[SeekAndFind]

Tim Carney also wrote a first part to this article on the 68th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/it-was-wrong-to-bomb-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/article/2533978

It was wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Ending a war is a good thing. Killing civilians a bad thing.

Deliberately targeting civilians is murder, and is never morally licit, even in pursuit of a good thing such as ending a war.

The tens of thousands of Japanese non-combatants we killed 68 years ago this week with two nuclear bombs were not “collateral damage” of military strikes. They were the intended targets.

We hoped that mass murder would bring the Japanese emperor to surrender. It worked, and American and Japanese soldiers’ lives were probably saved by it — which is why most people disagree with me on the ethics of the A-Bomb.

But what if we could have ended the war without the A-Bomb? John Denson at Mises.org argues that we could have:

Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945.

I’m no historian, and if anyone can refute the facts in this piece, please do — because the article seems to make the clear argument that the atomic bomb was inexcusable.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I have a WW II Imperial Japanese war bond with all the coupons still attached.
The final cash out was the fall of 1957.

[Bratch]

As later conflicts have shown, ending a war is impossible without killing civilians; the enemy will simply use their own people as human shields.

[Yorlik803]

There were Japanese military hard liners that didn’t want to give up after the 2nd A bomb.
These were people willing to fight to the last body. A full scale assault on the home islands would have killed more people than all the battles combined.

[chainsaw]

It was wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki

It was wrong to attack Pearl Harbor without provocation

[Smokin' Joe]

Killing civilians a bad thing.

But no whining over the bombing of cities in Europe?

Deliberately targeting civilians is murder, and is never morally licit, even in pursuit of a good thing such as ending a war.

You can't target militarily important industry and supply chains without targeting civilians, and in some instances slave laborers and even POWs will be caught in the mix on the ground. Sometimes the collateral damage is light, other times unavoidable if the target is to be eliminated. We, more than any other nation, have taken incredible steps to minimize those casualties--to the point of filling smart bombs with concrete and using them as a kinetic energy weapon rather than an explosive weapon to destroy a single building instead of take out a whole block.

The incendiary bombing of Tokyo killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Consider that the reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the A-bomb target list is that they had not been extensively bombed already, and the scope of the bombing campaign against Japan becomes a little more clear.

Plans were in the works for the invasion of Japan, anticipating more than a million casualties.

The power of the bombs as evidenced by the destruction of relatively undamaged cities was a factor in bringing the war to a swift end.

I will not do the disservice to the memory of those who made a tough decision (based on what they knew) of second-guessing them. Their decision ended the war.

[Dallas59]

UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER....No if's and or buts. Japan and Germany started the mess and we finished it. Millions died because of Japan and Germany....Millions.

Afterwards, Communism and Socialism killed millions more...

[ConservativeMind]

We didn't target Tokyo, due to the desire to have Japan's leaders announce to the whole country that the war was over.

Hiroshima wasn't instrumental in making military armaments. It was, sadly, the seat of Christianity for Japan, for what existed.

Nagasaki did help produce such things.

I would have targeted major military targets at Nagasaki and Tokyo, and tried to make sure the Emperor was not hit.

However, the range of our bombers was always a dire concern and I doubt we could have successfully reached many appropriate areas.

This is what I understand from my knowledge.

Finally, when an entity first offensively, physically, targets you, why should any response restrict the offenders’ most supportive nonmilitary citizens? This may not include kids, but it is difficult to exclude them.

[Nip]

Any argument, pro or con, about the use of nuclear weapons against Japan is fatally flawed the moment the use any published information that was not available prior to the middle of July 1945. Use of such information falls under the generic classification of revisionist history.

If you or any of the authors of articles/studies/books use information after the event to justify their position I propose the use of my personal yardstick. Since they are using facts after the event ask them to predict this year’s and next year’s Super Bowl victors. Why not? After all aren’t most of the players in both games currently playing? Aren’t the teams involved in both Super Bowls already established? So, these people have all the information necessary to make absolutely accurate predictions of the future, don’t they? And if they don’t pick both winners they should have to pay some kind of penalty for being wrong.

I am not making any new rules, I am simply taking their logic chain and asking them to apply to a different event. If their reasoning system is valid it should work on a much smaller scale, shouldn’t it?

BTW - I, it turns out, have a very vested interest in the end of World War II prior to the fall of 1945. My father was scheduled to be a landing craft’s crew for the first invasion.

[Calvin Locke]

And what about high ranking Japanese that said if they knew that there were only two bombs, that they would have continued the fight?

The invasion plans would have moved forward, the Japanese civilians would have been subjected to more propaganda, and the besides the military casualties - US, Japs, Soviets, etc., civilians would have been used asymmetrically, as well as killing themselves as they did on Saipan, and millions more would have died in the trouble stirred up by Stalin over greater geographic areas.

That's not to mention the Japanese bio and nuclear contamination programs aimed at the US West coast.

War is hell, they started it, and killed civilians all over the Pacific with abject cruelty.

Enough of the faery dust and unicorns.

The war ended sooner with less suffering and fewer casualties all around.

