Thoughts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was it the Right Call?

[Ray McCarthy]

If it was used to intimidate the Russians then it meets that goal.

Unacceptable.
But all the other Japanese Cities bombing were just as much war crimes. The Atomic Bomb drops were not actually worse.

 

[KyleAW]

Agreed. In a roundabout way I guess I'm saying there was a way that the US could have used the threat of the A-Bomb (or at least tried to use the threat) instead. But if they ultimately were more interested in the Russians then, well, it is more of an atrocious act really. I kill your people to scare their people? Ouch...

And yes there was some awful bombing of Japan by the US. Not much that wasn't bad about it really

 

[Ursa major]

It in essence was.

It's only a "gift" when there's a choice of outcome in practice. No choice, no gift.

 

[Ursa major]

But if they ultimately were more interested in the Russians

I think that though this was an important consideration, it was really just a very useful by-product of what was seen as the best way of defeating the Japanese (i.e. using nuclear weapons rather than indulge in what would have been a very difficult, very costly, invasion).

 

[MWagner]

Should leaders or countries be actually apologising for wrong actions of people 70 to 75 years ago? Or 100 years ago (WWI) or Boer War, Or 1905 Russian - Japanese war, or Ireland 1916 (both sides criminally wrong). Saying it was wrong isn't same as Apologising. Are the nations that committed war crimes on both sides 1936 to 1945 worried about compensation claims?

I expect they are worried about compensation claims. And about looking like they're shaming their own soldiers who may still be alive. We tend to have more latitude about these things once everyone who was involved is dead. Although it's worth noting that many Southerners in the U.S. are still proud of the Confederacy and assert that the Civil War was all about state rights, and that was 150 years ago.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

assert that the Civil War was all about state rights

It's certainly suited the North at the time to claim it was only about Slavery. It seems to me it wasn't just about the Slaves.

 

[MWagner]

It's certainly suited the North at the time to claim it was only about Slavery. It seems to me it wasn't just about the Slaves.

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

- Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, March 21, 1861.

The state right that the states of the slave-holding south were concerned with was the right of new states of the union to become slave states. When it became apparent that right wouldn't be extended, and that the balance of population and power in the union would inevitably weigh against them, they took their ball and went home.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

hey took their ball and went home.

Also stupidly tried to coerce the British by withholding cotton from them. That just encouraged the British to boost production in Egypt, India etc. There was a program about "The Cotton Famine" recently BBC R4. When the Confederates realised how stupid this was they couldn't ship anyway due to Union Blockade. After the War the Cotton Factors were gone and the World Cotton prices had dropped due to British Empire production.

The Confederates picked wrong issues and then mismanaged themselves?

 

[svalbard]

about:reader?url=https%3A%2F%2Flibcom.org%2Fhistory%2F1945-us-responses-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-nagasaki&tabId=1

Interesting qoutes.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

https://libcom.org/history/1945-us-responses-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-nagasaki&tabId=1

Fixed your link.

Yes, confirms my thoughts that the A-bombs were not about saving US lives or Ending the War, but about the Russians.

 

[Ursa major]

Big decisions are often based on a lot of things. Because something happens to serve one purpose neither means that other stated purposes are false nor that the happened-to-be-served purpose was a big part of the decision (although it probably was a major, though not dominant, consideration in the case of Hiroshima).

We also have to take into consideration from where those making such comments are coming. I'm thinking along the lines of those with a hammer seeing all problems as nails, something we have seen more recently (with advocates of air power thinking that an opponent could be conquered, as opposed to just defeated, by bombing alone). Even setting aside personal and career-based considerations, some people simply find it difficult to accept that solutions other than those of which they can easily conceive might be the best ones (for their side, if not for the enemy).


EDIT: As an aside, I wonder if Eisenhower's view would have been the same if he'd have been in charge of, and responsible for, attacking Germany from the east, as opposed to the west. One gets the (perhaps false) impression that Germany's campaign in the east was more of a fight to the death affair -- for political, and probably racial, reasons -- than the one in the west, with casualty figures to match.

 

[svalbard]

Fixed your link.

Yes, confirms my thoughts that the A-bombs were not about saving US lives or Ending the War, but about the Russians.

Thanks Ray.

Big decisions are often based on a lot of things. Because something happens to serve one purpose neither means that other stated purposes are false nor that the happened-to-be-served purpose was a big part of the decision (although it probably was a major, though not dominant, consideration in the case of Hiroshima).

We also have to take into consideration from where those making such comments are coming. I'm thinking along the lines of those with a hammer seeing all problems as nails, something we have seen more recently (with advocates of air power thinking that an opponent could be conquered, as opposed to just defeated, by bombing alone). Even setting aside personal and career-based considerations, some people simply find it difficult to accept that solutions other than those of which they can easily conceive might be the best ones (for their side, if not for the enemy).


EDIT: As an aside, I wonder if Eisenhower's view would have been the same if he'd have been in charge of, and responsible for, attacking Germany from the east, as opposed to the west. One gets the (perhaps false) impression that Germany's campaign in the east was more of a fight to the death affair -- for political, and probably racial, reasons -- than the one in the west, with casualty figures to match.

