Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[thomas]

As you may have noticed on our index page we're running a poll this month entitled "Do you think that the dropping of atomic bombs onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted a U.S. war crime?"

While only 49 visitors have voted so far, it seems to be clear that the majority of voters views the employment of nuclear bombs "as necessary to end the WWII".

Found this old survey by Japan Today (http://www.japanreference.com/cgi-bin/jump.cgi?ID=3185) on a similar topic:

Did the US force Japan into WWII?

=> http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=popvox&id=13

[shintemaster]

The deployment of Atomic weapons against Japan, not once but twice tells us a lot about the mindset of American policy leaders, including the President at that time. It also tells us some interesting things that the official policy hasn't wavered since that time. While it is possible to view this as meaning that the decision made was completely supported by the available data this does not seem to be the case. On the contrary, it seems more likely that revising these official positions would open up debate along lines similar to that which began this thread.
The use of the bomb on two separate occasions gives a sour taste to the claims that the bomb was meant as a kind of "warning." That the bomb could have been used in a non-civilian area as a warning of the destructive power the American government now possessed.
The much touted claims of "saving" up to 1,000,000 lives have been shown to be completely at odds with even the most drastic military estimates at the time the decision was made. Estimates which the President had at the time from his top officials ranged from around 20,000 casualties up to just under 200,000.
The Government also had concerns about Soviet entry into the war in the Pacific area and it is probable that these calculations went into the idea of using the bomb.
This is of course a huge topic and one which I have an ongoing interest in. I still have not completely resolved this issue in my own mind. The most upsetting thing for me is however the lack of true interest (by not just American society and Government, but also that of all Allied Nations) in exploring the reasons and necessity of the bomb's use in Japan. People must remember to always question what they are told about history and their own country, as well as others.

Oh, one other thing, my apologies for rambling on so much....
:sorry:

[moyashi]

ouch touchy subject for most concerned.

hmmm ....

side notes:
Japan was developing it's own Atomic bomb and was willing to use them with no remorse according to the scientist that were working on it. Deployment was to be with hot air balloons. The Germans inadvertently stopped these plans by not supplying plutonium. <<< this was in a news article in Japan Times a few years back

The results of the first bomb was reported to the military powers in control through carrier pigeon. Unfortunately, not many in the military could believe that such a powerful weapon could exist. Most of Japan was under such brain washing that nobody really new Japan was loosing the war until the first bomb hit. Also, the navy and army was at each others throats so much co-ordination of troops between the two was virtually impossible.

back to topic....
I've been asked many times in Japan why the US used the bomb. Wasn't it a racist decision? ect....

I really don't think it was pure racist, well not in as we hate Asians so let's bomb those suckers, but more likely a simplistic view of a racism that Asains were just a bunch of restless natives. Also, the added benefit of scaring Russia from entering Japan was probably high in the decision reasons. Hey, there's nothing like occupying a country all by yourself and not having to divide up a large portion of the cheese for a late comer.

I wonder how much the kamikaze scare factor also played in the decision.

Did the us force Japan into WWII?
hmmm I heard that the US sunk a passenger liner from Japan first.

Forcing Japan into WWII sounds a little foolish since the US just barely forced Japan to open it's doors at the end of the Tokugawa period (about 260) years ago. So ... why later?

If anything, I believe the US let Japan bomb pearl harbor. Isn't it a bit strange that most of the fleet was out of the harbor at the time? Hey, there's nothing like hitting an American while he's not looking. I really think the US needed a reason to enter the pacific arena and pearl harbor was just a battle cry.

I too have trouble with this topic since I'm born American but have parents from Germany (they immigrated to the states in the late 50's and early 60's), a step father in the US navy and live in Japan.

is dropping the bombs are war crime?
hmmmm ... ouch that's a difficult question.
I wonder what is the actual definition (such what types of acts and such) of a war crime.

[shintemaster]

There are some really interesting and intense issues involved. Personally for me I'm beginning to lean towards the view that it was something that was initiated prematurely. If you think about it from the idea of war crimes etc. I don't think that political considerations w/regards to the Soviet Union constitute valid justification. I'm interested in this mainly because I think that American society as a whole needs to seriously evaluate this in order to prevent the use of nuclear weapons again.
Interesting question though. Would the American leaders been so quick to use a nuclear weapon against German cities?

Hmmmmmm :bow:

[moyashi]

That's though. Bombing German would've meant bombing Jewish homes.
Although, I do believe that the thought was being considered but with the Germans shifting to the East to prevent the Russian entrance and giving way to the Americans usage would've been more difficult to prove.

Political justifications concerning Russia. Hmmm true but those times where a bit different .. don't forget the Red Hunts that went on in the States.

I really would like to see that Hiroshima peace museum be put on at the Smithsonian at least. I went there and the images of what I saw still live on in my memories. Problem is that too many Veterans probably would veto such an action. I remember watching on japanese TV a show where reporters tried to show pictures of what hideousness the bomb left behind and a lot of Veterans actually got angry and said it was all Japan's fault.

yes, this issue is very huge with lots of sides ... just hoping that such threads this could bring folks together and actually think about such consequences that war brings.

:(

[thomas]

A highly controversial topic that has to be handled with great sensitivity. I remember that on some other board issues such as the atomic bombs or the "Nanjing Incident" got completely out of hand and deviated into flaming wars. Oh, I am not afraid of things escalating on our board here, hehe.

Last march our visitors opted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not constitute war crimes, nuclear attacks were necessary to end the war.

It's been a long time since uni, but I remember that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 protect innocent civilians in war zones. Just did a search and found the entire document:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Difficult to conclude whether attacks like Guernica, Coventry, Dresden or Hiroshima/Nagasaki were war crimes. The Geneva Convention is applicable to

"persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria".

But

"persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Have to delve into these articles once again.

One thing is for sure, Shintemaster mentioned this aspect already and I have included it as an option in our March poll: the bombs were meant to be a clear signal towards the Soviet Union. Cold war had already started long before WWII was over.

I am not sure whether the use of nuclear weapons was strategically necessary, because after battle of Okinawa the Imperial Army was more or less annihilated.

"Did the us force Japan into WWII?"

Well, they certainly did not force Japan (there are always non-violent means of conflict resolution), but there obviously was something like a "strategy" that had already started in the 1920s. Take a look at this thread (http://forum.japanreference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157) where I have outlined a few unfriendly acts.

The Western imperial powers certainly weren't too happy to allow Japan at the table of international power games, a nation they had created and that had become adolescent after the victorious conflicts in China/Korea and the defeat of the Czarist fleet.

I'm rambling... there are many aspects that need to be taken into consideration.
:bow:

[thomas]

Just mentioning it briefly...

Japan remembers Hiroshima bombing victims

=> http://www.nandotimes.com/world/story/489965p-3910691c.html

Nagasaki bombing remembered, U.S. to be condemned in speech

=> http://www.japantoday.com/e/content=news&cat=1&id=225968

[moyashi]

@Dresden
My grandmother for many years had nightmares because of that horrible bombing idea. My mother was too young to remember much more than her mother in psychological pain.

@baiting.
Probably, the US baited Japan. But still the Japanese military wanted this.

@okinawa
Most likely but I remember back in the states and growing up. That the Japanese kamikaze were quite frightening. Wasn't their a mentality if the people of Okinawa battled so vehemetly that the mainland would be worse?

[JimBeam]

I think that asking who started the war is a moot point as from my understanding the war was probably unavoidable. You have to hungry nations extending the reach of their wealth and influence throughout the Pacific at some point these two would have had to come into conflict. I don't think either side would have yeilded to the other. There were many historical forces behind the dynamics off WWII, it makes my head spin trying to fit together all the diffrent angles.

As far as dropping the bombs. I do beleive that the US's 1,000,000 man bit did play a part in the decision, I know that it was much more than that. Dropping the bombs was a powerfull symbol of the US's emergance as a superpower. Also, as much as it was ment to show the US's power to our enemies I think it served an even more powerful role as declearation to our allies that we were incharge, that the US had become a shot caller, that Brittian and everyone else should know there place under the US.

Those are my thoughts the matter anyway whether it was justified or a war crime I don't know, but what I do know is that it is never right for a person to lose thier life.

[Mandylion]

Of course we have the benefit of hindsight. It is very difficult to tell what is happening in war. Look at Iraq, even with all our immediate, live, real-time info, retractions and revisions are made all the time. While we may be burdened at times by too much info, I think people on both sides in WWII had trouble due to a lack of it. In deciding to drop the bombs, the US had to look at what it had been though on Iwo Jima, Okinawa and others to predict how things would go if they invaded Japan proper. Why would they have thought Kyushu, Honshu, Shikoku and Hokkaido would have been any different?
I am not excusing the bombs as I have real trouble making up my mind on the issue, but I think often historians have trouble keeping what we know now about the state of Japan｡ﾇs forces, drive, determination, internal politics at the time, out of our interpretations when we try and understand why the US did what they did.
As for dropping the bombs on Japan, yes it may have been for the effect on the Russians, yes, it may have been easier than dropping it on Europe, but if I recall, the bombs weren｡ﾇt finished until after Germany surrendered. Certainly the firebombing of Germany et al. was just as terrible a fate and destroyed many, including Jewish (or ex-jewish), homes in the process. I think it is very difficult, but not impossible, to play a racial card with the bombing given the timing of the events in WWII and the equally terrible destruction of European cities.
As for Pearl Harbor, people probably thought something was going to happen soon, but if it was a batted attack, why let it be so successful? Why have your sailors asleep below deck rather than suited up and ready to jump on the Archie, effectively turning a surprise into a surprise? While at the risk of being pie in the sky here, if the US had pulled a fast one at Pearl, Midway, Guam, Coral Sea, most of the Pacific War could have been shortened. Lets also not forget that the Philippines, with a strong US presence and inconveniently blocking Japanese access to Indonesian oil needed for the war machine in China and Korea, was also hit on, or on either side of, Dec. 7th in an attempt to knock the US out of the war. Why would the US knowingly expose their entire Pacific force the to that?
(The carriers were out on exercises and the Navy wasn｡ﾇt yet sold on the idea of a carrier based strategy to worry enough to send them out of Pearl to intentionally prevent being sunk in the first place. Many still saw carriers as a novel and untested idea. Indeed the Pacific War proved the age of the battleship was over. Arguably if the ships at Pearl had been out at sea waiting for the Japanese, the war would have been over, but that is speculation. Let me know if you want to play that game :-) )

All that aside, I do agree with JimBeam, it is never right to loose a life. I am also impressed by the responsible quality and tone of this discussion. Lets keep it up!

