Today is the anniversary of a tragedy August 6, 1945

[demnan]

The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima this day in 1945. Whatever your take on the brutality of the Japanese Empire, it still must remain one of the saddest days in human history. There are sources who say that it was unnecessary as well. I leave you this link and your thoughts to ponder.

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

I saw this news on the flat screen of a T.V. situated in a Japanese restaurant I frequent.

[GiovanniC]

1. It's Also the Three-Year Anniversary

Of the ignoring of a Presidential Daily Brief that could have saved thousands of American lives.

Good ol' August 6.

[elehhhhna]

3. The Crew of the USS Indianapolis was being rescued, also--

Two of my Fatherinlaw's best buddies survived it.

One of the greatest debacles in Naval History.

[DrWeird]

2. Here's what Dwight Eisenhower thought about it.

"...in 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

[Sequoia]

4. He said that!!!?

Yes, it was unnecessary. As bad as Pearl Harbor was, it was no reason to nuke Japan because they were already defeated and had no more resources with which to fight us.

[edbermac]

8. Respectfully do not agree...

The bombings were not unnecessary. That is Eisenhower's opinion of whether he thought Japan would surrender. He did not have all the facts as Truman did. Look at England during WWII; they were slammed by the Luftwaffe, the V1 and V2 weapons and they didn't waver an inch. When the Allies first invaded Germany, they didn't surrender for around 6 months, not until the Allies were literally knocking on Hitler's bunker. The Japanese Emperor may have wanted to surrender but there were many hardliners in the military that wanted to fight to the bitter end. I believe that after Nagasaki there was an attempted coup to prevent him from doing that. The only way to defeat Japan was to invade and it would have been a bloodbath on both sides compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Jack from Charlotte]

9. And I agree with you ed, in that the war was not over....

especially in the context of the last 2 battles fought... Iwo Jima in Feb. of '45 and then worse at Okinawa in April. Also, the use of Kamakaze just made the US that much more fearful of a horrible, bloody battle for Honsho.

Now I wish we hadn't used the A-bomb just because it would have given The US that much more status as having this weapon but not using it. However............. I fail to see much difference between dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the March bombing of Tokiyo. The Tokyio bombing took more planes but was as lethal or more lethal than the nuke bombings.

Would other have felt better if we'd just used plane old firebombs rather than nukes on those 2 cities?

[demnan]

5. Thank you for that post

I was unaware of Eisenhower's position on that issue!

[gp]

6. They were about to surrender...

the only condition they had was that the emperor remain in power (he was seen as a god by the Japanese population)...the U.S. refused to accept that condition.

After the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dropped however, the Emperor was allowed to remain in power for many more years.

[ochazuke]

7. Emperor, Unconditional Surrender and all that

The U.S. demanded "unconditional surrender". The Japanese wanted one condition: the Emperor (even then little more than a figurehead) must remain on the throne.

America rejected such overtures or indications and nuked 'em.

Then, it turns out that in the final deal, the Emperor got to stay on the throne.

So, what was all that death really for?

[Junkdrawer]

10. "So, what was all that death really for?" A message to Stalin:

Don't cross the tripwire or we'll nuke you. Everyone assumed it would take the USSR 20-30 years to get nukes. It took 4 years.

[Jack from Charlotte]

12. You are correct about that...........

We wanted unconditional surrender and we got it...... except the only condidtion they wanted was to keep the emperor. So we got the unconditional surrender and then agreed to that condition afterward.

It's amazing and I've said the same thing for years.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. Vote in the poll folks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2168849

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

13. and so it began...

And so it begins. The first moment of a scary new era for the human race. An era in which we can destroy all life on this earth. And were we humbled, as we contemplated a future desolation in which "Men and beasts and all forms of life have ended their melancholy round and become extinct, and the pale moon lights her lamp in vain"??? Were we frightened by this terrible image?

Apparently not: we still build the doomsday bombs, we still threaten devastation, we still make war on our fellow man. Our madness will be the death of millions.