The qoute that really interested me was Truman's diary entry from July 18 1945. I must researchthis more because I find it amazing and criminal that he would have ignored a message about Japan seeking to surrender.

 

[BAYLOR]

70 years ago today Nagasaki. Another grim anniversary .

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I wonder if Eisenhower's view would have been the same if he'd have been in charge of, and responsible for, attacking Germany from the east, as opposed to the west.

Well, after expected initial reverses the Russians beat the Germans and without Eisenhower in the West, the French might be ironically speaking Russian today. Prior to revolution posh Russians spoke French.

 

[Ursa major]

Well, after expected initial reverses the Russians beat the Germans and without Eisenhower in the West, the French might be ironically speaking Russian today. Prior to revolution posh Russians spoke French.

Sorry to be pedantic, but this has nothing to do with the topic at all. Besides, it isn't exactly convincing, for 1) without US and UK help (in terms of supplies), the Russians would have had to rely entirely on their own resources; 2) without the allied threat in the west, Germany could have put all its efforts into fighting the Soviet Union, with a result that is hard to predict. The Russians running France would be, I suggest, one of the less likely outcomes.

 

[Ursa major]

The qoute that really interested me was Truman's diary entry from July 18 1945. I must researchthis more because I find it amazing and criminal that he would have ignored a message about Japan seeking to surrender.

Would the US have accepted a German surrender while little or no German territory was under western allied occupation? I suspect not**.


** - Although what would have happened if the Soviet Union had been in the process of pushing past Berlin when the offer to the US and UK came, goodness only knows. And if the western allies had accepted it, would the Soviet forces have immediately stopped their advance?

 

[BAYLOR]

Would the US have accepted a German surrender while little or no German territory was under western allied occupation? I suspect not**.


** - Although what would have happened if the Soviet Union had been in the process of pushing past Berlin when the offer to the US and UK came, goodness only knows. And if the western allies had accepted it, would the Soviet forces have immediately stopped their advance?

Russia would taken all of Germany and put in a puppet regime.

 

[Venusian Broon]

The qoute that really interested me was Truman's diary entry from July 18 1945. I must research this more because I find it amazing and criminal that he would have ignored a message about Japan seeking to surrender.

From memory, the US and the UK had already told Japan what it needed to do - unconditional surrender. I believe the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender with 'strings attached' with the Russians and therefore was deemed unacceptable.

The allied leaders had at least remembered the end of WW1 where they had not totally defeated the German army, which helped lay in the foundations for resentment and anger that sparked WW2. They were steadfast that occupation of the enemies homelands and unconditional surrender was the only option available.

As for the Germans in WW2 - if they had unconditionally surrendered I actually guess they would have accepted it, even if the Western allies had little German land under occupation. Germany I believe had already been carved up into four zones by agreement of the big three in Yalta. As it stood, the US and British forces actually advanced much quicker into Germany than anyone thought possible - the US army reached deep into what became East Germany at the end - possibly because the Germans deliberately folded in the West to allow them to 'beat the Russians' to occupy the country. Hence there was quite a lot of rearrangement of occupying forces after the war ended to the pre-decided zones.

EDIT - and as part of this reorganisation, the Russian gave up territory that they had occupied - for example big parts of Austria, so this was a two-way process that seemed at least to follow agreements that the big 3 had shook hands on.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

if the Soviet Union had been in the process of pushing past Berlin

They went far past Berlin. Look at Berlin vs East German border. They changed their minds about Berlin and blockaded the other Allies.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was mostly about the fact the Russians did so well in WWII. I don't deny they got a lot of help from USA and that the Italian, North African and Normandy Fronts made a huge difference. But in the West the impression is that USA practically won WWII with Plucky UK and British Empire. The Russian impact was noticed and it made for a lot of Gloom in USA after VE and before VJ.

Just as Sykes Picot was a malicious agreement by French, UK (and sop to Imperial Russia ) before end of WWI (1916), the Yalta Agreements were before end of WWII. Then there was Potsdam, partitioning Vietnam. The USA (Truman?) wanted to redress the balance and send a strong message to Stalin. No way can Russian Advances in Western Europe not be part of the story of the A-Bomb.

 

[Venusian Broon]

They went far past Berlin. Look at Berlin vs East German border. They changed their minds about Berlin and blockaded the other Allies.

I have to disagree with you Ray, The US army actually ended up well over the agreed borders of zones of control into what became East Germany by May '45. The Soviets also left a lot of Western Czechoslovakia alone and a large bit of Austria (West of Vienna) alone. Most of the territory of Germany was taken by the US and the UK. (I have a different map available that is more detailed, but doesn't put the final zones of control on.)

I guess the Soviets had invested a lot of their forces in capturing Berlin and faced the most stubborn resistance, hence the largest casualties and probably felt there was little need to push further West, despite what you're implicating. I suspect the oft quoted 'But Alexander went as far as Paris!' was probably an example of Stalin's sardonic humour. (Although I fully admit to not knowing whether this is the case)

I agree with you that there can be a degree of misinformation about 'who beat the Germans' in the West. If you were to simplify WW2 to it's broadest brushstroke it was The Eastern Front 1941-45.

Here: