SURVEY: Do you believe the using of the atomic bomb during WWII was justified?

[retarius]

The results of the vote only prove that the majority of Thaivisa members are Americans or Pro American...

And drink the Kool Aid propaganda from the US government.

[billd766]

The results of the vote only prove that the majority of Thaivisa members are Americans or Pro American...

I am British and was pro American a while ago but sort of ambivalent now. There are probably many more like me here on TVF.

[billd766]

Yes it was justified.

IT STOPPED THE WAR against Japan.

And SAVED MANY LIVES.

This is simply NOT true !!!

It's what your masters want you to believe ... still, it's not true !

Yes it is true.

YOU may not want to believe it but it is still true.

[jtTamad]

The problem about the question is that most people have a very wrong impression of what really happened in WWII.

The history you learn in school is twisted and mostly quite far away from the real events.

The reasons for WWI and WWII are very different from what all of us are made to believe.

Cue Bono is the question to ask and if talking history patriotism or nationalism is to be kept out f the discussion !

NOBODY who participated in the war can be a winner !

No country won the war but all of humanity lost.

What people obviously don't want to understand is that we are all pawns in a game of some mighty people.

If they did they would never even try to defend bombings and killings as "necessary" ... that's where the deep brainwash comes to light.

It is completely irrelevant where you come from .... calling yourself [or your country] a winner of a war is just insane !!!

... and the people who had the real benefits of all of these wars are laughing their asses of on how stupid the world has become !!!

[Rothchild, Rockefeller, JP Morgan ..... they all sound very Japanese I guess]

More reason to vote for Bernie!

[Kerryd]

It saddens me to see that so many TVF members would (apparently) have preferred that the Allies (and the US in particular) had continued their campaign of fire-bombing Japanese cities and slaughtering hundreds of thousands more Japanese, and then lost 10s of thousands of their own troops while trying to invade Japan. Not to mention all the civilians who would have committed suicide rather than be captured. (Remember what happened at Okinawa where thousands of civilians killed themselves, in large part because the Japanese military had convinced them the Americans would rape, brutalize and murder them if they were captured. The military even handed out hand grenades to help the civilians kill themselves while others, including whole family groups, threw themselves off cliffs into the ocean. The Japanese military themselves had also slaughtered thousands of Okinawans to prevent them from becoming spies for the enemy. The devastation that would have occurred on the Japanese islands would have been horrendous if the Allies had of been forced to invade.)

To help put some things into perspective. In WW II Germany fielded (approx) 18 million military personnel. Of those roughly 5.5 mil are listed as Killed/Missing and 11.1 mil as Captured/POW (62.2 %). Russia had about 34.5 million military with (approx) 10.7 mil killed and 5.7 mil captured (16.5%) . Italy had about 3.4 mil military with 290,000 killed and 1.3 mil captured (38.2%).

Meanwhile Japan had about 8.4 mil military with 2.1-3.4 mil killed (depending on whose estimates are used) and - only - 40,000 captured (0.48 %). Why so few ? Because they were conditioned to fight to the death rather than surrender. They preferred taking their own lives rather than suffer the indignity of defeat or capture. They would have fought to the last man to defend their country, their families and their Emperor and there were still millions of them on the Japanese islands.

It saddens me to see so many that apparently are under the impression that the only civilians killed in Japan where from the 2 atomic bombs while the fact is hundreds of thousands were killed in the high-explosive and incendiary (fire bombs) bombings that had been going on for over a year before Hiroshima, and continued right up until the Japanese finally surrendered. One single firebomb raid on Tokyo (on 9 March 1945) is estimated to have killed between 88,000-200,000 people (mostly civilians). Some consider those estimates to be on the low side though as that raid alone destroyed over 15 square miles of the city and the population density of the destroyed area was estimated to be 103,000 people per square mile. Every major and many minor Japanese cities had also been devastated by firebombings during that time.

It saddens me to see that so many overlook the fact that the Japanese had the opportunity to surrender before the bombs were dropped and didn't. (The Potsdam Declaration was issued on 26 July. On 28 July Japan rejected it. 9 days later the first A Bomb was dropped.)

They had the opportunity to surrender after the first bomb was dropped and didn't. The US president called for them to surrender 6 hours after Hiroshima was hit with the first atomic bomb ever used. They refused.

