General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy accepting the necessity for Hiroshima and Nagasaki doesn't make you a monster
It's that time of the year again, the anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's the 68th this year. As happens every year, we're facing a heated and emotional debate over the morality and necessity of the bombings. Was using the most powerful weapons mankind has ever known on a civilian population right? Can it be justified? Why did it happen? What other choices did we have?
In hindsight, the deployment of Little Boy and Fat Man and subsequent utter destruction of two cities and the long-term suffering as a side-effect of the radiation is appalling. If any nation in the world sought to repeat these events, it would face near-universal condemnation and outcry, and its leaders charged for war crimes.
This we know, in hindsight. In 1945, the environment affecting the decision was plagued with unknowns: the effects of radiation and nuclear fallout were not well understood, the likelihood of the weapons' detonation wasn't guaranteed, the ability of the Soviet Union to pressure the Japanese Empire to surrender was in doubt.
Washington and the military leadership didn't have a long list of choices, and of the few on the shortlist, none guaranteed a peaceful, or at least relatively bloodless, outcome. Operation Olympic, the proposed Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands, had projected casualties of nearly one million Allied soldiers, and untold numbers of Japanese civilians. A continued blockade of the islands didn't guarantee a quick end to the war, and only threatened Japanese civilians with slow suffering through starvation. A Soviet invasion--unlikely due to the USSR's lack of capability--could have killed thousands, or tens of thousands, of Japanese, Chinese, and Korean civilians as Manchuria, the Korean peninsula, and the islands felt the heavier, far more brutal hand of Stalin.
The only other option, horrific and atrocious though it was, required the bombs to be dropped. A sudden, brutal, and traumatizing shock to the Japanese leadership and a display of overwhelming force to dishearten the military command provided the best likelihood of a quick end to the war.
Now, back to the title. You can accept this outcome as necessary without being a monster. You're not any less of a human being if you do. In fact, not accepting this has the opposite effect--writing off the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as barbaric and unnecessary in hindsight only increases the chance it will happen again.
Understand what caused the war with Japan. Understand the war weariness at home. Understand that, though atrocious, the choice to drop the bombs was the best of some very terrible options.
Know what led to that point, and fight like hell to make sure it never happens again. Never let us be put in that position again.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)will give many people pause.
Hiroshima is the 2nd most horrid word in the American lexicon, succeeded only by Nagasaki.
NOLALady
(4,003 posts)
Deep13
(39,154 posts)They were not defeated until after the bombing and they could have ended hostilities at anytime with an immediate and unconditional surrender.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)They only surrendered when we accepted their 1 condition, and the Chrysanthemum Throne stands in testament as the oldest continuing hereditary monarchy in the world to this very day of that wise decision... too bad we didn't accept it earlier.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Just as insane as the terrorist.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)The war crime of attacking civilians was first articulated in modern international humanitarian law in the St. Petersburg Declaration (1868). It is also enshrined in Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines. The war crime of attacking civilians is now considered to be a part of customary international law. The following chart illustrates some of the articles in international legal statutes prohibiting attacks on civilians:
more...
http://www.sharedhumanity.org/LibraryArticle.php?heading=Attacking%20Civilians,%20the%20War%20Crime%20of
See also...
Protocol I is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts. It reaffirms the international laws of the original Geneva Conventions of 1949, but adds clarifications and new provisions to accommodate developments in modern international warfare that have taken place since the Second World War.
As of June 2013, it had been ratified by 173 states,[1] with the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Turkey being notable exceptions.
more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Not as interesting as how quickly all belligerent nations threw it out the window when convenient. I often wonder how the war crimes trials would have went had the Nazis and Japan won the war.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)the response they got to that one condition was that the status of the emperor would be at the discretion of the occupying Allied powers.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)that makes perfect sense, and why we refused to included it in Potsdam... we wanted to surprise them.
:shakes-head:
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I don't want Moscow, Beijing, New York, Tehran, or Tel Aviv to be a part of that. You don't have to be happy with the bombings. I'm certainly not. But the military leadership of 1945 would kill for half of the information we have now.
Be angry about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but don't blind yourself to what led to them in the first place, because you won't see it coming the next time.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)It was purely political.
branford
(4,462 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)resembling acceptable conditions.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)The Japanese only surrendered when their one condition was met, when we FINALLY accepted their 1 condition, and the Chrysanthemum Throne stands in testament to the wisdom of that decision, as the oldest continuing hereditary monarchy in the world to this very day... too bad we didn't accept it earlier.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)In fact, their leadership wasn't willing to surrender at all pre-Hiroshima.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Yet, in the end they did.
History shows now that it would have saved lives, both Japanese and Americans if we would have accepted their one condition earlier.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)unconditionally with Hirohito held on as a figurehead, before the declaration of war by the Soviets and the nukes?
It's clear they wouldn't have surrendered without that bone being throne, but there's precious little showing that they'd have surrendered on that sole basis.
The army nearly succeeded in overthrowing Hirohito after he did accept surrender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)2. Japan would have continued to fight on, if we didn't accept their 1 condition.
Once the President decided to remove assurances for the Japanese Emperor from the Potsdam Proclamation which had been recommended by all close-in advisers except James F. Byrnes, everyone knew the war would go on: There was little doubt that the Japanese would fight on if the position of the Emperor was threatened. Accordingly, once the political parameters had been set, there were few choices left for the military. In these circumstances, after July 26 and the publication of the Potsdam Proclamation, the choice before the military leaders was narrowed--use the bomb or invade. (THE DECISION, pp. 358-65; 631- 2.)
However, note also that the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff felt so strongly about the matter that at Potsdam they went so far as to ask the British Chiefs of Staff to try to get Prime Minister Churchill to persuade President Truman to clarify assurances for the Emperor. (The British Chiefs did do this and Churchill did approach Truman, but to no avail.) Moreover, the U.S. Chiefs also made a direct approach to the President themselves on the same matter before the bomb was used. (THE DECISION pp. 245-8; 299-300; for additional detail see Kathryn C. Morris, H-JAPAN, Nov. 9, 1996.)
more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a surrender based on the "Atlantic Charter" as put forward in an official July 21, 1945 American radio broadcast. The key clause of the Charter promised that every nation could choose its own form of government (which would have allowed Japan to keep its Emperor).
The broadcast was allowed to stand with Presidential sanction, but U.S. officials chose thereafter to ignore this indication of Japan's willingness to surrender.
more...
http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)The military leadership ultimately acquiesced, but prior to Hiroshima, they were not in the mood to lay down their arms.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Before, they weren't willing to accept anything
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)The Allies only condition to Japanese surrender was for Tokyo to accept all points of the Potsdam Conference.
Immediately after the Tokyo agreed to that, the Allies accepted the surrender.
The Allies did not in any way predicate any denial or acceptance of that surrender on the status of the Japanese Emperor... the conditions were spelled out without ambiguity in the Potsdam Conference agreement which was not merely made available, but dropped en-masse, via leaflets over mainland Japan 14 hours after the last signatory made his mark.
(Joseph Persico, Roosevelt's Secret War; A World At Arms, Weinberg)
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)As everyone knew it would be, since Truman did not allow language assuring the safety of the imperial family, as almost all advisors recommended.
Once they that 1 condition was met, they surrendered.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)To think so is to deny reality
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)That people think that they were is indicative of the propaganda surrounding that event even to this very day.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)development exists to this day regarding this issue.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefecture health department estimated that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians, although Hiroshima had a sizeable garrison.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)his mother actually sold his car because she thought he wasn't coming back. He hadn't seen any combat for the whole war, and knew he wasn't a fighter, and so didn't have much hope about his chances.
He claims to have known the island he was going to land on and visited there after the war.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)Estimated allied casualties I do believe were estimated to be in the 2+million range. The war would have ran to 1948 or 1949. Massive firebombing of cities as told to me by a relative who was in the Pacific theatre. The only thing they wanted standing was the Imperial Palace. They were under direct orders not to bomb it.
He was a Marine tasked with being in the first wave to hit the beach. He was sure he wasn't going to make it alive off of Japan.
He told us kids years later that when news of the bombings and surrender came down, there was a huge relief among the invading force.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Operation Downfall was the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The planned operation was abandoned when Japan surrendered following the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Kyūshū, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. Later, in spring 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kantō Plain, near Tokyo, on the Japanese island of Honshū. Airbases on Kyūshū captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
branford
(4,462 posts)I may have a few nit-picks and additions, but you appreciate and express both the horror and necessity of the bombings.
As you previously mentioned that you are a history student, you have done your professors proud.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)If people aren't feeling guilty about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, why so much nervous scrambling to justify it?
For those who truly feel their actions are just, they don't need angry justifications.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)But there just wasn't any way, given the information available to the people making the decisions, that it was going to end peacefully.
Nobody with even a remote sense of right and wrong could be thrilled or happy with the bombing. The only thing that can be done is to make sure that the world never again sees a war whose only end comes through nuclear fire.
branford
(4,462 posts)You do realize that no one here made to the decision to drop the bombs, or actually committed the deed. No one needs to justify anything. We do, however, wish discuss the military necessity, ethics, political ramification, etc. of the event, in order that such a decision may never have to be made ever again. This is true regardless of whether you believe it was justified or not.
