home ports while the warships and troop ships proceeded to Japan for the occupation. Supposedly the cargo ships offloaded their cargo on some small atolls that didn't even appear on the maps (at that time). Tanks, jeeps, (crated) planes, weapons, ammo, artillery. Literally everything needed for a full scale invasion. They laughed that they almost sunk those atolls with the weight of all the stuff they dumped on them. I suspect that as soon as the warships were over the horizon some of those cargo ships probably returned and picked a lot of the stuff up again.)

Meanwhile. The US had this really big, powerful bomb that looked like a game changer and so it turned out to be. But even after dropping the first one on Hiroshima, the Japanese weren't ready to surrender. It wasn't until the second one dropped and they realized that most of their country could be wiped out in a matter of days that they finally gave up. You can imagine. If Japan hadn't of surrendered the US would have probably continued wiping entire cities off the map until there was nothing left at all.

(The only reason that the US didn't drop another one after Nagasaki is that they didn't have any more ! The next bomb wasn't going to be ready until 19 August but of course Japan surrendered before that. The US had also debated whether they should use the bombs immediately as they came available, or wait until they had a few ready to go and then drop them all in a short period.)

But again, at that time they were just big bombs. It wasn't until afterwards that people realized just how devastating they were and started debating whether or not they should be used at all. Never mind that all the previous bombing raids (on Japan and Germany) had killed millions of people and destroyed hundreds of cities. Nobody (or very few at least) have given that much attention at all. The firebombings of Dresden, Cologne, Tokyo, Osaka, etc were far more devastating in terms of lives lost and property destroyed but they barely get mentioned compared to the (125-250,000 total) lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

It wasn't until much later that people realized that one plane with one bomb could be more destructive than almost the entire strength of the bomber command combined. The realization did sink in of course which is why no one has ever used one (in a war) since then.

(The US apparently considered using them in Korea, and supposedly let the Chinese know that they weren't adverse to using them on the PRC if push came to shove. Some have conjectured that willingness to consider using nukes was a key reason why China and Korea eventually agreed to a ceasefire. The US had moved upwards of 9 nukes to a base within striking range of Korea and China but supposedly they were never armed or loaded onto bombers.)

<Half a novel's worth of theory, conjecture and history about the current nuclear situation deleted after hours of research and typing due to it not being relevant to the OP. Sigh - I need to get a life !)

[IAMHERE]

With out those two bombs there would have been two Japans after their surrender to the Russians eventually. The Russians would have done the first invasion and were willing to have millions die, the USA would have encouraged them and supported that effort with equipment. Yes a Northern Soviet Japan and a Southern Free Japan. The history of the cold war would have been drastically changed.

[chuckd]

For those that think the use of nuke was wrong, stop and think for a moment about the potential and very probable number of civilian lives that would have been lost in bombing raids in preparation for an invasion.

The war in Europe was over and the 8th Air Force was in preparations for deploying to Tinian and Saipan when the bombs were dropped.

An untold number of civilians would have been killed in the carpet bombing that would have covered much of the nation of Japan.

The number of Japanese lives saved has to be in the millions as a result of the use of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It took that to get the Japanese military to decide the Potsdam Agreement wasn't so bad after all.

[chuckd]

One has to consider as well that at the time (1945) the A Bombs were nothing more than really, really big bombs. Each packing more punch than had previously been possible using fleets of bombers. The one bomb dropped on Hiroshima was the equivalent of 3,000 B-29's dropping a full payload on a target simultaneously. A B-29's payload was around 20,000 pounds (10 tons, +/- depending on fuel, mission duration, etc)) of bombs but the TNT equivalent was around 5 tons. Little Boy's yield was estimated at the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT - 15 kilotons (kt).

The firebombing of Japanese cities had been going on for weeks before the a-bombs were dropped. Less than a week before the first a-bomb was dropped, Toyama, a city of 128,000 people, was 99% destroyed in one attack by a fleet of B-29s dropping a mix of incendiary and high explosive bombs. They dropped almost 800,000 pounds (400 tons) of bombs in that one attack. In those bombing attacks, they measured success in the number of square miles of city destroyed.