After the second bomb was dropped the military wanted to continue fighting. They even tried to stage a coup and prevent the Emperor from announcing Japan's surrender.

Dropping those A Bombs directly influenced the Emperor's decision to surrender. In the speech he recorded on 14 August (which was broadcast on the 15th after the failed military coup attempt) the Emperor said:

"Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."

(In a separate speech 2 days later he mentions the Soviets and that their intervention in Manchuria had impacted his decision but as he told MacArthur a few days later, he never stated that they were the main reason for his decision to surrender.)

Had Japan not surrendered the mass carpet bombings of Japanese cities would have continued up until at least the 19th when the 3rd A Bomb would have been ready to go. Had the US gone with the idea of waiting until they had a few more ready and then dropping them in rapid succession (as one plan apparently suggested) the firebombing of Japanese cities would have continued for weeks and millions could have, would have, died. The US Air Force was able to send 500+ bombers to bomb anywhere in Japan, at any time, without having to worry about opposition (on the night of the Hiroshima bombing there were over 605 US planes conducting bombing raids on other Japanese cities). The invasion of Japan would have gone ahead as planned and the additional A Bombs may have been used to help facilitate that invasion.

Residents of the (small) city of Kokura must have felt blessed upon learning that their city was the alternate target for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The pilots were told to aim visually (instead of using their radar) and if cloud cover prevented them from seeing their primary target they would switch to the alternate. The skies over Hiroshima were mostly clear when the bomber arrived.

Kokura was then the intended target for the second A-Bomb but again escaped fate because it was too cloudy for the pilot (bombardier actually) to see the target so they had to go to their alternate which was Nagasaki.

At that time, the use of those weapons was justified. People look back at it now with a different perspective and without having to weigh the costs of using those weapons compared to the lives that could be saved. They judge those who approved the use of those bombs without ever having had to exercise the same degree of responsibility or having borne the same weight of leadership on their shoulders. It's easy to judge and criticize others when you have never had to deal with any of the things they had to.

If you were in the same position they were, at the same time, with the same knowledge they had, there is little doubt that you too would have probably made the same decisions. You can get your hackles up and get all self-righteously indignant and claim you would have never allowed those bombs to be used but that would be absolute horse**** because you would be making that claim based on your current knowledge and circumstances.

Try making a decision like that when you've got the fate of an entire nation in your hands and 100s of thousands of your fellow citizens have already died and you are facing the prospect of possibly having to watch hundreds of thousands more die before it ends. Try bearing the burden of responsibility and having to think past the end of the war to what the future may look like.

Then try telling me that killing 200,000 people with 2 bombs that resulted in the war ending can't be justified. Try telling me that not using those weapons and instead prolonging the war for months (or more) and watching (potentially) millions die would have been the better option.

Added benefit. The US using those bombs not only showed the Soviets that the US had them and how powerful they were, but also showed they were willing to use them. What would have happened to the world if that hadn't of happened ? The Soviets would have built their own bombs and possibly been a lot more willing to use them. It's no secret that they wanted to spread their version of Communism throughout the world and they had no qualms about crushing anyone who opposed them. They had a mighty war machine and an evil political machine as well. Their NKVD and KGB made the Nazis look like amateurs when it came to exterminating opposition. Under Stalin it is estimated that as many as 60 million Russians and Eastern Europeans were killed (someone averaged all the "Big" and "Small" numbers and came up with an average estimate of 30 million deaths). That was just against their own people !

Keep in mind that the Soviets were also responsible for arming North Korea, providing advisers and even flying combat missions for them when North Korea decided to attack the South in 1950. As I mentioned previously, it has been suggested that the Chinese refrained from throwing their full weight into the conflict because of the rumour that the US would retaliate with nukes (and had in fact prepositioned some weapons within range of China). Same could be said for Russia. Had the Americans not used those weapons on Japan it is very likely that the Korean war would have had a totally different outcome and all of Europe could be speaking Russian right now.

(Without the Nuclear Deterrent it is quite possible that the Soviets would have invaded Western Europe long ago. In the eighties they had the men, equipment and the idea that they could reach the French border in a week, crushing the NATO and American forces along the way. A week after that and they'd have secured all of Europe and most likely the UK and Scandinavia as well. There was only one thing stopping them.)

