Did the Japanese deserve the Atomic Bomb?

Discussion in 'War Against Japan' started by LostKingdom, Feb 25, 2004.

  1. Dave55

    Dave55 Atlanta, USA

    W In that same vein, the understanding of the "after effects" of the use of atomic weapons was poorly understood. Gen. Marshall was given control over eight atomic bombs, either ready or being built, for use in the invasions of Japan. The plan he approved for their use allowed commanders on the scene to use them against large concentrations of enemy forces. The bombs would be dropped, and then after one half hour the Allied troops would move through that area. This should illustrate that the Allies did not think use of these weapons was anything but the application of maximum force available against the enemy.


    They sure didn't understand the after effects.

    Here is a picture of General Groves and Oppenheimer after the Trinity test.
    Note the paper booties.

    Dave
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Beefordboy

    Beefordboy Junior Member

    If the Germans had had enough bombers to do a Dresdon to a city in the UK in 1940 they would have done so. I they could have put an A bomb on to the V2 they would have and it is also true that the Japanese military would have used it had it been in their arsenal so I think there is no argument. It was a way to end a war which is what both sides strived to do by whatever means they could, at least cost to themselves.
     
  3. canuck

    canuck Token Colonial Patron

    I got a question? If the US wanted to end the war in the pacific quickly to save lives (which I think the bomb did if you don't believe they were trying to sue for peace ). Why then did they not take the same approach to bombing city's to kill people in Germany?

    Was there not more people killed in Dresden think what Bomber command at the 8th could have done to population in Germany. Speer said him self anther few more Dresden and German would of had to surrender?

    I believe Speer's comments were made post-war so they would have had no impact on Allied bombing strategy.
     
  4. Wills

    Wills Very Senior Member

    If it shortened the war perhaps WSC had the last word:

    Battles are won by slaughter and manoeuvre. The greater the general, the more he contributes in manoeuvre, the less he demands in slaughter. Winston S Churchill
     
  5. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    This thread is drifting a bit, but here are a couple of links before it goes straight again :)

    link1
    , link2

    As we saw in the introduction, in 1949, when AEC and DOD experts met to consider the psychological problems connected to construction of the proposed nuclear-powered airplane, the NEPA project, there was a consensus that America's atomic war-fighting capability would be crippled unless servicemen were cured of the "mystical" fear of radiation.[3] When routine testing of nuclear weapons began at the test site in Nevada in 1951, the opportunity to take action to deal with this problem presented itself. DOD officials urged that troop maneuvers and training exercises be conducted in connection with the tests. Whole military units would be employed in these exercises, and participation, as part of the duty of the soldier, would not be voluntary. DOD's medical experts simultaneously urged that the tests be used for training and "indoctrination" about atomic warfare and as an opportunity for research. The psychological and physiological testing of troops to address the fear of radiation was the first of the research to take place; this testing was largely conducted as an occupational rather than an experimental activity.
    ...


    And please look at the dates, this is not 1945!
     
  6. John Lawson

    John Lawson Arte et Marte

    Quite right Za, it is drifting a bit so, I'll stick to the point
    ....Did the Japanese deserve the Atomic Bomb?.....
    Yes!
     
  7. wowtank

    wowtank Very Senior Member

    This is what my mother told me 2 or 3 times when I was a lassie.

    The allies pleaded with Japan to stop and surrender. They would not.

    No one knew what this atomic bomb would do because there had never been one dropped before. The number of killed citizens was still not enough to convince them to surrender and a second bomb was dropped.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Dresden and Japan cannot be compared. Two completely different situations.

    And to drop an atomic bomb on Germany -- how would you contain it within the borders?

    Ask yourself if they did not know what is was going to do was it ok to drop it on the Japs??

    Chrissie :poppy:


    Japan was trying to negotiate a peace (or at least a way out) before the bomb was dropped unless I have been lied to by several tv documenters from the last 15 years.

    I think they had a good idea what the bomb would do. I can't give a written source but i trust the person who told me.

    Ash yourself this if they did not know what it was going to do is it ok to use the japs as lab rats?

    Not saying right or wrong but i think we should ash these things of ourselfs and each other. (but maybe not on the web lol)
     
  8. Jon Horley

    Jon Horley Member

    Is it right to make war, full stop? I'm not sure what the first recorded battle is, but I'm pretty sure it would have involved the first-time use of certain weapons. Over time, you might say that this or that opponent has been used as a 'lab rat' to see how effective the Parthian shot was, how good the mangonel was at smashing into fortress defences, whether boiling oil off the battlements was worth the bother, or how useful napalm was at deterring Vietnamese villagers from assisting the Viet Cong, or how damaging the defoliant Agent Orange would be on the enemy's environment - and ultimately finding out its cancerous properties also slowly killed off home troops as neatly as it stripped the landscape of possible ambush locations.