One single bombing raid on Tokyo in March 1945 by 334 B-29s was estimated to have killed between 88-100,000 Japanese (Tokyo was bombed dozens of times prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Despite all of those raids and the huge number of casualties, Japan showed no willingness to surrender. The Allies were gearing up for the invasion and anticipating huge losses (on both sides). Had they been forced to invade, 10s of thousands of American (and Allied) troops and millions of Japanese civilians and soldiers would have died.

(My step-grandfather was a destroyer captain. He was part of a convoy that was heading to Japan for the invasion when they got the word that the war was over. The cargo ships were ordered to dump their cargo and return to their home ports while the warships and troop ships proceeded to Japan for the occupation. Supposedly the cargo ships offloaded their cargo on some small atolls that didn't even appear on the maps (at that time). Tanks, jeeps, (crated) planes, weapons, ammo, artillery. Literally everything needed for a full scale invasion. They laughed that they almost sunk those atolls with the weight of all the stuff they dumped on them. I suspect that as soon as the warships were over the horizon some of those cargo ships probably returned and picked a lot of the stuff up again.)

Meanwhile. The US had this really big, powerful bomb that looked like a game changer and so it turned out to be. But even after dropping the first one on Hiroshima, the Japanese weren't ready to surrender. It wasn't until the second one dropped and they realized that most of their country could be wiped out in a matter of days that they finally gave up. You can imagine. If Japan hadn't of surrendered the US would have probably continued wiping entire cities off the map until there was nothing left at all.

(The only reason that the US didn't drop another one after Nagasaki is that they didn't have any more ! The next bomb wasn't going to be ready until 19 August but of course Japan surrendered before that. The US had also debated whether they should use the bombs immediately as they came available, or wait until they had a few ready to go and then drop them all in a short period.)

But again, at that time they were just big bombs. It wasn't until afterwards that people realized just how devastating they were and started debating whether or not they should be used at all. Never mind that all the previous bombing raids (on Japan and Germany) had killed millions of people and destroyed hundreds of cities. Nobody (or very few at least) have given that much attention at all. The firebombings of Dresden, Cologne, Tokyo, Osaka, etc were far more devastating in terms of lives lost and property destroyed but they barely get mentioned compared to the (125-250,000 total) lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

It wasn't until much later that people realized that one plane with one bomb could be more destructive than almost the entire strength of the bomber command combined. The realization did sink in of course which is why no one has ever used one (in a war) since then.

(The US apparently considered using them in Korea, and supposedly let the Chinese know that they weren't adverse to using them on the PRC if push came to shove. Some have conjectured that willingness to consider using nukes was a key reason why China and Korea eventually agreed to a ceasefire. The US had moved upwards of 9 nukes to a base within striking range of Korea and China but supposedly they were never armed or loaded onto bombers.)

<Half a novel's worth of theory, conjecture and history about the current nuclear situation deleted after hours of research and typing due to it not being relevant to the OP. Sigh - I need to get a life !)

<Half a novel's worth of theory, conjecture and history about the current nuclear situation deleted after hours of research and typing due to it not being relevant to the OP. Sigh - I need to get a life !)

I am certainly glad you did the research. Well written post.

Good job.

[faraday]

Just taking this discussion along a bit....

What are your views on the Kamikaze Pilots - heartless bastards, fanatics, mindless drones, or brave young men, defending what they thought was right?

[boomerangutang]

I used to think that the US (because it owned the skies) could have dropped that bomb on a small uninhabited Jap island - to show it's devastating power. ...and thereby avoiding the Hiroshima tragedy. Similarly, one of the bombs could have been dropped on a purely military target, although Nagasaki could be said to have been a military target of sorts, because there was so much military manufacturing there. Yet, because the US only had 2 bombs, and the Japs were so fixated about fighting to the last man, ...I've come to accept the macabre sense of dropping the bombs on partially civilian targets.

Still, what was it about Hiroshima? Was it convenience of location?, its population size? less comparative # or AAA, or was there significant military (or weapons manufacturing) there? ....or was it simply picked out of a hat of mid-sized Japanese cities?

Another thing that's stumped me about the war ending: Did the Chinese get reparations from the Japanese? Granted, the Chinese weren't unified, as they had a civil war going on, so perhaps they couldn't put together an official contingent to go and demand reparations. Also, the Chinese got Manchuria back (known as Machuoko under Japanese occupation) - so maybe that was sufficient at the time.

Someone mentioned the Soviets. Yes, the Russkies declared war on Japan just before the Pacific war ended. If the war had gone on a bit longer, it's not too outlandish that the Soviets would have taken over Hokkaido. As it stands now, Russians lay claim to some islands north of Hokkaido, which is disputed by the Japanese.

[Linky]

There was a different philosophy and there were different treaties about war in WWII. It's also noteworthy that WWII is the last war that the allies won outright to to point of surrender.

The belief then was to get the people of a country to want their leaders to surrender. The people of each country were held responsible for the leaders they allowed to have power. The war was against an entire country, not just some guy in a foxhole.

Berlin was bombed mercilessly 363 times without regard to any casualties. Those who weren't killed were often left badly injured and without utilities including clean water and without housing. Certainly their medical care was disrupted. The plan was to bring Berlin to its knees. The same was true of the nukes in Japan. Why sacrifice the lives of allied soldiers to get control of a country that had bombed Pearl Harbor and taken over much of Asia? "Let the Japanese die rather than losing invading allied troops."

Now we have PC wars which we can't and don't win and we never will unless we once again decide that war is hell and let it all hang out.

Cheers.

The US has not been subjected to major destruction of it's cities, infrastructure and mass civilian casualties by an enemy nation since the advent of modern warfare. I often wonder if today US nationals would support total war if their homeland had suffered the destruction and civilian deaths wrought by war as other nations in the 20th & 21st centuries. As the US is currently the only superpower, IMO support for a policy of total war does comes across as arrogant.

I do believe the the Marshall Plan and rebuilding of Japanese institutions after WW11 are excellent examples of enlightened US policy.

The US engaged in "total war" in Europe in WWII to help the allies in Europe. The US didn't even want to be there and it wasn't until Churchill almost begged long enough and until Pearl Harbor. The US was actually determined to stay out of WWII until it couldn't be avoided. First the US responded to requests from Churchill to supply equipment after so many of the UK's ships were sunk and so many planes were shot down.

Eventually the inevitable happened but it took Pearl Harbor to wake up the US population to the point of wanting the war. Once the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor the "sleeping giant" was not going to be stopped. The nukes were just part of taking out the trash.

It is noteworthy that the US and allies took no spoils of war but to the contrary helped defeated nations to rebuild including allowing them to export their Volkswagens, Toyotas, toys and electronics, etc.

Cheers.

Quite sad the US didnt want to be involved considering many nations that were not affected still sent troops to assist.

The allies (no need to say US and allies) helped rebuilding those nations because the last time theythey went to war and oppressed a nation caused the ruse of Hitler which led to the war they just fought. So it would be insane to do that again.

[Linky]

My Uncle "Bud" was born in 1926.....which means in 1945 he was approaching 20 years old.

He was in the US ARMY AIR FORCE as it was known then.

He was in Texas, training as a Glider Pilot.

He wasn't told then but in 1945 the war with Germany was almost over.... now no more invasionsby air of Germany

My Uncle was training for an Airborne invasion of somewhere....soldiers in Gliders dropping somewhere..... as was done on D-Day in France.

So where was that invasion to be.

It was obviously Japan and my Uncle was being trained to be in the invasion by air of Japan.

It never happened because the A-Bomb meant there was no Invasion of Japan.

My uncle is in his 80's today.... and he has said often while he doesn't applaud the dropping of A-Bombs.... those bombs probably mean he did not die in that (non-existent) invasion of Japan he was being trained for in 1945 or 1946.

He feels the A-Bombs dropped on Japan were the reason he is still alive.

The U.S expected there would be about 1 million U.S. casualties in the two planned invasions of Japan. And up to 4 million Japanese besides many of them civilians. The Japanese Army intended to destroy the city of Tokyo rather than surrender it.