It's easy for people these days to say those bombs shouldn't have been used. It would have been hard for people in those days to say those bombs shouldn't be used.

[Ulysses G.]

It's easy for people these days to say those bombs shouldn't have been used. It would have been hard for people in those days to say those bombs shouldn't be used.

Because people in those days would have had to pay the price to invade Japan.

[VINCENT2012]

i am totally against nuclear unless the one used in medecine but at that time, if the usa did not make and use that bomb first, hitler's ingeneeres for sure who where nearly to find the solution and to make it, would have use it at once against the rest of the world.

at that time it was a very strong military rush to domain the sky with new reactors air plane surches, new missile (better than the allready very destructive V1 AND V2) and the atomic bomb.

the humans can not be proud of that act but perhpas it has been better like this at that time, now it is diferent... only creazy governments want to keep those destructive wapons.

[Emster23]

Just a comment on Thai education regarding WWII: my ex went to a high school for gifted students. I asked her what they taught her about the war. She said "Taught USA very bad for dropping atomic bombs on Japan". I asked "Did they by chance explain why the bombs were dropped, what the Japanese did?" She shook her head no....

[Credo]

Thanks, Kerryd, for that very informative and eloquent post.

[VINCENT2012]

Yes it was justified.

IT STOPPED THE WAR against Japan.

And SAVED MANY LIVES.

This is simply NOT true !!!

It's what your masters want you to believe ... still, it's not true !

Yes it is true.

YOU may not want to believe it but it is still true.

of course it is true, after the bombing the japanese surender. thats history ............not hard to find and to understand the reason why.

you can not contest a fact!!! or are you in amood?

[RickBradford]

i am totally against nuclear unless the one used in medecine but at that time, if the usa did not make and use that bomb first, hitler's ingeneeres for sure who where nearly to find the solution and to make it, would have use it at once against the rest of the world

Excuse me, Germany had already surrendered by the time the atom bombs were dropped on Japan. "hitler's ingeneeres" were out of business.

The Japanese seemed to be completely set on not surrendering, which was part of the reason for the difficult decision to use these weapons.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.

[shaurene]

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

They could have surended after the first one. The Emporer was taking his orders from the military like all western leaders do. The only one that did his own thing was JFK on the Cuban thing when his top military was pushing him to attack.

Before they dropped it the USA was working on their next attack which was the southern islands in Japan and the islands had most all their remaining forces stationed there. The UA estimated that they would lose around 4-5 thousand troops taking it.

It ended the war at a less cost to life. I was 5 at the time from Liverpool.

[lostoday]

Classic case of the 'victor writes the history'....killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to get to Japan before the Russians, who were rampaging through Manchuria at the rate of 100 miles a day against no resistance, while America was bogged down in the islands, is not and was not justified. It is a war crime, pure and simple.

Bomb dropped Aug 6th. Russian invasion of Manchuria Aug 9th. Bomb dropped before Russian rampaging so back and do your homework better.

[masuk]

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

Japanese camp commandants were instructed to eliminate all evidence of war crimes and atrocities to POWs, if Japan was to surrender.

It has been said that if the bombs were not dropped, surrender may not have been announced by the Emperor, where he instructed POW camp commandants to do no harm to ALL POWs, Allied as well as American.

In some cases, Japanese guards remained armed to protect the POWs, as in the case of Indonesia, the locals wanted to get their hands on the Dutch prisoners.

[shaurene]

It saddens me to see that so many TVF members would (apparently) have preferred that the Allies (and the US in particular) had continued their campaign of fire-bombing Japanese cities and slaughtering hundreds of thousands more Japanese, and then lost 10s of thousands of their own troops while trying to invade Japan. Not to mention all the civilians who would have committed suicide rather than be captured. (Remember what happened at Okinawa where thousands of civilians killed themselves, in large part because the Japanese military had convinced them the Americans would rape, brutalize and murder them if they were captured. The military even handed out hand grenades to help the civilians kill themselves while others, including whole family groups, threw themselves off cliffs into the ocean. The Japanese military themselves had also slaughtered thousands of Okinawans to prevent them from becoming spies for the enemy. The devastation that would have occurred on the Japanese islands would have been horrendous if the Allies had of been forced to invade.)

To help put some things into perspective. In WW II Germany fielded (approx) 18 million military personnel. Of those roughly 5.5 mil are listed as Killed/Missing and 11.1 mil as Captured/POW (62.2 %). Russia had about 34.5 million military with (approx) 10.7 mil killed and 5.7 mil captured (16.5%) . Italy had about 3.4 mil military with 290,000 killed and 1.3 mil captured (38.2%).

Meanwhile Japan had about 8.4 mil military with 2.1-3.4 mil killed (depending on whose estimates are used) and - only - 40,000 captured (0.48 %). Why so few ? Because they were conditioned to fight to the death rather than surrender. They preferred taking their own lives rather than suffer the indignity of defeat or capture. They would have fought to the last man to defend their country, their families and their Emperor and there were still millions of them on the Japanese islands.

It saddens me to see so many that apparently are under the impression that the only civilians killed in Japan where from the 2 atomic bombs while the fact is hundreds of thousands were killed in the high-explosive and incendiary (fire bombs) bombings that had been going on for over a year before Hiroshima, and continued right up until the Japanese finally surrendered. One single firebomb raid on Tokyo (on 9 March 1945) is estimated to have killed between 88,000-200,000 people (mostly civilians). Some consider those estimates to be on the low side though as that raid alone destroyed over 15 square miles of the city and the population density of the destroyed area was estimated to be 103,000 people per square mile. Every major and many minor Japanese cities had also been devastated by firebombings during that time.

It saddens me to see that so many overlook the fact that the Japanese had the opportunity to surrender before the bombs were dropped and didn't. (The Potsdam Declaration was issued on 26 July. On 28 July Japan rejected it. 9 days later the first A Bomb was dropped.)

They had the opportunity to surrender after the first bomb was dropped and didn't. The US president called for them to surrender 6 hours after Hiroshima was hit with the first atomic bomb ever used. They refused.

After the second bomb was dropped the military wanted to continue fighting. They even tried to stage a coup and prevent the Emperor from announcing Japan's surrender.

Dropping those A Bombs directly influenced the Emperor's decision to surrender. In the speech he recorded on 14 August (which was broadcast on the 15th after the failed military coup attempt) the Emperor said:

"Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."

(In a separate speech 2 days later he mentions the Soviets and that their intervention in Manchuria had impacted his decision but as he told MacArthur a few days later, he never stated that they were the main reason for his decision to surrender.)

Had Japan not surrendered the mass carpet bombings of Japanese cities would have continued up until at least the 19th when the 3rd A Bomb would have been ready to go. Had the US gone with the idea of waiting until they had a few more ready and then dropping them in rapid succession (as one plan apparently suggested) the firebombing of Japanese cities would have continued for weeks and millions could have, would have, died. The US Air Force was able to send 500+ bombers to bomb anywhere in Japan, at any time, without having to worry about opposition (on the night of the Hiroshima bombing there were over 605 US planes conducting bombing raids on other Japanese cities). The invasion of Japan would have gone ahead as planned and the additional A Bombs may have been used to help facilitate that invasion.

Residents of the (small) city of Kokura must have felt blessed upon learning that their city was the alternate target for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The pilots were told to aim visually (instead of using their radar) and if cloud cover prevented them from seeing their primary target they would switch to the alternate. The skies over Hiroshima were mostly clear when the bomber arrived.

Kokura was then the intended target for the second A-Bomb but again escaped fate because it was too cloudy for the pilot (bombardier actually) to see the target so they had to go to their alternate which was Nagasaki.

At that time, the use of those weapons was justified. People look back at it now with a different perspective and without having to weigh the costs of using those weapons compared to the lives that could be saved. They judge those who approved the use of those bombs without ever having had to exercise the same degree of responsibility or having borne the same weight of leadership on their shoulders. It's easy to judge and criticize others when you have never had to deal with any of the things they had to.

If you were in the same position they were, at the same time, with the same knowledge they had, there is little doubt that you too would have probably made the same decisions. You can get your hackles up and get all self-righteously indignant and claim you would have never allowed those bombs to be used but that would be absolute horse**** because you would be making that claim based on your current knowledge and circumstances.

Try making a decision like that when you've got the fate of an entire nation in your hands and 100s of thousands of your fellow citizens have already died and you are facing the prospect of possibly having to watch hundreds of thousands more die before it ends. Try bearing the burden of responsibility and having to think past the end of the war to what the future may look like.