[mdchachi]

> I do beleive that the US's 1,000,000 man bit did play a part in the decision,

The Pentagon estimates at the time was more like 20,000 to 50,000. But let's face it, if they thought they could save even 10,000 American lives even if it meant killing 200,000 Japanese to do it, they certainly would. Even today I tear up when I read about my first hometown casualty in Iraq yet when I hear about hundreds of Iraqi soldiers getting "mowed down" I don't give it a second thought. Intellectually, of course, I realize it's terrible.

I tend to think that, by that point, Hiroshima was more or less necessary. Or, at least, the best option they had from an American standpoint -- that is, savings American lives and ending the war on a stronger footing against Russia.

I don't know if it's a crime but I think it's "highly regrettable" that they didn't wait another week or so before bombing Nagasaki. I think it more than likely that they would have surrendered after Hiroshima had they been given enough time.

Also, it's not really clear in my mind why the nuclear bomb was so much more horrendous than, for example, firebombing Tokyo which also targetted civilians and killed tens of thousands of people. But you never hear boo about that.

[senseiman]

I am going to come right out and say that Yes I think the bombings were definite war crimes. There are a few things worth considering.

In a hypothetical invasion of Japan probably more people would have been killed than in the bombings, but this argument takes for granted both that an invasion was otherwise unavoidable and that a country can use any means necessary to win a war no matter how horrible.

Taking the first of these, that the only other option was an invasion, it seems clear that this may have been avoided. In the weeks prior to the bombings the Japanese government had been trying to negotiate a surrender through the then neutral Soviet Union. The US, having broken the Japanese diplomatic codes, was well aware of this fact. The Japanese main demand was that as a face saving gesture the emporer's position be guarunteed after surrender. But the stated objective of the war was unconditional surrender and Truman refused to enter negotiations with the Japanese government, even though in the end the position of the Emporer was maintained anyway. Had the US been willing to alter its war aims it possibly could have gotten a Japanese surrender without using the bombs or invading Japan, but this option was never pursued, presumably because of the desire to appear strong to the Soviet Union.

As for the argument that the bombings were the less bloody way of achieving American victory and therefore they were morally justifiable, I don't find this very compelling because of the rationalization of atrocities it involves. Lets take a hypothetical situation. Had Germany won the war, using the same logic they could have argued that their use of Jewish slave labour in munitions factories was morally justifiable because it increased their military prowess and allowed them to win a military victory quicker and less bloody than they would have otherwise. A rational person would have to conclude that this was an empty argument and the German atrocities were totally unjustifiable. I feel it is the same with the case of the use of nuclear weapons against two defenceless cities.

Of course, there are a lot of differences between the two cases. Germany chose to go to war while the war was forced on the US. Still, while the US didn't choose to go to war it did choose how it would fight it and how it would end it and I think it should be held accountable for its decisions.

The only reason the bombings aren't considered war crimes is that the US won and the victors certainly weren't going to put themselves on trial. While they will never be legally defined as war crimes, as an individual it is my opinion that they were just that.

[Thomas Quinton]

Attacking mainland Japan would of been the most brutal and viscious battle mankind would of ever known. The debate for the ages, was it necessary to drop the bombs? Yes it was. Just the fact that Hirohito told the citizens that the war was over, never once saying japan was defeated or we have surrendered. They would of fought to the very last man, woman and child. And millions would of been lost. I do feel for the people of these cities when i watch documentaries on the bombings, and read the tales of survivors that touched me very much, but war is ugly and brutal, and lets just hope it will never be repeated again.

[doudesuka]

I am not sure why we dropped the atomic bombs. What was the reason to drop a bomb on innocent japanese citizens who also suffered under the hands of their own Imperialist Army?
I believe the U.S. had a right to counter attack Japan though after Pearl Harbor. But, I don't believe the bombs did anything for relations between the countries. It just made a bad memory.
I know that many Japanese don't even like to bring up the situation for obvious reasons. I think there is a silent majority who think it's really their ancestor's faults but not able to express it. Well, it's history , so I believe we should just look to the future as friendly nations.

[jirzji]

Originally posted by Mandylion
As for dropping the bombs on Japan, yes it may have been for the effect on the Russians, yes, it may have been easier than dropping it on Europe, but if I recall, the bombs weren｡ﾇt finished until after Germany surrendered.

Exactly! tell me if i am wrong but i also recall that the first target was Germany, but since they surrendered, the race started to get them to Japan, next on the list. Unfortunately the japanese also capitulated shortly after, maybe not under the exact conditions of the americans, but the bombs even came after that. The nuclear program management needed a way to test the bombs at all costs.
Isn't this a crucial point in the discussion whether the bombing is to be considered as a war crime? Paradoxically, the war was already over ...

[Kiwano]

Originally posted by jirzji
The nuclear program management needed a way to test the bombs at all costs.

From what I've heard (or rather read, the Swedish school teaches you that it was indeed an exaggeration, but necessary to end the war) you are correct.

As far as I know, the Japanese tried to surrender a couple of times, the first attempt made in the middle June of 45. But America refused to accept that surrender and raised the bid by saying that the emperor had to deannounce his divinety. Initialy the Japanese refused, but when American B52s were stationed less than 400km from Tokyo and 91% of their navy was lost, they once again tried, this time through Sovjet. But the US prommised that Stalin would get free hands in Manchuria, so I was to no help for the Japanese. The third attempt to capitulation (of which I have heard at least) was again directly to the US government who responded by demanding a total and demandless capitulation of Japan (I don't know the english name for that, so I translated it directly from Swedish) meaning that the emperor would be imprisonated in the US. The Japanese government couldend accept such a demand, not beacuse that were to proud though. In fact, at that point over 50% in the government had voted for an immediate stop to the war at all reasonable costs. The problem was that they knew that the soldiers would keep on fighting if such a thing would happen.
The US had (according to Harry S Trumans diaries) decided to us two A-bombs in april of that year, the reasons being: 1. To scare the **** out of anyone with plans of assaulting the US (Sovjet). 2. Test the weapon ON REAL PEOPLE, there wasn't another way to realy find out what the radiation damages were like, 45 % of the energy of the Hiroshima bomb amd about 50 % of the Nagasaki bomb was immedeately transformed into radiation. Futhermore, Hiroshima had many wooden houses and was/is situated in a valley which allowed the shockwave to echo . I won't get in to that since it's kinda off topic. They had to use two bombs since thay had two models, the uranium and the plutonium, so Nagasaki had to be the subject of experiment. 3. The cost of the atomic bomb program amounted to 16 % of the defence budget. That hole in the budget needed an explenation, and there was only one explenation to be found, and only one thing for those who were responsible for the project to do, it had to be used.

These were the main reasons, or rather the main way of thinking (as far as I know at least). They knew that it wasn't a matter of avoiding causalties at an eventual invasion, the estimated number of american causlties was predicted to be somewhere between 25 000 - 63 000, in the best/worst case. The number 250 000, was made up, and commented by "a quarter million sounds good, doesn't it"

The days befor the news about the bombs reached the Americans, pictures of American warprisoners in Japan was showed to make sure that people were very anti-Japan when the news would reach them.

Since I wrote this much I feel like there should be some kind of conlclution at the end or something, but I'm to tired to think of one, and the the lack of sleep is starting to affect my english big time so I'll call it a night here. If you read this far, you probably feel the same way to.

[noyhauser]

I'm too tired to write another reply to another post. I discussed why surrender was not an option in 1945 for the Japanese in another thread. read it if you want another view. Japan was nowhere near surrendering in July. The atom bomb changed that. And atom bombs could be accurrately tested... they used Pigs in Alomagoro and in the later Bikini tests as well. Truman Hated russians, didn't trust them at all but couldn't stop the Manchuria campaign even if he protested.

http://forum.japanreference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3200&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

[tharealeazygsta]

There is absolutely no arguing the fact that these atrocities were war crimes because the main targets were civilian cities filled with women and children not military personnel. Yes the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor but that was a military target. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was essentially 9/11 times 100. To clarify, if the US would have dropped the bombs on m-i-l-i-t-a-r-y targets it would be different but they dropped them on c-i-v-i-l-i-a-n cities which makes these inhumane slaughters nothing more than cowardly terroristic acts and two of the darkest days in American history.

[Sukotto]

There's a book out that I attempted to read on the topic titled "Atomic Diplomacy Hiroshima and Potsdam" by Gar Alperovitz. It was kind of tuff and I only got through the intros and into the first chapter before another book came along. But I'm pretty sure the gist of the book was that the bombings were to "make the Soviets easier to handle" in the post-war world. The US did not want the Russians to invade Japan and thus have to share the occupation with them. Truman was able to 'play his hand' stronger at the Potsdam conference since the atomic bombs were in working condition by this time.

The Hiroshima atomic bomb website lists 3 reasons for the use of the bomb. The above, "making the Soviets more managable", was not one of them. Hiroshima's site, in my opinion, is very diplomatic.

I mention the above book and comments to some hard-core republicans/conservatives here in the states and they immediately denounce it as historic revisionism. I try to tell them that they author relied on the official record and even gov officials' diaries to come to the conclusion he does. A conclusion he did not set out to prove, the author writes in the into. Government officials have always told the public one thing and reasonings are not always as they are stated to be. So in a way it is a reworking of history as new information is made available to us.


peace out yo. haha.
no more hiroshimas.

[Feral-Darkness]

Did they have to be used? No.
But you must look at it as a balance, If we do not use them, this will happen, if we do, this will happen.

The fact is it was better for US to use them and honestly the fact that we did use them has changed the face of war from that point on. The fact that the weapon is so powerfull that they shrugged off the first bomb saying that isn't possiable ect goes to show its power.

I am sure that if we had not used them the war would of raged on for ALOT longer, if you added 5 more years to the war, what would the world be like today? The fact is if it had only lasted 1 year longer I would not be here to post this because my father most likely would of died. He was on a ship in route to japan when the 2nd bomb droped.

As for it being a war crime. I personaly think that they can have no true crime in war because war its self is a crime. You can only have morals in war. Is it moral to kill 1 million random people most of which are not military personal of you'r enemy to show them you have this weapon and are not scared to use it, To save you'r side 1-2 million lives, billions of dollers and all the other costs of the war?

If I was the pres at the time, I would of done the same thing. though insted I might of droped the first one on a large Mt. Or some land mark in a lower populated area.

Needless to say the fact is that any nation fighting a current super power will stand no chance in this era. With the new nuclear weapons out being 100-150X more powerfull then the bombs we droped at that time it would be pointless.

Now nuclear weapons are used as more of a deterant then a weapon. A great general once said "One day a weapon so destructive, so powerfull will come along that the devastation and pain it will cause will be so horrible that man will no longer have wars for fear of it being used" needless to say I think he was pretty much right, We will not see any more massive world wars and if we do it would be the dawn of civilization.