[Rummyfan]

Bill Whittle on Dropping the Bombs

[Tammy8]

I grew up hearing stories from those that fought against Japanese soldiers, they said the Japanese fought with a mindset that surrender was not an option in any circumstance. That is how the Japanese fought every fight they were engaged in; in the islands they holed up in caves and only horrific things like flamethrowers could get to them and even knowing we would use them, they did not surrender. Don’t forget there were Japanese soldiers found still believing the war was ongoing for many years after it was over.

The belief that Japan would never surrender was a widespread belief with knowledge of their actions in many battles as evidence it was true. Most believed Japan would not surrender and we would have to go to Japan and fight every citizen as it was thought their fanatical commitment to their cause was that strong.

Eisenhower and others may have believed Japan would surrender but there was certainly no widespread belief of that at the time. Most believed it would come to hand to hand combat with Japanese civilians and huge losses of life to all involved before Japan would concede defeat. It seemed at the time the only option was to drop the bombs to convince Japan to surrender.

The funny thing about history is in looking back we can easily see how things coulda shoulda been done. Looking back we tend to overlook the perception people had at the time that led to the actual decisions made. If we don’t take into consideration how the people perceived what they were dealing with it is unfair to second guess the actions they took.

I know my parents were absolutely convinced a million people would die in an invasion of Japan by our forces. Whether that was true or not it was the perception, and they had the benefit of hearing first hand from people who had personally been in combat against the Japanese.

I personally have never doubted our decisions made to drop atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II, we fought for just reasons. Japan attacked us and that is justification to bring an enemy to their knees. They would have gladly taken us to our knees and beyond. Spend some time studying how the Japanese treated people that surrendered to them in order to understand how they really felt about surrender.

My own personal opinion is that war is a ugly horrific thing, not to be taken lightly. I am convinced that war is to be fought ruthlessly and to win at all costs or not at all. I am not a warmonger- exactly the opposite, I think war is taken too lightly by our politicians and most civilians- we want to have war lite, where no one dies yet the conflict is settled our way. History has proven if an enemy is not completely and soundly beat down to their knees with no doubt they have been trounced the conflict simmers and is never settled. I think if there is just cause to go to war we should fight to win and to save the lives of our own, and not play at it. If there is not enough cause to do that we should not be going to war at all.

[piroque]

It was wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were manufacturing centers feed the military machine of Japan so how is that wrong that we put them out of business.

[Twinkie]

You’re on a troop ship during WWII, headed for Japan. You are lined up with your fellow soldiers. Your commanding officer tells you, “Look to your right, look to your left; the man to your right and the one to your left is going to be killed in this pending invasion of Japan to which we’re headed. Every Jap, man, woman and child, is armed with whatever tool is at hand; and ordered by the Emperor to kill you when you land.” - Then they got the news the bomb had been dropped. - My dad was a combat veteran from battles in N. Africa, Sicily, Italy, and Germany; a hardened veteran who would have had to go and fight the Japs if it hadn’t ended. - He had already charged hell with a bucket of water; by that time, a bucket of fire was what was required.

[stylin19a]

being ready to surrender and surrendering are 2 different things. We made them willing to surrender at any cost right now. There was no “we'll surrender if...” as was planned.
They surrendered under our terms, not theirs.

P.S. The US estimates that 142k civilians died in the battle for Okinawa -mostly targeted by the Japanese.

The crux of you question belabors “innocent” civilians targeted. Wearing a uniform makes things different ? Ask Joe Alexander

Next story will be, Grant shouldn't have unleashed William Tecumseh Sherman in the Savannah Campaign...A “total war” campaign being an atrocity.

[Moonman62]

So, if Barone wants to stick with Moynihan’s and the New Republic’s assessments of the war while I stick with the assessments of Gen. Eisenhower, Adm. Leahy, and Truman’s own commission, that’s fine. The question — would Japan have surrendered without our bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? — can’t be answered with certainty today, nor could it have been answered in August 1945.

[righttackle44]

So, you wanted the war to continue for another year, six months. Children were starving--six more months of those conditions, and they would likely have been dead. All across the Japanese nation. Medicines were being manufactured and used primarily by the Japanese military at the expense of the civilian population.

Women and children were being trained and whipped up to a suicidal frenzy in hopes and belief that the Yamato spirit would prevail and these ersatz defenders of the nation would attack and kill white American soldiers. So how do you stop an attack of half-starved women or children charging Americans with sharpened sticks and family-owned katana after Americans have set foot on the mainland?

The fact is, Eisenhower, did not have command experience relative to the Japanese Empire, nor did he have any combat experience. He served for about two years in the Philippines under General MacArthur and was later given responsibility for drawing up war plans for defeating Japan in the event of war. As much experience that he had directing the war again the German armies, he himself never faced the likes of a Japanese suicidal charge--often called a banzai charge. That all seems to say that General Eisenhower was not qualified to judge the warfare of the United States of America on the Empire of Japan. We can all thank God and thank General Eisenhower for the warfare he conducted in Europe. But he never had to face the prospect of defending against fanatical military officers, and women and children.