Then try telling me that killing 200,000 people with 2 bombs that resulted in the war ending can't be justified. Try telling me that not using those weapons and instead prolonging the war for months (or more) and watching (potentially) millions die would have been the better option.

Added benefit. The US using those bombs not only showed the Soviets that the US had them and how powerful they were, but also showed they were willing to use them. What would have happened to the world if that hadn't of happened ? The Soviets would have built their own bombs and possibly been a lot more willing to use them. It's no secret that they wanted to spread their version of Communism throughout the world and they had no qualms about crushing anyone who opposed them. They had a mighty war machine and an evil political machine as well. Their NKVD and KGB made the Nazis look like amateurs when it came to exterminating opposition. Under Stalin it is estimated that as many as 60 million Russians and Eastern Europeans were killed (someone averaged all the "Big" and "Small" numbers and came up with an average estimate of 30 million deaths). That was just against their own people !

Keep in mind that the Soviets were also responsible for arming North Korea, providing advisers and even flying combat missions for them when North Korea decided to attack the South in 1950. As I mentioned previously, it has been suggested that the Chinese refrained from throwing their full weight into the conflict because of the rumour that the US would retaliate with nukes (and had in fact prepositioned some weapons within range of China). Same could be said for Russia. Had the Americans not used those weapons on Japan it is very likely that the Korean war would have had a totally different outcome and all of Europe could be speaking Russian right now.

(Without the Nuclear Deterrent it is quite possible that the Soviets would have invaded Western Europe long ago. In the eighties they had the men, equipment and the idea that they could reach the French border in a week, crushing the NATO and American forces along the way. A week after that and they'd have secured all of Europe and most likely the UK and Scandinavia as well. There was only one thing stopping them.)

It's easy for people these days to say those bombs shouldn't have been used. It would have been hard for people in those days to say those bombs shouldn't be used.

Agree with you 100% Kerryd. It was also good for the world that Patton was in that sett up crash that killed him because of his big mouth wanting to carry on and invade into Russia. I am sure the high ups arranged that.

[pmarlowe]

This has been highly entertaining and I've actually learned a few things. But, as they say, history is written by the victors. What they don't say is that history is localized by the losers. The textbooks in China, Japan, North Korea, Russians -- not to mention those written by the other Allies and Axis powers -- seem to tell vastly different stories. Anyway, mods, you have a projectable sample in favor. So you can shut this down now.

By they way, can we stop calling them Japs already?

[smotherb]

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

Well, it appears you are not one of those who know something. It is difficult to justify the statement that the Japanese were ready to surrender. Look at the facts: the Hiroshima bomb was dropped August 6, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan August 8, and the Nagasaki bomb was dropped August 9; yet it wasn't until August 15 that the Japanese finally surrendered. The rest of your statements are simply conspiracy theory.

[smotherb]

The Japanese were savages and ruthless they started the war with the USA and the US finished it in style, the bombing took them to their knee's and they quickly surrendered and the War was over.

It also serves as a message and detterant to any other nation that wants to pick a fight with the worlds strongest power

I will always remember the movie TORA TORA TORA when the Japanese officer after bombing Pearl Harbor say oh god what have we done

And he was right and they paid a terrible price for their action but also do not forget the vicious and ruthless way they treated captors the Japanese have a history of it and the bombing of Nagasaki put them in their place for the last 70 plus years.

Ah, yes, a script writer's quip; very meaningful.

[soalbundy]

This has been highly entertaining and I've actually learned a few things. But, as they say, history is written by the victors. What they don't say is that history is localized by the losers. The textbooks in China, Japan, North Korea, Russians -- not to mention those written by the other Allies and Axis powers -- seem to tell vastly different stories. Anyway, mods, you have a projectable sample in favor. So you can shut this down now.

By they way, can we stop calling them Japs already?

yeah, and stop calling us Brits

[pmarlowe]

This has been highly entertaining and I've actually learned a few things. But, as they say, history is written by the victors. What they don't say is that history is localized by the losers. The textbooks in China, Japan, North Korea, Russians -- not to mention those written by the other Allies and Axis powers -- seem to tell vastly different stories. Anyway, mods, you have a projectable sample in favor. So you can shut this down now.

By they way, can we stop calling them Japs already?

yeah, and stop calling us Brits

Not quite the same thing but...its a deal!

