Did the Japanese deserve the Atomic Bomb?

Strongly about 1945 however I know Japanese people now, I purchase Japanese goods and I do not apportion blame to the Japanese people of today. I even let my daughter eat Sushi for God's sake!

Trueman would have been told that with the bomb, we can use one plane, for each city until they surrender and have a 99% success rate. No need to firebomb, no more dead troops, no more loss of aircraft, no loss of ships and the Soviets are coming so we had better get it over with.

I really do believe that the bomb saved millions of lives and has put world war 3 on hold for over 65 years.

I do not like the idea of them thinking that the time is right to try and soften the effects of their militaristic nations past and edit out their wrongdoings by calling it Asia Co Prosperity Sphere instead of invasion and denying their atrocities.

My only other problem with the Japanese government of today and that is they continue to kill whales.

 

I have worked for two Japanese companies and i would never work for them again. I saw an incident which would not have been out of place in POW camp. Also, they seem to lack basic man-management skills.

 

I don't. I believe that the best estimate of deaths in the Dresden raids is in the range 25,000 to 40,000 and more likely to be at the lower than higher end.

Elsewhere on the forum, when discussing this exact question, I made a long post quoting original German sources on casualty figures which back this estimate.

In my opinion, the raid on Germany which produced the highest number of deaths was the firestorm raid on Hamburg in July 1943, which probably killed about 40,000 out of the 46,000 or so who died in the whole "Battle of Hamburg" series of raids.

But can I suggest that we do not sidetrack too far down this road?

 

I concur with you Angie. I should have included this part of one of my previous posts on the subject.

"While we will never know the real numbers from Dresden, "Goebbels last PR scoop" as I read in James Holland's review of Frederick Taylors book, "DRESDEN, TUESDAY 13 FEBRUARY 1945" is the story most still believe today.

With the release of East German documents, Frederick Taylor paints a very different picture."

This was in your low to high vicinity as well with suggestions to the lower end.

 

There is also a propaganda pamphlet issued by the SED in the early sixties

 

I have to say that overall I agree with the sentiments of the group. Some thought has to be given to Truman's position. He is advised that an invasion of the Japanese mainland could incur a million casualties - dead and wounded. The Japanese have built defences to make the Americans pay dearly for any invasion on their soil. His war has been going four years as vice president to Roosevelt he has seen this and wants to finished the war in Asia. He has the option of being drawn into a protracted drawn out guerilla war and explaining this to an American public or dropping the bomb and explaining his reasoning. If he put it to the American public - them having lost family members and Pearl Harbor still in their minds and the potential losses of an invasion of Japan - I think the American public would vote for the bomb.

There is also the possible ulterior motive that could be here - that of showing Russia and mainland China that USA had at it's disposal. Truman holds back on the bomb. They invade Japan, a war of attrition ensues. The Japanese fighting with a fanaticism fuelled by the images of former glories when the samurai faced the Mongols in 1274. Iwo Jima and Guadacanal - fanatical fighting but the Japanese fighting back to the wall on his own mainland !! Losses mount public opinion goes against Truman, especially when they find out they could have bombed Japan without the risk. These losses put great strains on the American war effort and the morale of the front line troops and those at home. The Japanese subjugated (if that is the right word!).

Move on five years a weakened US, and the Korean scenario pops up. Would the US have the resources to support Korea or sit back and watch it become a communist satellite with eyes on Japan. With it's forces stretched covering Western Europe as well. Bearing in mind the bomb has not been used, there can be no " we won't attack because if we do they will do a Hiroshima/ Nagasaki on us".

The deterrent wouldn't be there - it would be an hypothesis a what if. Who will want to drop it and open up a whole new can of worms . Perhaps Russia and China fighting America in Asia. Which would also mean Soviet land forces invading Germany. America is fighting on two fronts far from home.

I think Truman was aware of what he was doing when he authorised the dropping of the bomb. He has weighed up the pros and cons for and against. He drops the first - three days and no reply from the Japanese. He drops the second and Japan capitulates. The Japanese maybe thought the first was a one off and intended to carry on. The second drops, the Japanese see this and recognise that with no control of the skies the American could keep dropping these with impunity till no Japan.

Reference the official surrender Japan was in no position to call the shots. It was all or nothing, with the attrocities committed by them and known to the Americans - the Americans can play hardball. With the atrocities committed the Americans can look at the Japanese with no compassion. They drop one the Japanese don't take the hint. After the first wouldn't all but the diehards want to concede.

Sorry if I have gone outside the initial thread, but if you look at the big picture from Truman's perspective - the bomb would cut short the war, get the troops home - troops which could have been wasted on a rocky shoreline. It wasn't a "shall we or won't we", no one takes the loss of life lightly. Truman must have had some deep thinking going on. The decision was not taken rashly - the lesser of two evils. It was a marker in modern history. Bearing in mind it is easy to look back with the facility of hindsight. Truman didn't have this, he was treading virgin territory. By not surrendering after the first drop the Japanese perhaps made it dawn on him that even with the dropping of it they were going to carry on - the thoughts of the sea invasion. The idea of surrender perhaps a stalling tactic, a sign of contempt. Unfortunate but think of how world history might be changed if deterrent value was not there. The Bay of Pigs 62?