Furthermore, the statements "Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war" is a complete fabrication, if not pure baloney. As late as the Japanese Imperial conferences in late July and August 1945, most of the general staff wanted to go on fighting. John Toland the historian tells of an incident in August (I believe) of two officers who went into use the lavatory facilities of Imperial Navy headquarters after they had come from the conference in which the Emperor had directly voiced his wishes that the war be concluded. (Rumors abounded in the Japanese military and among civilians, that a huge American Marine-naval-army force lay just over the horizon.) One of the two officers said that they should go after the force afloat and do whatever it would take the defeat the Americans. The other officer had to remind him of the Emperor's wishes. Further, after the Imperial conference, a squadron of suicide bombers left to attack American warships. So to conclude that there was a general consensus that a monolith of opinion that supported surrender, is a complete distortion and twisting of facts.

So, now. What was America supposed to do? Continue the blockade and force Japanese mothers to cook grass and weeds so their families could eat? Force Japanese civilians to give up medicines to the Japanese military? Or make the difficult decision that would be second-guessed by gutless critics decades later who likely were not even alive at the time of World War II, to drop the bomb and end the stranglehold of the Japanese military machine on the nation before the Japanese nation died under that stranglehold? To allow the war to continue at the expense of the American youth of that day?

The fact is, the Japanese military was not a very professional military. Toland and other continually tell stories of how individual Japanese military leaders, from Naval captains on up and down the chain of command, continually violated orders. Most or all of them saw the War as a way they could achieve immortality. Most or all of them wanted them to provoke that "one single, decisive battle" that Japanese military doctrine and thinking believed wins wars. They, generally, wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, so standing and direct orders were often ignored as the officers and leaders sought to glorify themselves--oh, for the honor and glory of the Emperor and the Empire, of course--in hopes of becoming a Japanese legend. In that milieu, many, most, or all of the Japanese officers were hoping to keep the War going for their own hopes and benefits. It would be a fine thing, after all, if a statue were cast to honor YOUR final battle--the one that won the war.

It would be horrible decision to have to make, to drop an atomic bomb. But America has, until now, risen to the difficult decisions and has not given into the brainless fabrications of facts and opinion of those who have tried, and are trying, to dishonor those whose responsibility it was to protect America.

I'm not an historian, either. But I think Carney's and SEEKANDFIND's opinions in this matter are simply nonsense.

[Delta Dawn]

‘the article seems to make the clear argument that the atomic bomb was inexcusable.’

Ask the survivors of the USS Arizona whether it was necessary to drop the bomb.

It is called, ‘Unconditional’, for a reason. If we had allowed the Japanese a modicum of respect and dignity at the end of WWII, we would have been back in another shooting war by 1955.

If one is truly conflicted by the use of the bomb to end WWII, I suggest that they move to Paris or Bolivia even.

[Roccus]

If the Japanese had the bomb before us, (and they were working on one) do you think that they would not have used it on us?

(see tag)

[Colonel_Flagg]

I’m no historian, and if anyone can refute the facts in this piece, please do — because the article seems to make the clear argument that the atomic bomb was inexcusable.

The 'clear argument' is no such thing. Japan did not accept the Potsdam Declaration until August 10, after both the atomic bombings. Even then, the Japanese could not bring themselves to negotiate directly with the United States, attempting to mediate through the Soviets until their invasion of Manchukuo on August 9.

While it is quite true to state that Truman's decision to drop the bomb was influenced in part to avoid the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific War 90 days after the defeat of Germany as promised by Stalin, to avoid a potential change to the political landscape of East Asia. it also true that the Japanese War Cabinet did not accept the Potsdam Declaration until expressly ordered to do so by Hirohito. Even then, the Kyūjō Incident, an attempted coup, reflected the willingness of certain radicals to continue fighting even after the atomic bombings of two cities and the Soviet invasion of Japanese-controlled territory.

That said, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targets of military significance even in the destruction of 1945 Japan, and Hirohito himself noted the power of atomic weaponry in his 'endure the unendurable' surrender message. Clearly the American nuclear decision played a significant role in Hirohito's decision.

To other facts: Operation Downfall, which consisted of the planned invasion first of southern Japan (Operation Olympic, 1945) and the invasion of the Kantō plain near Tokyo (Operation Coronet, 1946) had a casualty estimate of at least one million, with the numbers rising depending on the extent to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion. It is also important to note that the Japanese Army was still quite formidable even as late as the summer of 1945, holding huge swaths of occupied China and Manchuria.

The idea that somehow the Japanese would have simply stopped fighting despite increasingly fanatical resistance to Allied power projected across the Pacific is not borne out by any serious scholarly work of which I'm aware.

It is more than defensible to hold the position that without Hirohito's order to accept the Potsdam Declaration, the Japanese would have continued to fight.

The best work on video that I've seen about this issue is Part 25 of "The World at War", entitled simply "The Bomb". Excellent documentary television which features interviews with some of the key contemporaries of the day.

[Jim Noble]

It wasn't the bomb, per se

Hiroshima was no worse than Dresden, or Hamburg.

The deliberate incineration of hundreds of thousands of women and children, whether in Germany OR Japan, has caused us to hesitate, when bold action is required, for the last 65 years, and THAT'S a problem.