[MiKT]

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

In that sense then perhaps it was still justified.

Clearly they didn't get the message since the Russians rejected the Baruch Plan choosing instead to accelerate their own atomic research & development project, thus launching the arms race. so it seems a stretch to say it was "still justified."

As to the justification to drop the the bomb for the more direct purpose of shortening the war with Japan, here's what Eisenhower wrote in his memoirs (referring to Secretary of War Stimson who was informing DDE of the decision to use the weapon):

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

On the 40th anniversary of the bombing, then former-President Nixon recounted that:

"[General Douglas] MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants."

According to MacArthur, "The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Major General Curtis LeMay stated publicly in a press conference that: "The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb." When pressed to clarify, the stated: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war. ... "

There are many more WWII era US commanders who echo similar sentiments. I'd suggest these men have a track record in regards to evaluating military tactics.

of course, of course we can believe tricky Dicky, must be why MacArthur had to be very forcefully disuaded from dropping a bomb on North Korea! Which as it turned out was probably a mistake as millions more have suffered terribly for 60 years. Far more suffering in NK and China in the last 60 years than Japan suffered after 1945. Japanese civilians suffered far, far less than many European countries that were completely devistated. Many, many more dead and injured. It was by far the best decision of the war for the Japanese as well as the rest of the world. It has shown the power of the bomb and MSD has worked - until some mad mullah gets one, stolen (or given) from Russia. Edited August 18, 2015 by MiKT

[MiKT]

It saddens me to see that so many TVF members would (apparently) have preferred that the Allies (and the US in particular) had continued their campaign of fire-bombing Japanese cities and slaughtering hundreds of thousands more Japanese, and then lost 10s of thousands of their own troops while trying to invade Japan. Not to mention all the civilians who would have committed suicide rather than be captured. (Remember what happened at Okinawa where thousands of civilians killed themselves, in large part because the Japanese military had convinced them the Americans would rape, brutalize and murder them if they were captured. The military even handed out hand grenades to help the civilians kill themselves while others, including whole family groups, threw themselves off cliffs into the ocean. The Japanese military themselves had also slaughtered thousands of Okinawans to prevent them from becoming spies for the enemy. The devastation that would have occurred on the Japanese islands would have been horrendous if the Allies had of been forced to invade.)

To help put some things into perspective. In WW II Germany fielded (approx) 18 million military personnel. Of those roughly 5.5 mil are listed as Killed/Missing and 11.1 mil as Captured/POW (62.2 %). Russia had about 34.5 million military with (approx) 10.7 mil killed and 5.7 mil captured (16.5%) . Italy had about 3.4 mil military with 290,000 killed and 1.3 mil captured (38.2%).

Meanwhile Japan had about 8.4 mil military with 2.1-3.4 mil killed (depending on whose estimates are used) and - only - 40,000 captured (0.48 %). Why so few ? Because they were conditioned to fight to the death rather than surrender. They preferred taking their own lives rather than suffer the indignity of defeat or capture. They would have fought to the last man to defend their country, their families and their Emperor and there were still millions of them on the Japanese islands.

It saddens me to see so many that apparently are under the impression that the only civilians killed in Japan where from the 2 atomic bombs while the fact is hundreds of thousands were killed in the high-explosive and incendiary (fire bombs) bombings that had been going on for over a year before Hiroshima, and continued right up until the Japanese finally surrendered. One single firebomb raid on Tokyo (on 9 March 1945) is estimated to have killed between 88,000-200,000 people (mostly civilians). Some consider those estimates to be on the low side though as that raid alone destroyed over 15 square miles of the city and the population density of the destroyed area was estimated to be 103,000 people per square mile. Every major and many minor Japanese cities had also been devastated by firebombings during that time.

It saddens me to see that so many overlook the fact that the Japanese had the opportunity to surrender before the bombs were dropped and didn't. (The Potsdam Declaration was issued on 26 July. On 28 July Japan rejected it. 9 days later the first A Bomb was dropped.)

They had the opportunity to surrender after the first bomb was dropped and didn't. The US president called for them to surrender 6 hours after Hiroshima was hit with the first atomic bomb ever used. They refused.

After the second bomb was dropped the military wanted to continue fighting. They even tried to stage a coup and prevent the Emperor from announcing Japan's surrender.

Dropping those A Bombs directly influenced the Emperor's decision to surrender. In the speech he recorded on 14 August (which was broadcast on the 15th after the failed military coup attempt) the Emperor said:

"Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."

(In a separate speech 2 days later he mentions the Soviets and that their intervention in Manchuria had impacted his decision but as he told MacArthur a few days later, he never stated that they were the main reason for his decision to surrender.)

Had Japan not surrendered the mass carpet bombings of Japanese cities would have continued up until at least the 19th when the 3rd A Bomb would have been ready to go. Had the US gone with the idea of waiting until they had a few more ready and then dropping them in rapid succession (as one plan apparently suggested) the firebombing of Japanese cities would have continued for weeks and millions could have, would have, died. The US Air Force was able to send 500+ bombers to bomb anywhere in Japan, at any time, without having to worry about opposition (on the night of the Hiroshima bombing there were over 605 US planes conducting bombing raids on other Japanese cities). The invasion of Japan would have gone ahead as planned and the additional A Bombs may have been used to help facilitate that invasion.

Residents of the (small) city of Kokura must have felt blessed upon learning that their city was the alternate target for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The pilots were told to aim visually (instead of using their radar) and if cloud cover prevented them from seeing their primary target they would switch to the alternate. The skies over Hiroshima were mostly clear when the bomber arrived.

Kokura was then the intended target for the second A-Bomb but again escaped fate because it was too cloudy for the pilot (bombardier actually) to see the target so they had to go to their alternate which was Nagasaki.

At that time, the use of those weapons was justified. People look back at it now with a different perspective and without having to weigh the costs of using those weapons compared to the lives that could be saved. They judge those who approved the use of those bombs without ever having had to exercise the same degree of responsibility or having borne the same weight of leadership on their shoulders. It's easy to judge and criticize others when you have never had to deal with any of the things they had to.

If you were in the same position they were, at the same time, with the same knowledge they had, there is little doubt that you too would have probably made the same decisions. You can get your hackles up and get all self-righteously indignant and claim you would have never allowed those bombs to be used but that would be absolute horse**** because you would be making that claim based on your current knowledge and circumstances.

Try making a decision like that when you've got the fate of an entire nation in your hands and 100s of thousands of your fellow citizens have already died and you are facing the prospect of possibly having to watch hundreds of thousands more die before it ends. Try bearing the burden of responsibility and having to think past the end of the war to what the future may look like.

Then try telling me that killing 200,000 people with 2 bombs that resulted in the war ending can't be justified. Try telling me that not using those weapons and instead prolonging the war for months (or more) and watching (potentially) millions die would have been the better option.

Added benefit. The US using those bombs not only showed the Soviets that the US had them and how powerful they were, but also showed they were willing to use them. What would have happened to the world if that hadn't of happened ? The Soviets would have built their own bombs and possibly been a lot more willing to use them. It's no secret that they wanted to spread their version of Communism throughout the world and they had no qualms about crushing anyone who opposed them. They had a mighty war machine and an evil political machine as well. Their NKVD and KGB made the Nazis look like amateurs when it came to exterminating opposition. Under Stalin it is estimated that as many as 60 million Russians and Eastern Europeans were killed (someone averaged all the "Big" and "Small" numbers and came up with an average estimate of 30 million deaths). That was just against their own people !

Keep in mind that the Soviets were also responsible for arming North Korea, providing advisers and even flying combat missions for them when North Korea decided to attack the South in 1950. As I mentioned previously, it has been suggested that the Chinese refrained from throwing their full weight into the conflict because of the rumour that the US would retaliate with nukes (and had in fact prepositioned some weapons within range of China). Same could be said for Russia. Had the Americans not used those weapons on Japan it is very likely that the Korean war would have had a totally different outcome and all of Europe could be speaking Russian right now.

(Without the Nuclear Deterrent it is quite possible that the Soviets would have invaded Western Europe long ago. In the eighties they had the men, equipment and the idea that they could reach the French border in a week, crushing the NATO and American forces along the way. A week after that and they'd have secured all of Europe and most likely the UK and Scandinavia as well. There was only one thing stopping them.)

It's easy for people these days to say those bombs shouldn't have been used. It would have been hard for people in those days to say those bombs shouldn't be used.