Also many of the reasons kiwano gave are right. The president knew no one would think a weapon like this was real unless they showed it was.

And yes the weapons were droped very LOW thus they created MASSIVE radiation, Now most nuclear weapons are detonated allmost a half mile above ground, causeing a larger shock wave effect with less rads at ground 0 "Where everything dies due to the heat / shock wave / lack of air due to all the stuff burning up so fast." and the rads being moved bye air to create even more problems where they land.

Any ways, The past is the past. Learn from it. I am sure we did and I do not forsee us useing any nuclear weapons any time soon and I don't think japan will eaither.

North korea I don't know about though.... That is a very bad situation that keeps getting worse.

[KitsuneUdon]

Here's two things that I've heard argued about the dropping of the bombs:

1. Japan wouldn't have surrendered otherwise.

I don't know how accurate/inaccurate this is, but I've also heard that Japan was already crippled to the point where an invasion would have also been overkill. In other words, they may have already been on the verge of surrender. For example; Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya all received extremely heavy damage from firebombing. In fact, the death toll in Tokyo, I believe, was more than the death toll in Hiroshima.

But, then again! I've also read (fabricated?) articles about Japan's plan to send kamakazis to San Francisco, fully loaded with viles of the bubonic plauge. This was supposively to happen in late September. Did America actually know about this before they dropped the bombs?

Personally, I don't think so. As I said, "fabricated?" ???

2. Test (especially Nagasaki).

Well, how can you explain Nagasaki? Yet others will argue that it was neccessary to end the war before Russia also moved in. But I don't even think there was time to fathom what was happening in that short time. You have Hiroshima on Aug. 6th, Russia declared war on Japan on Aug. 8th (90 days after Germany surrendered), then Nagasaki was bombed on Aug. 9th. So, is there really a valid explaination? Well, Russia had only started to attack Japanese troops in Manchuria and they had plans to also invade the northern islands of Japan (including Hokkaido). Then the very next morning Nagasaki was bombed. No offical negotiation after Hiroshima was bombed, infact I believe that Hirohito barely got word of Hiroshima's devisation before Nagasaki was bombed. So what would you call it?

It was a TEST!
__________________________________________________ ______

Well, anyway... These are bits a pieces of Japanese history in the way I interpreted them.

[Trau]

Some facts:

Two separate estimates exist to rate the number of American casualties that would result from such an invasion. A joint war plans committee comprised of the army and navy came to the conclusion that 46,000 Americans would die in an invasion of Kyushu and later Honshu. The number of American wounded averaged three to one during the later years of the war, so according to this estimate, 175,000 American casualties were not out of the question. However, these figures were based on such tentative intelligence that George Marshall, the armys chief of staff, bluntly rejected them.

A second estimate proposed by Admiral Leahy was much higher. The invasion of Iwo Jima caused 6,200 American deaths, and the U. S. outnumbered the Japanese by four to one. Okinawa cost 13,000 U. S. servicemen, and they outnumbered the Japanese by two and one-half to one. These 13,000 men made up more than 35% of the U. S. landing force. Consequently, Admiral Leahy came to the conclusion that it was absurd to think that any less than 35% of the American force that invaded Japan would be killed. Based on the estimate of 560,000 Japanese soldiers on Kyushu as of early August, Leahy predicted that at very minimum over 250,000 American soldiers would lie dead as a result of an invasion of the Japanese islands.

It was later found that the troop strength on Kyushu was greatly under-estimated, and that by August 6 the Japanese had over 900,000 men stationed on Kyushu, nearly twice as many as thought. Leahys estimates that the Americans would have a preponderance, when in fact the 767,000 American soldiers who would comprise the landing force were already greatly outnumbered three months before Operation Olympic was actually to begin. By November, Japanese troop strength could easily double or triple, making between 500,000 and 1,000,000 American deaths conceivable.

These numbers do not even begin to account for the Japanese dead. In Okinawa, twice as many Japanese were killed as Americans. It is therefore plausible that between 100,000 (according to the earliest estimate) and two million soldiers would die in an invasion. This number does not include Japanese civilians dead, which could conceivably have been even higher than the number of dead soldiers.

http://oror.essortment.com/presidenttruman_rywp.htm

I believe someone begged the question, "Would the US have been so quick to drop the atomic bomb on Germany?" That answer would be yes. The bomb was being worked on by many Jewish scientists for that very purpose; thing is, Germany surrendered before the Manhattan Project was completed.

Try this essay as well: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Bethe

[Rhaven]

I owuld like to say yes it is A war crime, true warriros would not drop bombs on civilians, true the Japanese ARMY employed tatics that are equally ugly such as use of black plague on chinese civilians, but for America to show justice by using the eye for an eye method is horrible. children burned to thier mothers backs, faces gone, eyes melted, people vanished into dust!!!

How can A man authorize this then call himself human!

and the worse thing was that it was done twice and even considered being done in the korean war!



Revenge is not justice.


I htink America should learn alot from its mistakes true without one stong dominate power war would be more large scale but the use of weopons on civilians is unnecssary!.


I only wish we lived in the days of swords and spears, at leats those soldiers were not commanded to kill children and mothers.




Japan was not america's enimy, and america was not japan's enemy it is war that is our enemy but we are but men and incapable of escaping war so let us try not to give in to it as bad as we have.



A great movie to watch on hiroshima is "hiroshima" it stars that guy from karate kid

[Brooker]

I think intentionally targeting civilians is not a valid way to achieve a military/political goal, period. The ends don't justify the means, it matters how you go about achieving your goals.

[Golgo_13]

I just wonder if the U.S. would have dropped the A-bomb on Germany had the U.S. had it ready before Germany had surrendered.

No Way !

[KitsuneUdon]

I only wish we lived in the days of swords and spears, at leats those soldiers were not commanded to kill children and mothers

I'm not trying to belittle you here, but that is quite wrong. Throughout history; mass murder, rape, and plundering has always been a military/marshal tatic.

However, the rest of what you posted is rather agnostic, but you do have a point that the use of the bomb was rather unhumane. Anyway.... nuf said.

By the way, it's Ralph Macchio. :smug:

[bossel]

I just wonder if the U.S. would have dropped the A-bomb on Germany had the U.S. had it ready before Germany had surrendered.

No Way !
I think, the bomb's original purpose was to be dropped on Nazi-Germany. Only the Nazis were finished before the bomb was.

[noyhauser]

Ever hear of Dresden?

[Golgo_13]

Ever hear of Dresden?

It was carpet bombed. So?

Look at some photos of Tokyo circa Sept. 1945. Doesn't look much different.

An atom bomb dropped on Dresden (or Hamburg or Frankfurt) would have done much more damage in a split second. I doubt the U.S. would've done it.

[bossel]

It was carpet bombed. So?

Look at some photos of Tokyo circa Sept. 1945. Doesn't look much different.

An atom bomb dropped on Dresden (or Hamburg or Frankfurt) would have done much more damage in a split second. I doubt the U.S. would've done it.
The number of (direct) deaths of the Dresden bombing is comparable to Nagasaki. In Tokyo & Hiroshima twice as many people died.
Can't really see your point, are you saying Germany has been treated "better" than Japan in WWII?

The A-bomb's original purpose was to be dropped on Germany, partly because the US feared that the Nazis were developing their own bomb (another example of the US over-estimating threats):

http://www.theenolagay.com/study.html
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/info/atom1.html

[Golgo_13]

The number of (direct) deaths of the Dresden bombing is comparable to Nagasaki. In Tokyo & Hiroshima twice as many people died.
Can't really see your point, are you saying Germany has been treated "better" than Japan in WWII?


Dresden is comparable to Nagasaki? I don't see your point.
Did people in Dresden suffer the after-effects of the radiation fallout?

There were many other cities in Japan that were bombed.
Many kids from larger cities were re-located to the countryside for protection. My father was taken from Osaka to Aomori.

My point is, the U.S. had less qualms about dropping the A-bomb on Japan to kill 200,000 - 300,000 yellow race of people insatantly than on Germany simply because many more Americans are of German descent than Japanese (who were locked up in concentration camps).

[bossel]

Dresden is comparable to Nagasaki? I don't see your point.
Did people in Dresden suffer the after-effects of the radiation fallout?
Obviously you didn't really read what I wrote: "The number of (direct) deaths of the Dresden bombing is comparable to Nagasaki." Or is this so unclear?
The lowest estimate for the number of victims in Dresden is 35,000. These are the identified victims only, though. Probably up to 250,000 people died there.
There are estimates of up to 600,000, but this is not very credible for those numbers are usually put forward by right wingers.

A-bombs on Japan:
http://www.ww2guide.com/atombomb.shtml


There were many other cities in Japan that were bombed.
Many kids from larger cities were re-located to the countryside for protection.
Just like in Germany.


My point is, the U.S. had less qualms about dropping the A-bomb on Japan to kill 200,000 - 300,000 yellow race of people insatantly than on Germany simply because many more Americans are of German descent than Japanese (who were locked up in concentration camps).
Less qualms maybe. But they would have bombed German cities anyway.
BTW, there were also US Americans of German descent in internment camps, although the number is far lower than that of people from Japanese descent.

[Bandit]

I have heard alot of different points of view about this. I have heard that if the US did not drop the bombs it would have led to a full scale invasion on Japan itself, and if that had happened estimated deaths probably could have been millions if not close to a billion if u take into account the US soldiers that would have died, the Japanese soldiers that would have died, the Japanese citizens, and maybe even Russian soldiers since they entered the pacific war a couple months before it ended.
I have also heard that the US should have waited to drop them to see if there could have been some sort of legal/government settlement to end the war.
It is a very controversial topic seeing how there are so many different point of views and it is something that might never be solved because of all of those different point of views.

[zeroyon]

As for who was forcing who to start WWII, I believe that it was the harsh conditions of the treaty of versailles that lead to germany's ambitious needs... I won't go into why i think japan wanted to enter the war and sided with the axis.. (its kinda obvious, look at japan from a geographic standpoint and you will know what I mean)..

As for dropping the A-bombs, I don't think it was necessary.

However, I DO think that it was a much better alternative than invading japan. Most likey in the end, much of japan's cities would have lied in ruin, there would be millions of casulaties on both sides (especially tons of civilan casualties), and much of japans culture and hearatige that is still there today would have been wiped out. But also, I think that the USA could have dropped the A-bombs, most notably little boy (the one dropped on hiroshima) in a less densley populated area. It would have got the same message acrosss, and wouldnt have killed so many people.

I think the USA had another resason for dropping the A-bombs as well, as the USA realised the upcoming problems they were going to have to face with the Soviet Union's communist ways after the war, and they needed a way to show off to the Soviet Union the destructive power of their new weapon, and unfortunatley Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two unlucky hosts...

Also, does anyone know what the Roentgen count at ground zero in hiroshima is? like... does it still have a high radiation count (at least compared to places where neuclear explosions didnt occur)?

Also... if you want to visit an interesting website... go to http://www.kiddofspeed.com/ , its a site with pictures taken from a girl who constantly goes inside the "Dead Zone" near chernobyl, and has some pretty crazy picutres (especially the Ghost town near the reactor)... if you want the direct link with picures of the ghost town (and skip all of the stuff outside of the town before), the go to http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter11.html

VISIT THAT SITE. It will totally open up your eyes to the devastating consequences of nuclear radiation (no it doesnt have any pictures of dead bodies, or anything greusome, so you dont need to be worried. Some of the pictures are kinda scary though (of the ghost town :eek: )

[snow san]

War crime? Maybe, who is to judge? the Japanese? Americans? the French?... hope not they think dressing wrong for battle is a war crime...
didnt this happen over a half century ago? as for
(brooker): Maybe targeting civilians was wrong but you cannot justify Japanese slaughtering all over asia and the pacific theater before WWII either... Oh wait a minute thats not in the Japanese history books so it must not have happend...people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones...
and to
(Rhaven): the Japanese Army did employ tactics such as bayonetting civilians to save ammunition and then marching civillians 90 giving them little to no water... but lessons have been learned on both sides and if we had to do it all over again, I don not think that the use of nuclear weapons would be an option.

I think its funny how people like to stir the pot...talk till your blue in the face about wrong or right; you cant change what happened. No one will appologize because right or wrong is relative to what side you were on at the time. It was war, can you not just suffice it to say wrong was done by both parties, shake hands and dont let it happen again....(oh yeah) pretty please

[sabro]

General Curtis Lemay even said that if we had lost the war, he should be charged as a war criminal. He said this in response to the firebombing of Tokyo.

I read back through the last few posts, and I think we make a huge error when we try judge history out of context. I don't think think there is a relative right and wrong here, and I don't think equivalent wrong was done by both parties. I don't think the US should apologize, and I do think we would use nuclear weapons again given the same set of circumstances. I can't apply my twenty first set of values to decisions made 60 years ago- unless I consider all the facts, the background, the situation- as the people knew it back then.

From Pearl Harbor, to Bataan, to Wake Island- America formed a perception and an opinion largely based on racism, about the Japanese and what should happen to them. What the US military and the public saw in thousands of battles on dozens of islands told them that Japan would never surrender. That they would fight on with savage persistence beyond what would seem rational to the western mind. They saw fierocity and brutality beyond imagination. On Saipan, they saw women and children jump off of cliffs. On Okinawa, they saw waves of suicide pilots crash into ships and near naked men rush crude explosives up to tanks. Four years of the most savage brutal kind of combat had desensitised them into believe that whatever they could do to end a war they did not start would be justifiable. They began to reduce the country to ashes. They designed weapons to kill civillians, to burn their houses- and night after night the set out to burn every last Japanese city. They only slowed down when the supply of napalm ran low. They planned an invasion that would regard every man, woman, and child as an enemy combatant. It would take eight years and cost millions of lives. When Truman discovered he had a bomb that could end all of this he jumped at the opportunity and never lost a single night of sleep.

War is nasty, ugly and inhumane-- it is all hell, simple murder on a mass scale. Without apology from the people who did not choose to start the war, did not chose the brutal conduct of the war, but did chose to end it- we can still hope it never happens again.

[bossel]

Four years of the most savage brutal kind of combat had desensitised them into believe that whatever they could do to end a war they did not start would be justifiable. They began to reduce the country to ashes. They designed weapons to kill civillians, to burn their houses- and night after night the set out to burn every last Japanese city.
Sorry, but that's not quite correct, I think. They didn't need 4 years to come to the conclusion that bombing the civilian population was an option. Right from the start of the bombing campaigns civilian population centres were targeted. I know that in Europe cities were targeted at least from 1941 onwards. In 1942 the British cabinet officially approved carpet bombing of civilians.

"Bomber" Harris, appointed in Feb 1942 as Marshal of the Royal Air Force, had an even longer history of targeting civilians, IIRC. He had used mines & nerve gas while fighting anti-colonial insurgencies.

Even under the circumstances of WWII, even under the impression of fierce Japanese resistance, targeting civilians was illegal & the Allies knew what they were doing.

[snow san]

Sorry, but that's not quite correct, I think. They didn't need 4 years to come to the conclusion that bombing the civilian population was an option. Right from the start of the bombing campaigns civilian population centres were targeted. I know that in Europe cities were targeted at least from 1941 onwards. In 1942 the British cabinet officially approved carpet bombing of civilians.

"Bomber" Harris, appointed in Feb 1942 as Marshal of the Royal Air Force, had an even longer history of targeting civilians, IIRC. He had used mines & nerve gas while fighting anti-colonial insurgencies.

Even under the circumstances of WWII, even under the impression of fierce Japanese resistance, targeting civilians was illegal & the Allies knew what they were doing.

everybody wants to bring up the bombing of civilians, maybe its be cause the magatude of bombing warrants higher visibility on the international scale.

the only real differnance,I see, is ons side chose to kill many civilians at one time using an a-bomb
and the other side chose to kill many civilians over a long period of time using more conventional weapons

[sabro]

Bossel- you are quite right. My point wasn't that it took four years to bomb civillians, but that after bombing and roasting civillians for four years that the Atomic bomb was not much different. I don't think they considered it morally objectionable at that moment. My overall point is that we should not try to judge them by our standards without considering the context of the decision.

Snow-san- There were other conventional bombing raids (such as Dresden and Tokyo) that killed more in one night than the bombing of Hiroshima.

[Tim33]

Well as the American president back then said:
Any country to drop bombs on innocent civilians is clearly uncivilized barbarians.

Not exact speech, sadly i could not find it on the net and im not re-reading my history books.

So Whether the Americans were right to do it or not they are still hypocrits.

[sabro]

Guernica and Nanjing showed 'em how to do it.

[sabro]

September 1, 1939- Germany invades Poland. Stuka divebombers take to the air and bomb terrified civillians. Franklin Delano Roosevelt responds: "The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population...has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.... ﾊ I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every Government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations."

In 1941: Churchill responds that "...the intentional aerial bombing of civillians...is the worse form of inhuman barbarism."

When Britain swiched to bombing cities at night, "Bomber" Harris said of the Germans: "They have sown the wind, and now they will reap the whirlwind."

[Ikyoto]

The statement earlier in this thread that the US was out to reduce every Japanese city to ashes is an outright lie. Missions to bomb Kyoto were curtailed or redirected or done in daylight to prevent the destruction of it's historical treasures.

[sabro]

Kyoto was also a secondary target for the Nagasaki bomb.

[bossel]

after bombing and roasting civillians for four years that the Atomic bomb was not much different.
True. (except for the long-term consequences, but it's debatable if those were entirely clear for the decision makers at the time)

My overall point is that we should not try to judge them by our standards without considering the context of the decision.
Also true. But even measured at the standards of the time, it was a war crime. Whether the other side committed war crimes (& the degree thereof) as well doesn't really matter, IMO.

In the case of Harris we can also see that he had a history of targeting civilians long before the Nazis started the war.


The statement earlier in this thread that the US was out to reduce every Japanese city to ashes is an outright lie. Missions to bomb Kyoto were curtailed or redirected or done in daylight to prevent the destruction of it's historical treasures.
Sabro said that "They began to reduce the country to ashes." I think this is a legitimate metaphor. Of course they were not out to burn every single square meter of Japan.

Re Kyoto I have to say that IMO it's not really a positive point for them when they did not bomb historical treasures but apartment blocks.

[Ikyoto]

I stand corrected on the statement about the ashes.

Kyoto was so debated by the small group of people that one of the books I read in my asian history class had a line in it - I don't remember which of the gnerals said it, but it was along the lines of "bombing Kyoto would be like bombing the greatest museums in Europe. Even the Nazis at least stole the art before they destgroyed museums!"

[snow san]

Well as the American president back then said:
Any country to drop bombs on innocent civilians is clearly uncivilized barbarians.

Not exact speech, sadly i could not find it on the net and im not re-reading my history books.

So Whether the Americans were right to do it or not they are still hypocrits.

that is a loose very derrogatory accusation... its so offensive and obsurd it dosent even warrant rebuttal

[Tim33]

hypocrisy

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

That is what happened and therefore the statement was true.
When stating Americans i did not mean all Americans or Americans at this particular time i was refering to What was said and done during WW2. And the statement in those terms is a true one.

I meant no offence in it. I am quite willing to say that the British were at the time also.

I will apologize however as i dont think that i really phrased what i said to carefully.

[sabro]

Bombing Kyoto would be alot like bombing Dresden- it was another of those untouched museum-like cities with almost no war industry.

I am not offended by the hypocisy comment at all. I totally agree. War is immoral. We should avoid it whenever possible. It has always exacted a high price from the innocent, from childern, the elderly, the civillian... It is the excuse for doing the inexcusable, for making deals with the devil for no small gain, for comprimising every ethical and moral value a person and a society has. We pretend to have rules about who and how and when to kill, and what we should do to those who are wounded or captured...To wage war you must embrace immorality- the killing of others, the destruction of lives and property, the hate and dehumanization of your fellow man- the consequences, the "collateral damage"- and the first casualty of war, it is said, is truth.

I cannot see how, in the context of WWII, Truman would have been remotely capable of making another choice. The rules that moral, reasonable society generally follows- had long lost any relevant meaning. To focus only on the ends- the end of the war, stopping the killing- justified any means they felt necessary. It is at this point- where any means is justified that we all become hypocrites.

Sabro

[tarattara]

An atom bomb dropped on Dresden (or Hamburg or Frankfurt) would have done much more damage in a split second. I doubt the U.S. would've done it.

It's a well known fact that "Truman" insisted on dropping the A-bombs on Japan but the front-line military officers were against it, including Admiral Nimitz and General Eisenhower. Eisenhower confessed to Newsweek in 1963. http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hiro/silencing.html
http://www.aer.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=244&Itemid=46
Japan was already in ashes and she was ready to surrender and the allies
knew that well. The A-bombs HAD to be dropped, for experimental reasons and also to scare Russia off but it couldn't be dropped over Germany which is in the heart of Europe. Truman Doctrine was the use of military power to
contain communism. The development of the A-bombs began before WWII and the number of people engaged at the peak of the Manhattan project went over 125,000. It cost the US citizens billions of dollars, and the US government had a political need to use it. The A-bombs were ready by the time of the fire bombings of Dresden but never to be used over Nazis Europe, ofcourse.

Most of the the uranium used in the A-bombs came from Belgium Congo.
http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/archive/200408/04/20040804p2a00m0fp011001c.html

[bossel]

The A-bombs were ready by the time of the fire bombings of Dresden but never to be used over Nazis Europe, ofcourse.
Wrong, they were not even ready at the time of Germany's capitulation, hence the actual question whether to use them on Germany never arose.

[sabro]

Taratara- excellent articles.

On one point you are mistaken. The bombs could not have been used in Europe because they were not ready. The bombing of Dresden happened on February 13, 1945. Germany surrendered on May 7, 1945. The first atomic bomb test didn't happen until July 16, 1945- over two months later. I think it is ridiculous to charge that we would not have used it on Germany if it had been ready a year earlier. Until Allied troops crossed the German Frontier, victory was not a certainty and the bombs almost certainly would have been used.

On the other point, we disagree. Japan did not surrender after the firebombing of Tokyo March 9-10, 1945. Nor did ten more days of intense bombing of nine other cities that resulted in over 500,000 deaths result in a surrender. Neither did the sinking of the Emperial Navy including the Yamato, nor the fall of Okinawa in June and July of 1945. Japan did not surrender after the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, 1945. Japan continued to resist ferociously- taking an enormous toll on both sides. There was no indication of any desire to surrender until after both bombs had fallen.

The military had specific invasion plans, and was in the initial stages of moving the men and material necessary for it. The United States economy was busy producing more incidiary bombs, and heavy bombs, as well as shells for the heavy naval guns for a protracted "softening up" campaign of Hokkaido and souther Kyushu. War spending for 1946 was set to increase- in spite of the fact that Germany had already surrendered. Japan still had millions of soldiers and many more millions of civillians who were willing and able to keep fighting for years. They may have been on the ropes, but they were still capable of inflicting damage and fighting on and on.

Admiral Leahy was the only one that expressed reservations before hand, although Truman indicated that he recommended using the bomb. No other major leader of the few that were informed in the Pentagon or on the Dept. of War raised any concerns. Sec. Stimson, Gen. Leslie Groves, Adm. Nimitz, Gen. McArthur, Adm. Halsey, and Gen. LeMay all urged the dropping of the bomb. (Eisenhower was not informed until after the decision had been made.) Many of the scientist on the Manhatten project were concerned including Oppenheimer and sent a letter to Truman to that effect, but Truman never indicated whether he even read it. I don't know what the source is but if Nimitz expressed a reservation about dropping the bomb, it must have been much, much later.

Nearly every soldier and sailor who served in the Pacific, and certainly every POW that was held by the Japanese will credit the bomb with saving their lives. We need to keep the decision to drop the bomb in context.

I don't think carpet bombing, firebombing, or the atomic bombing of civillians should ever be allowable. Certainly during World War II, it would have been incomprehensible for Americans to consider these acts as atrocities or war crimes- but they certainly were attrocious. The military leadership and the public at large believed that not only were these actions neccessary, they were justified. And it is difficult for me, sixty years later, in my safe cushiony seat to judge that attitude. These people did not initiate the conflict, but they did end it in the quickest most efficient way the knew of.

[tarattara]

I'm surprised that you are both unaware of this, why do you think the second A-bomb was dropped? The two A-bombs were different types. You're both talking about the plutonium type (uranium partly used). The test that took place on July 16, 1945 at Alamogordo Air Base, New Mexico was a "plutonium type A-bomb" same as the one dropped over Nagasaki, "Fat Man." The first A-bomb that was dropped over Hiroshima "Thin Man or Little Boy" was uranium type that does not require and was not tested beforehand and was completed by the time of the bombings of Dresden. Why do plutonium type A-bombs require test explosion?, because the firing mechanism is much complicated and you can find enough info over the net. It is fair to say that an island, such as Japan was ideal for the first A-bombs to be dropped. The immediate after effects were studied thoroughly by the US through the ABCC (Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission) set up in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[bossel]

You're both talking about the plutonium type (uranium partly used).
Are we? Where did I say so?


The first A-bomb that was dropped over Hiroshima "Thin Man or Little Boy" was uranium type that does not require and was not tested beforehand and was completed by the time of the bombings of Dresden.
AFAIK, Little Boy was only completed after Trinity was tested. If I'm correctly informed only in July 45 they had enough U-235 & only at the end of July construction was completed, more than 2 months after German capitulation.

[sabro]

I personally think the second A bomb was dropped for a few reasons, none of which minimizes the carnage and suffering of the people of Nagasaki. Certainly the fact that Japan did not respond in the days after Hiroshima would be one reason. A warning to the USSR, could be another. Completing the bluff that "we got a bunch of these, and we could keep doing this over and over," is compelling. As is the general with the new weapon who is just dying to try it- idea. Again, I agree with Bossel, that neither bomb was ready before the German surrender.

Also, it does seem unfair that the winners got to decide what a war crime was, and who would be charged, but I don't know how it could have worked any differently. You don't win the largest armed conflict in human history and then turn around and punish your own leaders.

I still am terribly uncomfortable with the rationale for dropping bombs on civillian targets.

[Kionon]

I have to speak as a member of the military here, something I typically do not do. I honestly feel that the the problem with conversations like this usually tend to leave out the fact that war, by its very nature, is atrocious. It's horrible. It's ugly, mean, violent, revolting... It is hell. We cannot really judge the actions of a group of people that genuinely felt that they had no choice but to kill millions in order to save an unspecified amount, projected numbers of casualities seeming to run much higher than the populations of the two cities combined.

We'll never know if dropping the bombs was the right or wrong decision. I don't think we ever can know.

[sabro]

Kevin-
I appreciate your comment and agree with it. I would like to believe somehow that we are beyond the need to ever wage war on such a massive scale. As for dropping the bombs being the right or wrong decision, in the context of WWII, those people had to feel entirely justified. The bombs had the exact desired effect and the war was ended. Like I have said earlier, it is way to easy to take it out of that context and be an armchair QB.

[Sr Pasta]

I'm reading "Hiroshima in America" right now. It seems to argue very convincingly that the idea that dropping the bomb was all, or even mainly, about shortening the war, is simply not true.

The firebombings not producing a peace offer is questionable: many people within the japanese regime to active steps to try to get the war over with, long before the A-bombs.

Besides, that argument can easily be reversed: if not even the Tokyo firebombings could produce a surrender, why would the A-bombs? In fact, the Hiroshima bomb didn't do it - at least not before Nagasaki - and the Russian entry into the war may very well have been enough. In either case, there's no way the U.S.G. could be sure that these specific atrocities would shorten the war.

There where lots of alternatives: make a clear agreement on the role of the emperor, wait for Russia to declare war, or show of the bomb at some desolate place. My impression is that the USG wanted to use the bomb whether it would shorten the war or not. They reaped some clear benefits of this: internationally in negotiations with Russia, and domestically in defending the A-bomb expenditures.

[Bramicus]

It's easy to second-guess. The fact is, there was a war going on, a very bitter war, and the United States government was determined to do as much as it could, whatever it could, to end the war quickly, and avoid an invasion that would have cost millions of American (and, incidentally, Japanese) lives.

You can nitpick all you want about whether it would have ended anyway, and how soon. Did they know for sure that dropping the bombs would end the war? Of course not. Were they going to sit around and wait until they were positive that dropping the bombs would end the war? Of course not. It was possible that dropping the bombs would hasten the end of the war more quickly, so they dropped the bombs. They dropped the bombs, and the war ended -- practically immediately. That's why they did it, and that's what happened.

[Sukotto]

Wasn't the decision even to build the bomb in the first place
something that went beyond the authority of
and kept in secret from the US congress?

If so a dangerous precedent that will have set.

We can take a look at post-WW2 history and
see if they've ever done it again.



This should be a prologue to any debate on the topic by those
(Americans for sure since it was our government)
that care about democratic constitutional government -
which is what they were fighting for.

[Bramicus]

Wasn't the decision even to build the bomb in the first place
something that went beyond the authority of
and kept in secret from the US congress?

No, absolutely not. Once Congress has declared war, it's the President's job to wage it as effectively as he can, however he decides to do it. As Commander in Chief, he does not have to ask permission for any military action against the enemy at all; he goes on waging war as he decides to, until Congress tells him to stop fighting.

[Sr Pasta]

The fact is, ... the United States government was determined to do as much as it could, whatever it could, to end the war quickly, and avoid an invasion that would have cost millions of American (and, incidentally, Japanese) lives.

No, it's not. Long before Hiroshima the USG knew very well they wouldn't need to invade.

They simply cared less about japanese lives than their own need to show the bomb. They had lots of other options, but actively avoided them.

[sabro]

Most of the military was actively preparing for the invasion of Japan. Even at the highest levels, very few knew anything at all about the bomb. Some like Eisenhower who was not in the loop, felt the bomb was unnecessary. The others involved were near unanimous in support of Trumans ultimate decision. As for the surrender, the proverbial ball was in the Japanese court. I am certain also that although the bomb may have saved Japanese lives by shortening the war, there was a disregard for the lives of all the Japanese civillians- whether we were firebombing Tokyo or nuking Hiroshima and Japan- the US government and people probable felt fine about extremely high casualty rates.

[Bramicus]

No, it's not. Long before Hiroshima the USG knew very well they wouldn't need to invade. They simply cared less about japanese lives than their own need to show the bomb. They had lots of other options, but actively avoided them. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for these two astounding accusations, or is this just typical left-wing Swedish anti-American claptrap?

[Sr Pasta]

Bramicus: It's very easy - if they had been interested in trying to avoid atrocities, they could have waited for the Russians to declare war instead of doing their best two drop both a-bombs before that happened. I'll cite some quotes discussed in the book I mentioned earlier.

Harry Truman wrote in his Potsdam diary: "I've gotten what I came for - Stalin goes to war on August 15 with no strings on it ... I'll say that we'll end the war a year sooner now, and think of the kids who won't be killed!". He even wrote "fini japs when that comes about." But as Byrnes recalled later: "neither the President nor I was anxious to have them enter the war after we heard of the successful test", and "it was important to bring about an end to the war - and if possible to do that before Russia came into the war." (p 149 f)

They could also have given the japanese regime a clear message that the emperor would be preserved. They were very aware of this possibility. For example, Joseph Grew told Truman on May 28 that "the greatest obstacle to unconditional surrender by the Japanese is their belief that this would entail the destruction or permanent removal of the Emperor and the institution of the Throne". Grew later reported that the president had expressed interest "because his own thoughts had been following the same line". (p 134)

They could even have showed off the bomb in public, as many suggested. Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph Bard, for example, argued that it was "quite possible" that this could be "the opportunity the Japanese are looking for" to surrender. (p 141f)

All of these options were actively rejected. There were no military risks in trying them before using the a-bombs.

To be sure, there where people who thought an invasion would be necessary. General Marshall for example thought it'd be necessary whether the a-bombs were dropped or not (though some say he thought a Soviet declaration of war would make the invasion unnecessary). (p 140) But a naval blockade was also an obvious alternative to invasion: Admiral Leahy and Admiral King, for example, didn't consider an invasion necessary. Neither did General Arnold or General LeMay, who thought conventional bombing would be enough. (p 141) Truman's later claim that his military advisors recommended using the a-bomb is misleading: most were neither strong proponents nor opposers of the a-bomb. (p 141)

[Sr Pasta]

Bramicus: I take your silence on this matter as a confirmation that you found my "accusations" to be ast least more correct than you'd thought?

Sabro: I understand your point of view, but don't you think the issues I brought up implies that the USG policy did not, in fact, save lives in comparison to other, very possible policies?

[lexico]

But as Byrnes recalled later: "neither the President nor I was anxious to have them enter the war after we heard of the successful test"...(p 149 f)Could you be more specific about the test; what when where how who ?They could even have showed off the bomb in public, as many suggested. Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph Bard, for example, argued that it was "quite possible" that this could be "the opportunity the Japanese are looking for" to surrender. (p 141f)I think this is really the heart of this discussion. Why didn't the US detonate an A-bomb over Tokyo Bay (or any visible and not too distant location, but non-residential) as someone already mentioned on this forum, several kms above sea level for all to see and be astounded by, the light, wind, wave, and fall out ?All of these options were actively rejected. There were no military risks in trying them before using the a-bombs.There must have been some logical arguments (documents or other evidence ?) why these options were actively rejected. A need to display US supremacy and to be the first to tout the nuclear muscle ? Impressive but how to escape the moral responsiblity arising for having fallen for the temptation for absolute power in the standards of the time ? Foregoing the moral argument, which can get messy just by mentioning it, what practical flaws in judgement were involved ? Was there a clearly set objective that precluded other options; perhaps "it serves the US interest to use the A-bomb" ? If so when was the decision made, and who knew ?To be sure, there where people who thought an invasion would be necessary. General Marshall for example thought it'd be necessary whether the a-bombs were dropped or not (though some say he thought a Soviet declaration of war would make the invasion unnecessary). (p 140) But a naval blockade was also an obvious alternative to invasion: Admiral Leahy and Admiral King, for example, didn't consider an invasion necessary. Neither did General Arnold or General LeMay, who thought conventional bombing would be enough. (p 141) Truman's later claim that his military advisors recommended using the a-bomb is misleading: most were neither strong proponents nor opposers of the a-bomb. (p 141) I'm interested how this argument can be countered on solid evidence, documents, memoirs, and witnesses. When given, how many of these can hold up under close scrutiny, as veritable and genuine, and which ones rejected ascribed to unclear memory or self-rationalization ?

[Bramicus]

Bramicus: I take your silence on this matter as a confirmation that you found my "accusations" to be ast least more correct than you'd thought?Sorry; my silence means I hadn't read most of it yet. Now I've read it, it's interesting stuff that I guess was in the book you're reading, but it's all second-guessing after all. Not worth arguing over what can't be proven.

[Sukotto]

We definately should look into the what the decision makers
said via government documents as well as their personal
journals and biographies. What they state five years after the fact
may be the self-justification stuff. For example the save-body
count guess.




Estimates of the hypothetical saved-body count,
however, which range from 20,000 to 1.2 million, owe more to
political agendas than to objective projections.{5}

5. In June and July 1945, Joint Chiefs of Staff committees predicted
that between 20,000 and 46,000 Americans would die in the one or two
invasions for which they had drawn contingency plans. While still in
office, President Truman usually placed the number at about a quarter
of a million, but by 1955 had doubled it to half a million. Winston
Churchill said the attacks had spared well over 1.2 million Allies.
(Barton Bernstein, "The Myth of Lives Saved by A-bombs," Los Angeles
Times, July 28, 1985, IV, p.1; Barton Bernstein, "Stimson, Conant, and
Their Allies Explain the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," Diplomatic
History, Winter 1993, p.48.)


http://members.aol.com/essays6/abomb.htm

[Sukotto]

No, it's not. Long before Hiroshima the USG knew very well they wouldn't need to invade.

They simply cared less about japanese lives than their own need to show the bomb. They had lots of other options, but actively avoided them.




I thought I read somewhere that the US had broken the Japanese code
about a year (or more) before Hiroshima and that they knew that Japan
was very worried about the emperor.

In "Atomic Diplomacy" Gar Alperovitz writes the use of the bomb was
to intimidate the Russians after the war. I may have posted this before?
Alperovitz writes that he did not plan to come to this conclusion,
but that he was merely researching what went into the decision
to use the bomb. There's nothing anti-american about trying to dig
up history. Is one "anti-american" if they point out the hypocracy
of George Washington and other "founding fathers" of the US continuing to hold others in bondage (slaves) and rhetoricing about freedom and liberty?

[sabro]

Sir Pasta and Lexico- This is all guess work, and the morbid arithmatic of killing these thousands vs these thousands can go on and on and on. Even with the scant evidence I have seen, It is hard to get into the heads of Truman, Groves, Marshall, LeMay (see http://www.dannen.com/decision/) and it is easy to second guess (would've, should've, could've)

It is also too easy to say the bomb ended the war and saved lives. You drop a couple of bombs, and Japan surrenders... there is definitely some kind of cause-effect relationship. Historians look at the battles of Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa and project casualty estimates based upon these. It is still a guess- but there is nothing to suggest in the fierce Japanese resistance, that hundreds of thousands, or even well over a million fewer deaths due to the war ending sooner is an extremely high estimate. Remember that massive firebombings were set to resume before an invasion and that full scale bombardment of Hokkaido was next. Shortages and hunger would be exacerbated by a prolonged blockade resulting in massive famine. There were other options, but all had consequences- some of which may have ended up costing significantly more lives.

Allowing the USSR to enter the war, and take not only Manchuria, but also as much real estate as possible also would have had consequences.

All of which is moot if Japan simply surrenders. Japan could have surrendered earlier in 1945, or better yet, withdrawn from China in 1941 and ended the strategic embargo.

I think this is a great discussion by the way. I find it probably one of the better reasons to study history- so that somehow we can avoid nuclear war.

[noyhauser]

Its not really hard to get into the heads of the members of the administration. One of the best books I have ever read is Melvyn Leffler's Preponderance of Power, which is an extremely detailed look into the Truman administration actions (its 600 pages long and in small type). It answers a lot of the questions.

Bramicus: It's very easy - if they had been interested in trying to avoid atrocities, they could have waited for the Russians to declare war instead of doing their best two drop both a-bombs before that happened. I'll cite some quotes discussed in the book I mentioned earlier.

Thats false. A full fledged invasion of the Japanese islands would have never happened by the Russians. They didn't have close to the technical capability for it (the Soviets had no surface navy to speak of), and it would most certainly would have become a massacre that I doubt Stalin would have considered doing anyway. If he did he would again be doing the dirty work for the western allies by expending soviet lives for the west as he thought he was doing on the Eastern Front vs Germany. The Soviet invasion was advantageous for two reasons for the US. #1 would remove the Kwantung army from existance, the best troops of the Imperial Japanese army, and fully isolate japan from the rest of the world. It would nolonger be able to rely on outside resources to continue the war effort. #2 it would politically isolate the Japanese, showing them that they were now completely alone. It showed to Japanese War Cabinet that there would be nothing but unconditional surrender, and that a third way was not possible.

They could even have showed off the bomb in public, as many suggested. Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph Bard, for example, argued that it was "quite possible" that this could be "the opportunity the Japanese are looking for" to surrender. (p 141f)

Everything up to that point had shown that the Japanese were far from surrendering. Among the lessons that were in the forefront of American Leaders heads was the lessons of 1918... that getting a conditional surrender was not good enough, because the country in question may one day seek revenge as Germany did in 1939. (remember that Truman was a avid reader of history and himself a veteran of the first world war.) Japanese entries to the russians were just seen as the 1918 armistice all over again, and unacceptable to all allied parties.

I think this is really the heart of this discussion. Why didn't the US detonate an A-bomb over Tokyo Bay (or any visible and not too distant location, but non-residential) as someone already mentioned on this forum, several kms above sea level for all to see and be astounded by, the light, wind, wave, and fall out ?

I don't think that would have any effect, and was contrary to the thinking of the time. Its pretty hard to understand the raw power of the Atomic bomb, and probably most people would not see its effects if it was simply dropped over the pacific. I don't think the world's most expensive fireworks show would have likely changed the leadership's mind. Given that the Japanese were using suicide attacks en masse, and had suffered far more grevious casualties in a shorter period of time than any other country involved in WW2, many doubted the Atomic bomb was going to stop the war. The only way to show its awesome affects was to use it on the populace. And since the americans had already inflicted far more grevious damage via firebombing, the atomic bomb was the last card they could play. Nothing up to that point showed that the Japanese were willing for an uncoditional surrender and they had no real idea about the divide in the War cabinet.

In "Atomic Diplomacy" Gar Alperovitz writes the use of the bomb was to intimidate the Russians after the war. I may have posted this before?
Alperovitz writes that he did not plan to come to this conclusion,
but that he was merely researching what went into the decision
to use the bomb.

Not really true. The Truman adminstration really didn't become fully worried about the USSR in a way to warrant the use of an atomic bomb until about Februrary 1946. The Churchill's Iron Curtain speech in March 1946 was certainly a turning point, but the Refusal of the USSR to pull back from Iran in that month was really the breakthrough because it was a clear abrogation of a previously held agreement.. Before that point Truman thought that if he gave the USSR straight talk, like when he first met Foreign Minister Molotov in late April 1945, that they would do as they wished. Truman even thought that he could work with Stalin after meeting with him at Potsdam. And if that wasn't enough Truman said that "the Russians needed the US more than the US needed the Russians."
The US supplied russia with massive amounts of war material through the Lend Lease program, such as trucks and tanks, that were vital for the war effort. At the end of the war the US accounted for over 50% of the world's GDP.Also it shows faulty logic that the americans would be happy for the Soviet involvement in the war in the pacific (into a country with an active Communist Insurgency) then want to use the atomic bomb to scare the russians into not interfering with the US sphere of influence.

Really the main concern at the time for the Administration was how to end the war in Japan as quickly and easily as possible. I'm sure a small part of the reason may have been the show the soviets, I can't possibly deny that it didn't enter into part of the Deliberations, but it certainly was not even close to the main reason at all.

But a naval blockade was also an obvious alternative to invasion: Admiral Leahy and Admiral King, for example, didn't consider an invasion necessary. Neither did General Arnold or General LeMay, who thought conventional bombing would be enough.

none of these are sufficient. First off, the US had an effective blockade running from about late 1944 onwards, and by april 1945 had actually run out of ships to sink. The silent service (the US submarine force) had essentially destroyed 90% of the Japanese merchant marine by the end of the war. Economic strangulation would achieve nothing. The airforce by July had the same problem, they had burned out almost every city out of existence except for five or so cities that had been purposely left untouched. And capitulation was still not forthcoming. Both of these service chiefs of course are going to push their option for ending the war because it would increase their prestige, and they would not have to incur heavy casualties. The Army on the other hand did not want to go into Japan because they knew that they would get mauled heavily if they did so.

[noyhauser]

Also remember that if the US was truly worried about the USSR, they probably wouldn't use their only two atomic bombs against Japan knowing that they wouldn't get the next one until a year later... it would make far more sense to keep one for later, then use it all on the russians. (but russia was not seen to be a short term threat anyway, as I have outlined above)

[komachi]

The atomic bomb of Nagasaki exploded above the Urakami Catholic Church that has a history of miserable martyrdom.
http://www1.odn.ne.jp/uracathe/hibakuzou.htm
http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/na-bomb/museum/exhibit/exhibit_b02.html

"500M from ground zero" has no meaning at all, inside the atomic bomb heat power.
Famous photographs in Hiroshima immediately after the atomic bombing
are the one after the town was cleaned.
We can not find out a body in the town at all .(in photographs of scenery of town. )

please look at thease pictures.


http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_j/visit/art/art00.html#
http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/RETAIN/burns3-j.html

[lexico]

The atomic bomb of Nagasaki exploded above the Urakami Catholic Church that has a history of miserable martyrdom.

"500M distance" has no meaning at all, inside the atomic bomb heat power.
Famous photographs in Hiroshima immediately after the atomic bombing
are the one after the town was cleaned.
We can not found out bodies in the town at all.

please look at thease pictures.


http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_j/visit/art/art00.html#
http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/RETAIN/burns3-j.htmlThank you for sharing, Komachi.

I was thinking more of 5,000 m above ground, AND near Tokyo, not in the middle of the Pacific, Noyhauser. That would have reduced the direct radiation impact to (1/10)^2 = 1/100 of what is was at 500 m above ground.
The infrared radiation (comparable to the radiation microwave ovens use for cooking, but perhaps 10,000 fold in intensity ?) would still have made the emperor's plants in his botanical garden go up in smoke; what a personal loss to the man !

But plants have no feelings, they have no relatives to mourn for them, they can regrow, although not the exact same plant. But humans... I don't know how Hiroshima bombing was different from the crematories at Auschwitz or those of Unit 731 near Ha'erbin. How were they different ? They were all essentially based on disregard for human lives which continues symbolically in the US historical views that there were no alternatives; that they were forced to do it; and that it was the wiser choice.

Yesterday I read in the papers about two recent polls in the US and Japan; while about 70% of US citizens believed a WWIII is in the future, while only about 30% of Japanese citizens believed so. A distorted perception of how the US ended WWII might be playing its little psychological trick here.

[komachi]

I was thinking more of 5,000 m above ground,

so sorry,i meant "The Urakami church is 500M from the ground zero.".
I'd like to correct it in a hurry. :relief:

[lexico]

so sorry,i meant "The Urakami church is 500M from the ground zero.".
I'd like to correct it in a hurry. :relief:Oh, sorry. I was the one who made the misreading. On the one hand, I misread what you said, thinking that the bomb detonated 500 m above ground, and then I was making a comment on member Neuhauser's reply based on my misread. Sorry for the confusion, but the basic argument remains intact. At whatever elevation the Hiroshima bomb detonated, it should have been 10 times that elevation and the bomb would still have demonstrated its destructive powers. :(

[komachi]

The crime of the old empire army is not relating to my intention.

Man who doesn't know fear of the atomic bomb will use the atomic bomb again easily in the next World War�V.
one of reasons why the atomic bomb is frightened is a mutation in genes.
The descendant of people who bathed in the radiation of the atomic bomb still　has been worried whether cancer occurs easily or not.

[lexico]

The crime of the old empire army is not relating to my intention.I agree; yet to push the justification of the use of the A-bomb has dangerous implications -- such as using it again as you mentioned in the following.Man who doesn't know fear of the atomic bomb will use the atomic bomb again easily in the next World War�V.
one of reasons why the atomic bomb is frightened is a mutation in genes.
The descendant of people who bathed in the radiation of the atomic bomb still　has been worried whether cancer occurs easily or not.I absolutely agree. The acceptance of non-proliferation of destructive & peaceful use of nuclear energy by the leading nations is rather complicated I think;

1) To monoplolise the destructive power exclusively; all nations not armed with nuclear weapons can only bow their heads in obedience in case their national policy is in conflict with an armed nation's.

2) To accept the genuine warning from anti-nuclear activist groups; or at least to appear that they are the 'good guys.'

3) To keep the superior energy production technology within the 8 or 9 developed nations while keeping the rest of the world energy-poor; there is a great market for selling energy; petrol, natural hydro carbon gas, and nuclear fuel shafts. I would say at least some of the anti-nuclear activist groups in non-armed countries who object to even the peaceful use are not

3a) concerned with the transformation of a peaceful technology into a destructive technology
3b) concerned for a nuclear-free future
3c) concerned for those who have suffered from nuclear exposure

but are either

3d) ignorant, (what a good cover !)
3e) paid operatives for the nuclearised nations' gov'tal & non-gov'tal orgs such as the energy industry, oil dealers, and whatnot,
3f) dissidents seeking the weakening of the powers they oppose.

Sorry for being negatively critical; but it raises serious questions for the doubting minds that even peaceful nuclear technology is kept under tight control. We can see that IAEA is also tainted with political interests; it is NOT dedicated solely to the benefit of mankind in general.

[komachi]

I sympathize with the sense of anti-nuclear mission of people who actually experienced the hell.

but, I am sick about anti-nuclear activists who do not oppose nuclear test of North Korea and China though it opposes peaceful use of Japan for energy and nuclear test of the United States ,France and so on.

The launch pad tower of the nuclear warhead of North Korea and China aims at Japan.
I began to feel that Japan might have to have the nucleus of the deterrent.
:( :(
However,still i say" no one must use the nuclear weapon".
The human race should learn how Oppenheimer and Einstein regretted.

[lexico]

I sympathize with the sense of anti-nuclear mission of people who actually experienced the hell.
...
But, I am sick about anti-nuclear activists who do not oppose nuclear test of North Korea and China though it opposes peaceful use of Japan for energy and nuclear test of the United States, France and so on.
...
However,still i say" no one must use the nuclear weapon".
The human race should learn how Oppenheimer and Einstein regretted.I absolutely agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The launch pad tower of the nuclear warhead of North Korea and China aims at Japan.
I began to feel that Japan might have to have the nucleus of the deterrent. While the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, roughly 10% of which were Koreans and Chinese living/working there btw, have every right to protest any kind of nuclear threat, at the same time it is really difficult to blame China and N.Korea who suffered so much under Japanese colonialist expansionst activities from the late 1800's down to 1945.

The aggression against the Chinese resulted in more than 10 million Chinese deaths in Japanese hands during WWII alone; exceeding the Holocaust figure of 6 million by 4 million by the conservative figures. So how can you blame them ?

Japan, instead of arming for 'retaliatory nuclear capability,' should issue announcements such as;

The now peace-loving people of Japan fully admit the atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese people. We fully understand why your missiles are pointed towards us considering the past acts of aggression that Japan has painfully learned to regret and repent for. And because of this understanding, we refrain, in line with the new idea of peaceful coexistence of the new post-WWII Japan, from reacting in any ill-informed, insensitive manner. Also is the wide-spread concern both in and out of Japan that Japan has not fully repented, has been whitewashing its aggressive militarist past, and that it is pushing for rearmament by using China and N.Korea's legitimate response to recent historical tragedies as an excuse.

We kindly refuse to give in to the temptation and pressures to take an active role in any military pursuit whether aggressive, defensive, or peace-keeping. We, as any people of the world, reserve the right to defend ourselves when attacked, but will not prepare for nuclear retaliation. We hope, when China and N.Korea come to understand our intentions from our self-restraint, that they too will some day remove the nuclear missiles they have been pointing at us in symbolic gestures of protest. Our loyalty is not to our emperor, the glories of our past, nor to the war-torn turmoils that we ourselves created, but towards eternal peace in the country, the immediate neigboring region, and abroad.

(signed-- by whomever can rightfully represent the people of Japan)

[komachi]

why do i need blame general people?
why can't i blame people who use their twisted and bended justice in this modern time?
why do you think so?
you　do want only to blame the Japanese,don't you ?
i'm talking about the human race 's miserable　in the future .
please do not change discussion.
I have signed on the document "Japanese Government must investigate the truth of Nanking Massacre" 10 years ago.
The number of people at that time was 300,000 people.

After all,all is politics. (T T)

and･･･,I think that to put Korea on the same line with China is wrong attitude .

[lexico]

you　do want only to blame the Japanese,don't you ?
i'm talking about the human race 's miserable　in the future .
please do not change discussion.I understand that your reference to the nuclear missiles was only a conditional of a sentence structure of concession; "though, enventhough, even if." But the second part of your concessional clause I began to feel that Japan might have to have the nucleus of the deterrent. sounded way too dangerous to me, and I could not help but respond to that "concessional condition" you were struggling to overcome. Think of it this way; just imagine for a moment that my sample "statement" came from a mainstream Japanese citizen and not a citizen of a foreign country. I say that more as a human being angered at the inhumanity of war than as a Korean citizen bitter at Japan. My being Korean only helped me to see it better, and gave me better access to the information. I have lived 1/3 of my life in the US, and had excellent Japanese friends who were often even more critical of Japan than me, who studied Japanese atrocities in the library I frequented, or whose family left Japan out of disgust for Imperial Japan's policies during the "turbulent years." I am not blind, you see ?I have signed on the document "Japanese Government must investigate the truth of Nanking Massacre" 10 years ago.
The number of people at that time was 300,000 people.I am glad you and 300,000 people were interested in historical truth; but what was the truth you discovered ? That Nanjing Massacre was a lie conjured up by Allied Powers; esp. the US ?I think that to put Korea on the same line with China is wrong attitude.What exactly do you find wrong in my statement ? I am listening, so do tell what kind of problem you have with my post. I really have a hard time understanding your reference to my "wrong attitude."