Igel
(35,300 posts)If you see something happen and you know a possible cause, you assume that the possible cause is *the* cause.
You hear water dripping outside. You know that you hear that sound when it's raining. You assume that it's raining. (Then you look out and see a kid with a hose spraying your house.) That's abductive reasoning. It's faux logic.
When you do something wrong and can't admit it you come out with angry justifications. Therefore, the (faux) reasoning is, you must know you did something wrong.
My father and his siblings were in a conference call. Their father had a stroke. He was in a coma. His prognosis was that he'd waste away on life support until he died. His will said that the doctors couldn't make this decision--instead his siblings and son would. The hospital's ethics team put it to the "committee", who heard the information and asked for 24 hours. During those 24 hours they talked among themselves. The vote was unanimous to pull the plug. My uncle was dead within 60 seconds from heart failure.
And for the next 2 years whenever he talked about his siblings he'd mention his brother and was angry at his decision. He didn't like it. He rejected it. There had to be another way. How dare his brother put him and his brothers/sisters in the position of being God like that?
He was *all* "angry justifications" after posing the question--even if everybody else had left the room. But it was the right choice and he knew it. He just didn't *feel* it--hence the "angry" part. He deeply resented being asked to do something that was so emotionally wrong, closing off any hope of improvement and making their not-so-great relations for the decades before his brother died unfixable.
So you have at least two options for what "angry justifications" could mean. They know they're wrong. They don't want to believe they were right.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Even though it was entirely justified.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)If they didn't want 2 of their cities nuked, they should have left Pearl Harbor alone.
Even Admiral Yamamoto recognized it was a mistake.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)It doesn't diminish the horror of it, though.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)In fact, it shouldn't. Appreciating the fact that a war could only end through such horror should only make people hate it more.
DinahMoeHum
(21,784 posts)
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)We could run through WWII (which, btw, began in September 1939, not December 1941 as some Americans think) from start to finish and find a long trail of actions and decisions where morality didn't come into it. And at the end of the trail is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a decision that was made based on pragmatism and a desire not to see the Soviets have any part in a post-war occupied Japan the way it had worked out in Germany. There was clearly nothing moral about the actions of the Japanese and Germans during WWII, but people are deluding themselves if they think morality figured in decisions made by the Allies during the war...
bpj62
(999 posts)Its nice to have the information that we now have available to us so we can call our former leaders monsters and war criminals. Japan may have been beaten but as long as Tojo was in charge they would not surrender. People tend to forget the bloody conflict that Okinawa was. People forget that we lost over 300 ships to kamikaze attacks and that number would have grown as we got closer to mainland Japan in preparation for Operation Olympic which was scheduled for November of 1945. The bomb was both a military and a political solution. Please note that 6 years later when MacArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese after they crossed the Yalu River in Korea Truman sacked him because he would not do it a second time. Did Truman send a message to Stalin when he dropped the bomb, absolutely and it worked. Unfortunately it is always the civilians the end up bearing the brunt of what their government does and although I feel bad for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I also think about the Chinese civilians in Nanjing, the Korean women who were forced into prostitution, the Bataan death march, the destruction of Manila.
DinahMoeHum
(21,784 posts). . .and the war was the closest thing ever to total war, that whoever developed this weapon was going to use it.
US, Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, etc. Doesn't matter who.
Any one of them would have used it.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)And it was definitely not the first, as it goes back in history to Ghenghis Khan and further. It's the complete mobilisation of populations and resources, which is exactly what happened in WWII...
Libertas1776
(2,888 posts)the sad thing is if even the US did not drop the bombs, it would have reared its ugly head on another civilian population somewhere down the line dropped by whomever. Dropping it on a desert or on an uninhabited Japanese island, as some have suggested doesn't quite have the fearful effects that make a power, not only build up those weapons, but also and MUCH more importantly be extremely hesitant to use it.
Libertas1776
(2,888 posts)this is the most articulate post on the subject posted today, IMO, the most reasoned, sane, and well thought response to all the bloviating going on today and of course it only has about 4 recs. 
Thank you for posting this, big kick from me.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)makes me want to cry and makes me sick to my stomach.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)make you a soft idiot with limited understanding (which has been suggested several times on DU today.)
Vattel
(9,289 posts)
delrem
(9,688 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
90-percent
(6,829 posts)I used a hiroshima sized bomb on top of my house and i was amazed how small the blast radius was.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
I think its not sporting to judge historic decisions in the framework of current times. People just thought somewhat different back then than now. Especially a shared war time effort with five years of strife at home and abroad.
-jim