    It's possible that atomic scientists weren't exactly sure how long the effects of radiation would last and what maimed survivors would look like, or what their survival rates might be following irradiation. But that's true of all new weaponry, isn't it? From defensive to offensive, no-one knows quite how a new implement of war will perform until it's been used a bit.

    And, to be honest, it's a little unfortunate to talk about using the Japanese as 'lab rats' when you read about their 'laboratory' experiments on the Chinese in particular - very useful, as they turned out, to earn the experimenters short-term jail sentences instead of the noose, as they traded their findings with the West, to enhance its knowledge of proceedings which previously they had only inflicted on laboratory animals. Rather like Wernher von Braun - inflicter of the V2 on Britain (more experimentation) - being rewarded with a prestigious position postwar in the USA, helping to boost its rocket development against the USSR.

    Let's face a simple truth: we (that's the human race 'we') are forever trying to develop more sophisticated methods of eradicating our enemies. The drones 'neutralising' targets in Afghanistan and across the border into Pakistan being one of the most recent - the Taliban and suspected terrorists as 'lab rats' in this case. And on it goes...
     
  9. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer Pearl Harbor Myth Buster

    Japan was trying to negotiate a peace (or at least a way out) before the bomb was dropped unless I have been lied to by several tv documenters from the last 15 years.
    Don't put too much faith in any TV show. Japan was stalling, plain and simple.
    I think they had a good idea what the bomb would do. I can't give a written source but i trust the person who told me.

    We've given several sources that discuss this matter. You should review them.
    Ash yourself this if they did not know what it was going to do is it ok to use the japs as lab rats?
    They had actual lab rats, they didn't need the Japanese. The purpose of the bombings was to stop the war.
    Not saying right or wrong but i think we should ash these things of ourselfs and each other. (but maybe not on the web lol)
    So read the many sources posted here.
     
    dbf likes this.
  10. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer Pearl Harbor Myth Buster

    They sure didn't understand the after effects.

    Here is a picture of General Groves and Oppenheimer after the Trinity test.
    Note the paper booties.

    Dave
    Good find! Promptly stolen. :)
     
  11. Wills

    Wills Very Senior Member

  12. Dave55

    Dave55 Atlanta, USA

    This thread is drifting a bit, but here are a couple of links before it goes straight again :)

    link1
    , link2


    And please look at the dates, this is not 1945!

    Most unfortunate :(

    I did like the civilian Ford rack body trucks at 0.30 though. And also learned that Marines were still using canvas legging in 1959.
     
  13. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    My answer to this question has been yes since my first post in this thread in 2005 and it certainly has not changed.

    There were many high ranking American Air Force, Army, Navy and advisers to Truman who did not want the new weapon used. They wanted to continue with "Conventional Warfare" ie Firebombing of all Japanese cities.

    We have heard that 100,000 POW's were to be executed on 21st September and another 100,000 civilian prisoners would have died of starvation or worse if the Allied forces had attacked the mainland.

    The Japanese had 2 million troops and all the population (Men, Women and children (Over the age of 11 or 12) had been ordered to the defence of Nippon. We know about the fanatical fighting of their military, but just imagine Allied soldiers having to mow down women and children attacking them with porcelain knives and sharpened bamboo spears etc.

    Yes it would have been horrible, but it never came to that. The US military hierarchy wanted to continue their Conventional Warfare (firebombing) and destroy another couple of hundred cities and towns like they had already done.

    The three day bombing of Tokyo killed many more civilians than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The casualty figures for the firebombing on Tokyo and another 60 cities from incendiaries was about 800,000.

    Consider also that the battle for the small island of Iwo Jima in February 1945 cost the lives of 6,800 and injured over 28,000 Americans. The death toll for Japan was worse. Over 21,000 Japanese troops were killed. Another one of Japan's small, but strongly defended islands was Okinawa, an island more than 400 miles from mainland Japan. During the Okinawa campaign, code-name Operation Iceberg, 12,000 Americans were killed and 36,000 wounded. Japanese losses were greater - at least 100,000 dead.

    Macarthur, Hap Arnold and Bill Halsey, to name but a few who did not want the bomb to be used, were prepared to invade Japan if it came to that and forfeit the lives of who knows how many allied soldiers, sailors and airmen.

    They said Japan was only two weeks away from surrendering yet after Hiroshima this was still not forthcoming.

    The dropping of the bombs saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Allied and Japanese lives and brought about the end of the war and saved Japanese cites and towns (yes saved) from total destruction, starvation of their population and an ever increasing loss of life.

    Yes they deserved it and as history shows, came out of the war better than most other countries. They received assistance in rebuilding Japan and were exporting motor vehicles as early as 1949 and went on to become one of the world's largest economies post war.