Agree with you 100% Kerryd. It was also good for the world that Patton was in that sett up crash that killed him because of his big mouth wanting to carry on and invade into Russia. I am sure the high ups arranged that.

wondeful post Kerryd, a very concise summary of the facts. Shaurene, dont agree about Patton. He did not have the authority or position to invade Russia. Although he very probably would have liked too, it would have resulted in the deaths of many, many more allied troops and the soviet occupation of even more of europe, so in that sense you are right.

[manfredtillmann]

i recently read a comment of a hiroshima survivour. it stated:

i said good bye to my wife and went to work as usual. 3 days later i managed to return home. i found her at once, burnt in the remains of our kitchen. just her pelvis and other bones, scorched by the fire. she was still warm. i picked up my wife and put her in a bucket and i carried her to the cemetery...

there is no justification for war.

[rijb]

i recently read a comment of a hiroshima survivour. it stated:

i said good bye to my wife and went to work as usual. 3 days later i managed to return home. i found her at once, burnt in the remains of our kitchen. just her pelvis and other bones, scorched by the fire. she was still warm. i picked up my wife and put her in a bucket and i carried her to the cemetery...

there is no justification for war.

There's no justification for so many people to let so few people start wars. People are too easily led. And they die for it.

[manfredtillmann]

i recently read a comment of a hiroshima survivour. it stated:

i said good bye to my wife and went to work as usual. 3 days later i managed to return home. i found her at once, burnt in the remains of our kitchen. just her pelvis and other bones, scorched by the fire. she was still warm. i picked up my wife and put her in a bucket and i carried her to the cemetery...

there is no justification for war.

There's no justification for so many people to let so few people start wars. People are too easily led. And they die for it.

how do you know if you are 'being led'? my parents were educated people. my mother studied medicine at the uni at goettingen and my father was a acclaimed sports 'star' in berlin. they both claimed to the end of their days that they' knew nothing' about the conzentration camps, other than that people were sent there to work.

look at what is happening in australia these days. the 'turn back the boats' sh.t that we are being fed. the oz government witholding or falsifing information on a daily basis.

we - the people - do not have the slightes idea of what dark lanes we are being led in...

[lostoday]

i recently read a comment of a hiroshima survivour. it stated:

i said good bye to my wife and went to work as usual. 3 days later i managed to return home. i found her at once, burnt in the remains of our kitchen. just her pelvis and other bones, scorched by the fire. she was still warm. i picked up my wife and put her in a bucket and i carried her to the cemetery...

there is no justification for war.

So what do you do when another person starts a war? Fight, run or join the other side? In that war the Philippines fought, Thailand joined the other side and Switzerland ran away.

Edited August 18, 2015 by lostoday

[ToddinChonburi]

Japan looks pretty nice today, just think if they still had that dick head ruler.

did anyone see the history channel story on the US Marines, they were out numbered 8-1 when they were getting ready to invade the main island. Can't remember the name but they dropped the bomb instead. They siad the Marine would have been slaughtered. you can find it on youtube.

[manfredtillmann]

i recently read a comment of a hiroshima survivour. it stated:

i said good bye to my wife and went to work as usual. 3 days later i managed to return home. i found her at once, burnt in the remains of our kitchen. just her pelvis and other bones, scorched by the fire. she was still warm. i picked up my wife and put her in a bucket and i carried her to the cemetery...

there is no justification for war.

So what do you do when another person starts a war? Fight, run or join the other side?

hard to tell. what do you do if your head of state starts a war? in a democratic society one might have a choice. i deserted from west german conscription for military service in 1976. suffered some consequenses. don't regret it, but.

it was myb way of saying 'no'.

[lostoday]

i recently read a comment of a hiroshima survivour. it stated:

i said good bye to my wife and went to work as usual. 3 days later i managed to return home. i found her at once, burnt in the remains of our kitchen. just her pelvis and other bones, scorched by the fire. she was still warm. i picked up my wife and put her in a bucket and i carried her to the cemetery...

there is no justification for war.

So what do you do when another person starts a war? Fight, run or join the other side?

hard to tell. what do you do if your head of state starts a war? in a democratic society one might have a choice. i deserted from west german conscription for military service in 1976. suffered some consequenses. don't regret it, but.

it was myb way of saying 'no'.

So did my grandfather in Prussia a long time ago. A lot of Americans went to Canada but I think Canada stopped accepting them now.