[komachi]

but what was the outcome of the truth you discovered ?
as you said,i know about the number of 10 million victims of recent report too.
they said 300,000 people in ten years ago .
Conservative people say that 　Nanjing incident was a frame up...
i've seen 10 or more photos of Nankin evidence before.
and as they said ,there were " Bazoku/horse riding gangs".

many years passed ,but people and governments still do such a thing.

why do i have to trust both of them anymore?
Why should I participate in their political history discussions?


What exactly do you find wrong in my statement ? I am listening, so do tell what kind of problem you have with my post. I really have a hard time understanding your "wrong attitude."

Do I owe you loyalty, as if I were a Japanese citizen ?
Korea lost its kings and queens to Imperial Japan. Korean princes were forced to marry Japanese brides and forced into IJA military. Of Korean youths males were forced into serving IJA, girls into working in Japanese manufacturing facilites or brothels. Why do I owe Imperial Japan/Japan any sympathy for these acts of violence ?

have you ever seen photos of old Korea?
how do you think of the fact that a lot of Korean people are judged as a war crime?

[lexico]

as you said,i know about the number of 10 million victims of recent report too.
they said 300,000 people in ten years ago .
Conservative people say that 　Nanjing incident was a frame up...
i've seen 10 or more photos of Nankin evidence before.
and as they said ,there were " Bazoku/horse riding gangs".

many years passed ,but people and governments still do such a thing.

why do i have to trust both of them anymore?
Why should I participate in their political history discussions?So basically you're saying that after the 300,000 Japanese citizens demanded historical accuracy of the Nanjing Massacre, Japanese scholars/ Japanese gov't/ you have examined the evidence and concluded to disbelive the historical truthfulness of the Nanjing Massacre ?
Are you saying that the atrocity photos were pictures borrowed from those of Chinese horse-mounted bandits ?
I believe history is less about trusting anyone than "examining" the evidence presented for yourself after seeing all the evidence and all sides of the history telling.

I may add that having different views, even extremist, revisionist, or denialist views help expand historical criticism and to become more aware or historical truths, not to fall into relativist ideas conveniently denying all validity on grounds that there are more than one theory proposed.

For an overview of IJ's involvement in Najing (Nanking) Massacre, please read these threads.

Read a Japanese History Textbook (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16498).
The broken link to Japanese Views of the Second Sino-Japanese War can be found at
Japanese Views of the Second Sino-Japanese War

Rape of Nanking (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6559&highlight=nanjing+massacre)
Has Japan killed more innocent civilians in WWII than any other country in history ? (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16290&highlight=%28Nanjing+Nanking%29+Massacre)
Documents and pictures about NanJing Massacre (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16610&highlight=%28Nanjing+Nanking%29+Massacre)

have you ever seen photos of old Korea ?You mean the poor, delapidated, and crumbling gate of Namdaemun ? Yes I have. Does that give a shred of legitimacy for IJA to march in, kill our king and queen, and plunder the country as they pleased ?how do you think of the fact that a lot of Korean people are judged as a war crime?I am sure plenty of Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan participated in IJ's war crimes; as for the war crimes commited during the Vietnam War, any violators of civilians / POW's stipulated in the Geneva Convention are equally to blame and I am not ashamed to condemn them. I am open to criticism, and willing to listen to new info that I am not aware of. Do tell me more.

[komachi]

Site of conservative group in Nanjing incident
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/unko/tamezou/nankin/alleged/chapter1.html

it was published.
but, I do not believe some of all.



You are the South Korean,right?
There is penal regulations in South Korea now if someone praised that acts of old Japanese empire　even a little .
And, the history textbook of South Korea has only one kind that the country
provided.
I cannot expect a fair discussion.....
In short, the victor is gripping the pen of the history book.

[lexico]

Site of conservative group in Nanjing incident
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/unko/tamezou/nankin/alleged/chapter1.html

it was published.
but, I do not believe some of all.Thanks for the link; I will surely look at the info.You are the South Korean, right?
There is penal regulations in South Korea now if someone praised that acts of old Japanese empire　even a little.Wrong, komachi. Perhaps in the past during the Rhee Sungman administration. We have quite a few reviosionists in Korea, and they do not go to gaol or pay a fine for praising Japan/IJ/your emperor. They only get laughed at by the population.And, the history textbook of South Korea has only one kind that the country provided.Wrong again, komachi. Maybe right after the war, Korea did not have the chance to publish more than one textbook. Now we have around two dozen publishers ? Some are pro-commie, some are revisionist, and some are nationalist... we have the whole variety that any citizen of a civilized, democratic country would deserve. Too many, actually ! :lol:
But thanks for your concern for our democracy of textbook publishing. ;-)
I cannot expect a fair discussion..... Don't worry, komachi. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial in Korea. Even the commies ! :evil:
In short, the victor is gripping the pen of the history book.You lost me again, komachi. Who is the victor :clueless:
I think that to put Korea on the same line with China is wrong attitude.I still don't understand why you think I have the "wrong attitude." Just because Korean conscripts were forced into IJA during the last years of WWII to fight for IJ/your emperor in China makes me/Korea part of IJA, and therefore not qualified to criticise ? I'm not Patty Hearst, and I'm not a terrorist, either.

And if your logic is valid, how can a Japanese person be critical of Imperial Japan ? Is (s)he also of the "wrong attitude ?" btw to call someone on a "wrong attitude" is a VERY STRONG STATEMENT. So I expect a good explanation from you, or else...(unless it is a language problem)...so please define what you meant.

[komachi]

Maybe right after the war, Korea did not have the chance to publish more than one textbook. Now we have around two dozen publishers ? Some are pro-commie, some are revisionist, and some are nationalist... we have the whole variety that any citizen of a civilized, democratic country would deserve. Too many, actually !

realy? :okashii:
i meant only for "history textbook".
every site says "唯一の国定教科書/ the only one history textbook that established by country”
Even Wikipedia say that.
it's unbelievable.


btw to call someone on a "wrong attitude" is a VERY STRONG STATEMENT.


ooh,i apologizes if my expression was too strong.
It's because my English vocabulary is poor. :sorry:
and thank you for your point. :bluush:

well...

how do you think of a pro-Japanese president, Sei Pak (Pac-chonhi/朴正熙)?
His words are a reason why i think that South Korea is not same as China.

[lexico]

realy? :okashii:
i meant only for "history textbook".
every site says "唯一の国定教科書/ the only one history textbook that established by country”
Even Wikipedia say that.
it's unbelievable.Well you do seem to have a point. According to one source, there have been 59 State-Compiled textbooks in the period 1946 to 2002, and it does seem that since 1974, only one line of history textbooks had state approval. But I have always had more than several textbooks used for references in my history classes all thru my junior-high to high school yrs; and I had access to a wealth of reference materials I got from used book stores. I'm having just a little trouble finding a list of all available history textbooks on the market, but let me list some that I was able to find on the web. There are at least 6 high school level history textbooks available for schools to choose from, but I don't have the full situation just yet. These are the stuff I found from various publications.

<국정교과서 국사> gov't approved "Korean History"
<이 겨레 살리는 통일> National Teachers' Union, "Unification for National Resusitation"
<살아있는 한국사 교과서> National Teachers' Union, "Korean History in Motion"
<한국 근현대사> Kumsong Publishing, "Modern History of Korea" high school

some companies currently publishing highschool history textbooks:
1) (사)한국검정교과서협회 (02) 3663-5409 to 5412 http://www.ktbook.com
2) (주) 교 학 사 (02) 7075-120 http://www.kyohak.co.kr
3) (주) 두 산 (02) 3398-2700 http://www.dong-a.com
4) (주) 금성교과서 http://www.kumsung.co.kr/text/branch.jsp

These are what I could find, but there should be more.
ooh,i apologizes if my expression was too strong.
It's because my English vocabulary is poor. :sorry:
and thank you for your point. :bluush:I understand; NP.how do you think of a pro-Japanese president, Sei Pak (Pac-chonhi/朴正熙)?
His words are a reason why i think that South Korea is not same as China.I'm not sure how you mean by calling him pro-Japanese. Pres. Park Chunghee was not an ideoplogue of any sort; but a politician. Unlike many presidents of stable, developed coutries, he lived thru tumultuous times that makes it very difficult to follow a single line of political ideology which can be a luxury for a nation/individual on the brink of survival thanks to the greedy yrs of colonialism. He was a brilliant leader who did what seemed best during his public service within the practical limits presented. Just because he graduated a Japanese military school and had many Japanese friends during his life time; does that make him pro-Japanese ? I think that is an understatement of what his life has shown. Does his involvement in the popular communist uprising in Yosu-Sunch'on make him a commie ? That too is too limiting of his talent and political scope. Does his role in the 1963 Korea-Japan reconciliation make him revisionist and apologist for IJ's war time atrocities including his role in the IJA ? Definitely not.

edit: What did Pres. Park say that made you think he had different ideas from the Chinese ?

[cicatriz esp]

In Japan, the obliteration of Hiroshima did not at first yield conclusive results. Japanese scientists assessing the Hiroshima damage doubted that the Americans could possibly have harvested enough radioactive material to make more than a few bombs. It was even likely, they said, that Hiroshima was a one-off stunt that could not be repeated. (This deprecation of the magnitude of the US Bomb program suggests how ineffective a demonstration would have been.) Only after the Soviet declaration of war against Japan on Aug. 8 and the second nuclear attack on Nagasaki on Aug. 9 did Emperor Hirohito, in an exceedingly rare display of direct political command, overrule some of his own military leaders, who advocated an apocalyptic fight to the finish. Citing the unprecedented destructive power of the atom bombs, he declared, "I swallow my own tears and give my sanction to the proposal to accept the Allied proclamation" - which called for Japan's unconditional surrender.

Take this article for what you will; I'm not sure how much these guys at this "Time" magazine do their research.

Oh, I know it's an old argument and I hope it's been settled, but my country was absolutely going to drop this bomb on Germany had we had the opportunity.

[komachi]

some companies currently publishing highschool history textbooks:
1) (사)한국검정교과서협회 (02) 3663-5409 to 5412 http://www.ktbook.com
2) (주) 교 학 사 (02) 7075-120 http://www.kyohak.co.kr
3) (주) 두 산 (02) 3398-2700 http://www.dong-a.com
4) (주) 금성교과서 http://www.kumsung.co.kr/text/branch.jsp

thanks for links,
well, i tried it,but finally link to
http://www.kyohak.co.kr
about the history of junior grade text.
:relief:

well.i don't know how to say in English,
朴正煕 選集 我々は今何をいかになすべきか
박정희 선집 우리는 지금 무엇을 얼마나 이루어야할 것인가

and,the radioactivity comes to South Korea and Japan when the nuclear test is done in the north direction .
i would like to ask you "Don't you frighten it?"
i'm always worry about radioactivity. :( :(

[sabro]

I got to read the Time magazine articles at