A lot of people, like my Uncle did not die because of those two bombs.

War is a game where men die..... not fun no matter how it is done.

War is a cruel thing.

Your uncle was a lucky man.

Many many Japanese uncles were not.

[Credo]

My Uncle "Bud" was born in 1926.....which means in 1945 he was approaching 20 years old.

He was in the US ARMY AIR FORCE as it was known then.

He was in Texas, training as a Glider Pilot.

He wasn't told then but in 1945 the war with Germany was almost over.... now no more invasionsby air of Germany

My Uncle was training for an Airborne invasion of somewhere....soldiers in Gliders dropping somewhere..... as was done on D-Day in France.

So where was that invasion to be.

It was obviously Japan and my Uncle was being trained to be in the invasion by air of Japan.

It never happened because the A-Bomb meant there was no Invasion of Japan.

My uncle is in his 80's today.... and he has said often while he doesn't applaud the dropping of A-Bombs.... those bombs probably mean he did not die in that (non-existent) invasion of Japan he was being trained for in 1945 or 1946.

He feels the A-Bombs dropped on Japan were the reason he is still alive.

The U.S expected there would be about 1 million U.S. casualties in the two planned invasions of Japan. And up to 4 million Japanese besides many of them civilians. The Japanese Army intended to destroy the city of Tokyo rather than surrender it.

A lot of people, like my Uncle did not die because of those two bombs.

War is a game where men die..... not fun no matter how it is done.

War is a cruel thing.

Your uncle was a lucky man.

Many many Japanese uncles were not.

....And many, many Japanese were lucky that this brought an early end to a brutal war.

[Credo]

how many innocent babies, children, women, old persons had to die

and USA, the big hero, right ?

sometimes I think with GMO, fast food, food chemicals, obesety rates, cancer records, the americans are being punished for their crimes against humanity for all the wars to started / got involved in when they had no business there in the first place

You might want to look elsewhere to who started the war being discussed in this thread.

[KarenBravo]

@sammy good(grief)

What crimes against humanity? Be specific.

World War 2, they were attacked by the Japanese and played a big part in the defeat of Germany (you know, that country that killed 6 million defenceless Jews, Roma etc).

They stopped the Bosnian War and the genocide that went with it.

All of Korea would be under that looney Kim Jong Un if they didn't help in the Korean War.

Only mistakes that I see they made was Vietnam & Iraq.

Edited August 4, 2015 by KarenBravo

[chuckd]

I used to think that the US (because it owned the skies) could have dropped that bomb on a small uninhabited Jap island - to show it's devastating power. ...and thereby avoiding the Hiroshima tragedy. Similarly, one of the bombs could have been dropped on a purely military target, although Nagasaki could be said to have been a military target of sorts, because there was so much military manufacturing there. Yet, because the US only had 2 bombs, and the Japs were so fixated about fighting to the last man, ...I've come to accept the macabre sense of dropping the bombs on partially civilian targets.

Still, what was it about Hiroshima? Was it convenience of location?, its population size? less comparative # or AAA, or was there significant military (or weapons manufacturing) there? ....or was it simply picked out of a hat of mid-sized Japanese cities?

Another thing that's stumped me about the war ending: Did the Chinese get reparations from the Japanese? Granted, the Chinese weren't unified, as they had a civil war going on, so perhaps they couldn't put together an official contingent to go and demand reparations. Also, the Chinese got Manchuria back (known as Machuoko under Japanese occupation) - so maybe that was sufficient at the time.

Someone mentioned the Soviets. Yes, the Russkies declared war on Japan just before the Pacific war ended. If the war had gone on a bit longer, it's not too outlandish that the Soviets would have taken over Hokkaido. As it stands now, Russians lay claim to some islands north of Hokkaido, which is disputed by the Japanese.

Still, what was it about Hiroshima? Was it convenience of location?, its population size? less comparative # or AAA, or was there significant military (or weapons manufacturing) there? ....or was it simply picked out of a hat of mid-sized Japanese cities?

The answer is here. They had no Allied POW camp.