    As far as I am concerned they came out of it rather well for the type of barbarism they unleashed on unarmed civilians and POW's for which in general they have still not shown any true feelings of remorse.
     
    canuck, A-58 and PeterG like this.
  14. wowtank

    wowtank Very Senior Member

    My answer to this question has been yes since my first post in this thread in 2005 and it certainly has not changed.

    There were many high ranking American Air Force, Army, Navy and advisers to Truman who did not want the new weapon used. They wanted to continue with "Conventional Warfare" ie Firebombing of all Japanese cities.

    We have heard that 100,000 POW's were to be executed on 21st September and another 100,000 civilian prisoners would have died of starvation or worse if the Allied forces had attacked the mainland.

    The Japanese had 2 million troops and all the population (Men, Women and children (Over the age of 11 or 12) had been ordered to the defence of Nippon. We know about the fanatical fighting of their military, but just imagine Allied soldiers having to mow down women and children attacking them with porcelain knives and sharpened bamboo spears etc.

    Yes it would have been horrible, but it never came to that. The US military hierarchy wanted to continue their Conventional Warfare (firebombing) and destroy another couple of hundred cities and towns like they had already done.

    The three day bombing of Tokyo killed many more civilians than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The casualty figures for the firebombing on Tokyo and another 60 cities from incendiaries was about 800,000.

    Consider also that the battle for the small island of Iwo Jima in February 1945 cost the lives of 6,800 and injured over 28,000 Americans. The death toll for Japan was worse. Over 21,000 Japanese troops were killed. Another one of Japan's small, but strongly defended islands was Okinawa, an island more than 400 miles from mainland Japan. During the Okinawa campaign, code-name Operation Iceberg, 12,000 Americans were killed and 36,000 wounded. Japanese losses were greater - at least 100,000 dead.

    Macarthur, Hap Arnold and Bill Halsey, to name but a few who did not want the bomb to be used, were prepared to invade Japan if it came to that and forfeit the lives of who knows how many allied soldiers, sailors and airmen.

    They said Japan was only two weeks away from surrendering yet after Hiroshima this was still not forthcoming.

    The dropping of the bombs saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Allied and Japanese lives and brought about the end of the war and saved Japanese cites and towns (yes saved) from total destruction, starvation of their population and an ever increasing loss of life.

    Yes they deserved it and as history shows, came out of the war better than most other countries. They received assistance in rebuilding Japan and were exporting motor vehicles as early as 1949 and went on to become one of the world's largest economies post war.

    As far as I am concerned they came out of it rather well for the type of barbarism they unleashed on unarmed civilians and POW's for which in general they have still not shown any true feelings of remorse.



    Just a point I don't know much about Japanese culture and there society today but I do have a little passing interest in thing like Anami and Japanese computer games. It seem to me that the bomb has an founded affect on the psykie of the nation and there culture.
    As a nation do we feel remorse for the atrocities in the past which we have done? Mind you I don't thick we have done anythings as terrible as the Japanese did in ww2! Some people in other parts of the would may disagree.

    It is very interesting really as a I guess as a philosophical point can you hold individuals to account for there actions of there nation? Who knows
     
  15. Wills

    Wills Very Senior Member

    To end the Japanese war or to show the Russians what to expect?
     
  16. PeterG

    PeterG Senior Member

    To end the Japanese war or to show the Russians what to expect?
    I really think you should brush up on your history before coming out with revisionist statements like this. Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' speech at Fulton in March 1946 was highly criticised both in Britain and in America and it was only gradually that a firmer line towards the Soviet Union emerged in the Truman administration. Roosevelt had been even more conciliatory towards Stalin.
     
  17. Wills

    Wills Very Senior Member

    Revisionist nothing that is why I placed a question mark - this might just mean it was not a statement but a question one that has been asked. Time in spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted!
     
  18. wowtank

    wowtank Very Senior Member

    Kennedy in the 60s wanted to go to the moon with the Russians. Look what happen to him. Hehe

    I would imagine some top dogs in the US must have at least thought about doping the bomb just to show the Russians.
     
  19. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    There was another option that was considered by the Allies, a Naval Blockade. The US Navy had complete mastery of the Pacific in early 1945. The Japanese Merchant Fleet, the 3rd biggest in the world in 1939 was at the bottom of the ocean and Japan was slowly being strangled with no imports available to her, and this from a country that sorely needed them. A lot of the US command favored blockade to invasion, the least palatable of the options available to the Allies.
     
  20. keithgr

    keithgr Junior Member

    After hearing of the trearment received by my two uncles who were POWs of the Japanese, I have no hesitation in saying yes, the Japanese deserved it. !!

    Keith.
     

Share This Page