 

Japan did not deserve to be nuked. I did hear somewhere that the drops were almost "tests." The only test before Hiroshima and Nagasaki was Trinity. What I gathered was that one of the reasons the US dropped the atom bombs on Japan was to measure the damage nuclear bombs would create.

Just to throw another idea out there...

Sorry for any deviation from the topic

 

Absolutely right.

Excellent geoff

Okinawa taught the harsh lesson of what an invasion on the main island would be like.

The Japanese had a chance to surrender and did not. The atomic bomb was part of the US total war arsenal as was the flame thrower. Both were horrible weapons. Wars are fought to be ended, not dragged on.

Philly Cheez??? What about Pearl Harbor, Nanking, Bataan Death March, Burma????

 

Hi Philadelphia,

An interesting opinion. Is there a reason you have gone that way? You know my opinion from the posts.

This is not rejecting you answer..........but if you can, try and place yourself back living in 1939-1945 in the states and you and your loved ones have just been through three and a half years of war. Try it without the knowledge of hindsight and the views of those who hate the United States 60 years hence for helping to keep them free.

What better place to trial it? Besides the loss of the two birds and the stone, Russia, China and everyone else knew the catastrophic possibilites of "the bomb" and further loss of life of the Japanese people and the allies was averted.

No deviation if it is a reason for your opinion!

If you have the time, please browse through this information on this site. This is what happened.

Terrorism and Atrocity


Geoff

 

I will only say that last year I attended a Burma Veterans event (got my favourite Burma book signed by over 50 veterans and made a nice lot of contacts) - I lost count of how many of them said that they were alive because the Bombs were dropped, or how grateful they were when the Japanese surrendered BECAUSE of THIS.

 

Yep and not forgetting the POW's.....for which the Japanese, aware of imminent invasion, had scheduled a date - September 21st 1945 - on which ALL POW's were going to be slaughtered. Because of the bombs, this never happened - so that's another x hundred thousand Allies and displaced persons that got to live.

 

This is an extract from Gavan Daws book in 1995.

Gavan Daws, the Australian-born author of PRISONERS OF THE JAPANESE, has brought the world a grim fiftieth anniversary remembrance of the end of World War II. His book documents atrocities committed by the Japanese armed forces against 140,000 plus allied POWs, American, Australian, British and Dutch. Daws concludes that Japan owes an apology not only for crimes against POWs but also crimes against white civilian internees and the civilian populations of China, Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and South-East Asia.

On the controversial issue of the use of A-bombs, Daws points to the little-known fact that if the allies had to invade Japan, the 100,000 POWs surviving at mid-1945 would have been massacred and the 100,000 surviving civilian internees would have been in danger of being starved to death.

 

I've always held that point high in my head (besides my father's life being saved) when studying the atomic attacks. Those POWs, most of whom had been in the bag since February, March, and April 1942, were quite literally at their last gasp. Starved, tortured, beaten, they had been working as slave labor in Japanese factories and coal mines, mostly because Japan had no other labor, under appalling conditions. The defenders of Wake, Guam, Bataan, Singapore, Java, and Hong Kong were at their absolute last extremity.

Had the Americans invaded, I'm sure the Japanese would have gone ahead and lopped off the heads of all the remaining POWs, rather than see them escape or be freed. They treated the POWs with a contempt close to the SS treatment of their prisoners.

 

I just hope I'd never have to give the go ahead order myself.

 

Probably what Truman was thinking when he was Vice President!!!!!!!!! (if indeed he did know about the bomb)

 

LostKingdom, do you think the people in Nanking deserved what they got from the Japanese in 1937? Payback is hell.

 

If a peaceful nation was attacked then any and all means to end the war is acceptable. From Incendiary bombs to atomic bombs anything goes. But this doctrine is changed when multiple nations have atomic weapons as there would be little left in a full nuclear exchange. So the use today of NBC is very different than in 1945.

 

The devastation was seen and the lesson learnt.

"There ended the lesson".

If it had not been used then, we may now be living in a wasteland.

 

Should the bombs have been dropped? At the time it was known they had a massive effect from just one bomber, so yes they would have dropped them. With hindsight we know the true extent of the damage, and so we would probably not have dropped them, but there is always someone, somewhere, who would press the button to defend their own. In the end, Nagsaki and Hiroshima became the ulitmate deterant. Since then no-one has dropped a bomb like that, and thank god for conscience. But isn't it a scary thought that the original tests on the H Bomb went ahead even though the scientists weren't sure it wouldn't set up a chain reaction in the atmosphere?
As an after thought, now the Cold War is over (!) and so many new countries are developing their own bombs, shouldn't the Enola Gay be sent around the world to teach the lesson to new generations? I find it frightening that my own generation and my parents generation is developing new bombs.