The U.S. began in spring 1945 studying targets for the atomic bomb. To ensure that the effects of the atomic bombing could be accurately observed, potential target cities were required to have an urban area at least three miles in diameter (about 4.8 km), and air raids in those cities were prohibited. On July 25, 1945, an order was issued calling for the first atomic bomb to be dropped on one of the following cities: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, and Nagasaki. The order naming Hiroshima as the primary target was issued on August 2. One reason is that Hiroshima was the only city thought to have no Allied prisoner-of-war camps. On August 6, the sky over Hiroshima was clear. The city’s fate was sealed.

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/visit_e/est_e/panel/A2_2/2301.htm

[impulse]

Just taking this discussion along a bit....

What are your views on the Kamikaze Pilots - heartless bastards, fanatics, mindless drones, or brave young men, defending what they thought was right?

Just pragmatic.

Later on in the war when US aircraft were improved, something like 95% of the Japanese pilots were being killed in a typical air battle anyway, with very limited effect.

For another 5% chance of being killed, they were able to rain down havoc on the enemy. And get mentioned posthumously to the Emperor.

It's the land based bastards with their futile banzai charges that I don't get.

[pmarlowe]

Soldiers have always been willing to die for their country. Japanese soldiers seemed to have been willing to commit suicide for their emperor. There is a difference that seems to play in the decision to use the bomb.

[Linky]

My Uncle "Bud" was born in 1926.....which means in 1945 he was approaching 20 years old.

He was in the US ARMY AIR FORCE as it was known then.

He was in Texas, training as a Glider Pilot.

He wasn't told then but in 1945 the war with Germany was almost over.... now no more invasionsby air of Germany

My Uncle was training for an Airborne invasion of somewhere....soldiers in Gliders dropping somewhere..... as was done on D-Day in France.

So where was that invasion to be.

It was obviously Japan and my Uncle was being trained to be in the invasion by air of Japan.

It never happened because the A-Bomb meant there was no Invasion of Japan.

My uncle is in his 80's today.... and he has said often while he doesn't applaud the dropping of A-Bombs.... those bombs probably mean he did not die in that (non-existent) invasion of Japan he was being trained for in 1945 or 1946.

He feels the A-Bombs dropped on Japan were the reason he is still alive.

The U.S expected there would be about 1 million U.S. casualties in the two planned invasions of Japan. And up to 4 million Japanese besides many of them civilians. The Japanese Army intended to destroy the city of Tokyo rather than surrender it.

A lot of people, like my Uncle did not die because of those two bombs.

War is a game where men die..... not fun no matter how it is done.

War is a cruel thing.

Your uncle was a lucky man.

Many many Japanese uncles were not.

....And many, many Japanese were lucky that this brought an early end to a brutal war.

So you think they did it to spare Japanese lives? How odd considering the answernis in the OP, about the amount of US lives.

Dont kid yourself that the US did this to save Japanese lives, that is the last thing they would consider.

[klauskunkel]

(From Tokyo just before midnight EWT came a broadcast saying Emperor Hirohito had told the Japanese people by radio that the Allies had begun "to employ a new and most cruel bomb" — the atomic bomb — and that to continue to fight "would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

(Hirohito said "this is the reason" the Japanese decided to get out of the war.)

What a desperately face-saving, lying war criminal puppet-on-a-string this emperor of Japan was. Telling his people that the reason for surrendering was altruism and humanitarian in putting "human civilization" first. Human civilization was never in jeopardy, Japanese civilization, on the other hand, was.

[ABCer]

Considering the OP and the well researched topic of WWII - a great variety of views and opinions

on when it started, when it ended, should have the A-bombs been dropped, how many lives lost etc.

I liked a rather fresh view by Karen Bravo, saying it all started in 1914 and ended in 1989.

If I am permitted to ask: - Are we sure it has ended?

The history of human conflict never ended and there is no end in sight.

Never Sure gives a good answer to the question of 'war crimes'. It's the winners who write history.

But on a larger scale of time with change of luck I understand the concept of 'past history is uncertain just as the future is'.

Meaning it may and often is re-written.

Edited August 4, 2015 by ABCer

[Publicus]

There was a different philosophy and there were different treaties about war in WWII. It's also noteworthy that WWII is the last war that the allies won outright to to point of surrender.

The belief then was to get the people of a country to want their leaders to surrender. The people of each country were held responsible for the leaders they allowed to have power. The war was against an entire country, not just some guy in a foxhole.

Berlin was bombed mercilessly 363 times without regard to any casualties. Those who weren't killed were often left badly injured and without utilities including clean water and without housing. Certainly their medical care was disrupted. The plan was to bring Berlin to its knees. The same was true of the nukes in Japan. Why sacrifice the lives of allied soldiers to get control of a country that had bombed Pearl Harbor and taken over much of Asia? "Let the Japanese die rather than losing invading allied troops."

Now we have PC wars which we can't and don't win and we never will unless we once again decide that war is hell and let it all hang out.

Cheers.

The US has not been subjected to major destruction of it's cities, infrastructure and mass civilian casualties by an enemy nation since the advent of modern warfare. I often wonder if today US nationals would support total war if their homeland had suffered the destruction and civilian deaths wrought by war as other nations in the 20th & 21st centuries. As the US is currently the only superpower, IMO support for a policy of total war does comes across as arrogant.

I do believe the the Marshall Plan and rebuilding of Japanese institutions after WW11 are excellent examples of enlightened US policy.

The US engaged in "total war" in Europe in WWII to help the allies in Europe. The US didn't even want to be there and it wasn't until Churchill almost begged long enough and until Pearl Harbor. The US was actually determined to stay out of WWII until it couldn't be avoided. First the US responded to requests from Churchill to supply equipment after so many of the UK's ships were sunk and so many planes were shot down.

Eventually the inevitable happened but it took Pearl Harbor to wake up the US population to the point of wanting the war. Once the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor the "sleeping giant" was not going to be stopped. The nukes were just part of taking out the trash.

It is noteworthy that the US and allies took no spoils of war but to the contrary helped defeated nations to rebuild including allowing them to export their Volkswagens, Toyotas, toys and electronics, etc.

Cheers.

Quite sad the US didnt want to be involved considering many nations that were not affected still sent troops to assist.

The allies (no need to say US and allies) helped rebuilding those nations because the last time theythey went to war and oppressed a nation caused the ruse of Hitler which led to the war they just fought. So it would be insane to do that again.

Quite sad some people wanted the US involved in Europe's continuum of 2500 years of religious war, tribal slaughter, ethnic mayhem, in the instance of WW2 in Europe prior to December 7, 1941.

Especially sad so soon after the Great European War (1914-1918 aka eventually as WWone) the United States entered to save England and France collapsing into the arms of the collapsing Germany and all of 'em crashing to the ground in a moribund heap. Our ancestors left Europe in a large part to escape European religious, tribal and ethnic primitivism thank you, which we btw see Mr. 1917 Himself Vladimir Putin is doing his best to preserve.

Correct however, that there is no need to say "US and Allies" because saying "Allies" quite suffices. However, given the US globally was the 800 pound gorilla of World War Two the rhetorical touch is more than justified. Certain picayune and resistant types are just going to have to learn to suck that one up and move past it.

Europe needed US direction to be reestablished as a functioning and coherent civilization for a number of reasons to include the one mentioned in the post. The reasons also included to preclude the USSR and Marxism-Leninism exploiting Europe's self-destruction of Europe....yet once again.

As President Bill Clinton said during a visit to his ancestral home of Ireland, some places (Europe) have too much history. Most of the world in fact.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Publicus

[Usernames]

Ever wonder why the Japanese go on and on about Hiroshima and hardly ever mention Nagasaki?

[Linky]

There was a different philosophy and there were different treaties about war in WWII. It's also noteworthy that WWII is the last war that the allies won outright to to point of surrender.

The belief then was to get the people of a country to want their leaders to surrender. The people of each country were held responsible for the leaders they allowed to have power. The war was against an entire country, not just some guy in a foxhole.

Berlin was bombed mercilessly 363 times without regard to any casualties. Those who weren't killed were often left badly injured and without utilities including clean water and without housing. Certainly their medical care was disrupted. The plan was to bring Berlin to its knees. The same was true of the nukes in Japan. Why sacrifice the lives of allied soldiers to get control of a country that had bombed Pearl Harbor and taken over much of Asia? "Let the Japanese die rather than losing invading allied troops."

Now we have PC wars which we can't and don't win and we never will unless we once again decide that war is hell and let it all hang out.

Cheers.

The US has not been subjected to major destruction of it's cities, infrastructure and mass civilian casualties by an enemy nation since the advent of modern warfare. I often wonder if today US nationals would support total war if their homeland had suffered the destruction and civilian deaths wrought by war as other nations in the 20th & 21st centuries. As the US is currently the only superpower, IMO support for a policy of total war does comes across as arrogant.

I do believe the the Marshall Plan and rebuilding of Japanese institutions after WW11 are excellent examples of enlightened US policy.

The US engaged in "total war" in Europe in WWII to help the allies in Europe. The US didn't even want to be there and it wasn't until Churchill almost begged long enough and until Pearl Harbor. The US was actually determined to stay out of WWII until it couldn't be avoided. First the US responded to requests from Churchill to supply equipment after so many of the UK's ships were sunk and so many planes were shot down.

Eventually the inevitable happened but it took Pearl Harbor to wake up the US population to the point of wanting the war. Once the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor the "sleeping giant" was not going to be stopped. The nukes were just part of taking out the trash.

It is noteworthy that the US and allies took no spoils of war but to the contrary helped defeated nations to rebuild including allowing them to export their Volkswagens, Toyotas, toys and electronics, etc.

Cheers.

Quite sad the US didnt want to be involved considering many nations that were not affected still sent troops to assist.

The allies (no need to say US and allies) helped rebuilding those nations because the last time theythey went to war and oppressed a nation caused the ruse of Hitler which led to the war they just fought. So it would be insane to do that again.

Quite sad some people wanted the US involved in Europe's continuum of 2500 years of religious war, tribal slaughter, ethnic mayhem, in the instance of WW2 in Europe prior to December 7, 1941.

Especially sad so soon after the Great European War (1914-1918 aka eventually as WWone) the United States entered to save England and France collapsing into the arms of the collapsing Germany and all of 'em crashing to the ground in a moribund heap. Our ancestors left Europe in a large part to escape European religious, tribal and ethnic primitivism thank you, which we btw see Mr. 1917 Himself Vladimir Putin is doing his best to preserve.

Correct however, that there is no need to say "US and Allies" because saying "Allies" quite suffices. However, given the US globally was the 800 pound gorilla of World War Two the rhetorical touch is more than justified. Certain picayune and resistant types are just going to have to learn to suck that one up and move past it.

Europe needed US direction to be reestablished as a functioning and coherent civilization for a number of reasons to include the one mentioned in the post. The reasons also included to preclude the USSR and Marxism-Leninism exploiting Europe's self-destruction of Europe....yet once again.

As President Bill Clinton said during a visit to his ancestral home of Ireland, some places (Europe) have too much history. Most of the world in fact.

Quite sad some think the US was the only country not ''directly involved' to join the war. Which was my point that you seemed to miss. Australia and New Zealand and others were very involved in the world wars but didnt go demanding anything for it.

The US didnt enter out of the goodness of their heart.

[Publicus]

Quite sad the US didnt want to be involved considering many nations that were not affected still sent troops to assist.

The allies (no need to say US and allies) helped rebuilding those nations because the last time theythey went to war and oppressed a nation caused the ruse of Hitler which led to the war they just fought. So it would be insane to do that again.

Quite sad some people wanted the US involved in Europe's continuum of 2500 years of religious war, tribal slaughter, ethnic mayhem, in the instance of WW2 in Europe prior to December 7, 1941.

Especially sad so soon after the Great European War (1914-1918 aka eventually as WWone) the United States entered to save England and France collapsing into the arms of the collapsing Germany and all of 'em crashing to the ground in a moribund heap. Our ancestors left Europe in a large part to escape European religious, tribal and ethnic primitivism thank you, which we btw see Mr. 1917 Himself Vladimir Putin is doing his best to preserve.

Correct however, that there is no need to say "US and Allies" because saying "Allies" quite suffices. However, given the US globally was the 800 pound gorilla of World War Two the rhetorical touch is more than justified. Certain picayune and resistant types are just going to have to learn to suck that one up and move past it.

Europe needed US direction to be reestablished as a functioning and coherent civilization for a number of reasons to include the one mentioned in the post. The reasons also included to preclude the USSR and Marxism-Leninism exploiting Europe's self-destruction of Europe....yet once again.

As President Bill Clinton said during a visit to his ancestral home of Ireland, some places (Europe) have too much history. Most of the world in fact.

Quite sad some think the US was the only country not ''directly involved' to join the war. Which was my point that you seemed to miss. Australia and New Zealand and others were very involved in the world wars but didnt go demanding anything for it.

The US didnt enter out of the goodness of their heart.

Australia and New Zealand had always been a part of the British Empire and if ordered to duty by the Crown that rules over them went. Add Canada to that. There also was a moral obligation many in the three Crown possessions felt to the mother country, especially in the two world wars of the 20th century.

More recently in history, Aus-NZ were in the British Commonwealth of Nations which is now simply the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth continues to include Australia, New Zealand, Canada among many other former colonies that are now federations or commonwealths. The United States had left that behind starting in 1776.

And the post continues with its insistence the USA "demanded" something or things to get involved in the two world wars of the 20th century, whatever it is that theory goes on about.

The Eagle Squadron pilot volunteers of the US Army Air Corps fought with the RAF until the time the US entered the war in Europe, yet another Great European War (or resumption thereof). US General Clair Chennault's Flying Tigers consisting of volunteer US Army Air Corps pilots fought in China against the Japanese prior to December 7, 1941.

Nobody fights a war out of the goodness of their heart so do kindly let us know what it is you are on about.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Publicus

[HenryB]

Thank You

Mr Truman

For Saving Americans, Thais etc and many more Japaneses lives by dropping the bomb

I think the Japanese are sorry for inviting America into the war by attaching Pearl Harbor.

Edited August 5, 2015 by HenryB

[RKASA]

That's impossible for me to understand why this isn't considered a war crime and the responsibles weren't taken to the court...

"impossible for me to understand" We can see that.

Let me help - ending the war the hard way would have caused the US to end up meeting the Russians just north of Tokyo and today we would have a vary different map of the world. More like a North and South Japan.

The option of going the long route was on the table to the last minute - it was the actions of the Russians that pushed the button more then anything else - not even the Japanese refusing to give up.

It was about the cost and consequence of not dropping it that caused the bomb to be used - if it was about killing people they would have dropped it on Tokyo.

[Grouse]

That's impossible for me to understand why this isn't considered a war crime and the responsibles weren't taken to the court...

because the winner writes the book of history......If the Germans would have dropped the bomb all scientists, politicians, engineers and airplane staff would have been hang.

That reminds me of a story.

When it was realized that an atomic bomb was possible the Nazis asked Werner Heisenberg, one of the greatest Physicists of all time, to calculate how much U235 would be necessary for critical mass.

He calculated it would need to be the size of a volkswagon, an impractical amount of U235, and the Nazis consequently did not seriously pursue such a bomb. In reality far, far less is needed.

It has been speculated that this "error" was quite intentional.

As a matter of principle, I should point out that there seems to be some uncertainty here..........

[Rancid]

Interesting that half the US General staff were against dropping the bomb as they believed the war was all but over. Some suggest it was a warning to the Russians, but it is really all speculation now. Regardless it happened, as is now part of history, and it made the US the only country in the world to ever nuke civilian cities.

[F430murci]

Interesting that half the US General staff were against dropping the bomb as they believed the war was all but over. Some suggest it was a warning to the Russians, but it is really all speculation now. Regardless it happened, as is now part of history, and it made the US the only country in the world to ever nuke civilian cities.

Only because we had it first. Russians, Germans, Japanese et al would have had no hesitation to do the same if they had a bomb. WWII was brutal from all sides.