|
Remembering Hiroshima
|
View this Thread in Original format
| d!abolic |
I spent several hours reading everything imaginable about the bombing of Hiroshima yesterday, and the more i learn about it, the angrier i get. The whole time i was under the impression that the 150,000 civillian casulties immediately resulting from it were necessary to avoid the invasion of Japan, which according to estimates made at the time, would have killed far more civillians.
But it turns out this wasn't the case. According to a lot of data gathered from insiders who came forward, as well as from declassified coeuments, Japan would have surrendered by the end of that year whether we used the A-Bomb or not. They actually offered to surrender twice prior to us dropping it! All their major cities were severely damaged or destroyed by the firebombings, and they had no way of winning the war.
So what it seems to come down to is that the bomb was used primarily to test it's destructive power in a real-world combat situation, and better yet, make sure the Communists are aware of that power. A perfect example of the blatant lying that went on is president Truman's initial national address after the bomb was dropped, saying Hiroshima was a military base. It wasn't. The military targets it did contain were of so little importance that the USA didn't even bomb them during the whole campaign.
US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1945:
| quote: | | ...certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. |
Special Assistant to Secretary of War, 1961:
| quote: | | There CANNOT be a well-grounded dissent from the conclusion reached as early as 1945 by members of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey .... [Emphasis added; THE DECISION, p. 645.] |
USA Chief of Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1990:
| quote: | | Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. IT IS CLEAR THAT ALTERNATIVES TO THE BOMB EXISTED AND THAT TRUMAN AND HIS ADVISERS KNEW IT. [Emphasis added; DIPLOMATIC HISTORY, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 110.] |
Now, after reading all that, have a look at this actual eyewitness account of who was just 1,700 meters from the hypocenter when the bomb was dropped. And while you're at it, look through the rest of the stuff on that site, sit down and think. Link
Added by request: The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb Debate |
|
|
| Ub3rTrancer |
| america... what do u expect |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| Yes, I agree. Took a course on Einstein and the humanities and we did some reading on Hiroshima, use of the bomb etc. Imo the only reason they did drop it was because they had spent so much time and $$$ on it that they had to use it which is an utterly stupid reason to test something destructive and that kills lives. Check out the "Franck" report (sp?), it outlines reasons for and against dropping it... |
|
|
| itikia |
 |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Endlesswave
Yes, I agree. Took a course on Einstein and the humanities and we did some reading on Hiroshima, use of the bomb etc. Imo the only reason they did drop it was because they had spent so much time and $$$ on it that they had to use it which is an utterly stupid reason to test something destructive and that kills lives. Check out the "Franck" report (sp?), it outlines reasons for and against dropping it... |
I watched a read good documentary on this.
The U.S. had to drop it not because of the time or $$ they spent ,two conclusions that everyone would think (it makes sense right?), but because of the society they were fighting.
Japan would have rather died than suffer the humiliation of defeat.
The U.S. simply were not willing to take those kind of casualties against the mindset of that type of society.
In hindsight, yes the bombs were horrible but the consensus at the time (and still is) was that they were saving more lives than were lost in that instant the bombs went off. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
I watched a read good documentary on this.
The U.S. had to drop it not because of the time or $$ they spent ,two conclusions that everyone would think (it makes sense right?), but because of the society they were fighting.
Japan would have rather died than suffer the humiliation of defeat.
The U.S. simply were not willing to take those kind of casualties against the mindset of that type of society.
In hindsight, yes the bombs were horrible but the consensus at the time (and still is) was that they were saving more lives than were lost in that instant the bombs went off. |
So how do you respond to the original post in this thread? The apparently evidence-supported analysis that the USA thought that Japan would eventually surrender regardless?
I don't have any position on this subject, since this is the first I've heard of this controversy. Just curious to see if there's really a debate here or just speculation. |
|
|
| drgoodvibe |
| As sad as it is, whether your argument is true or not Max, does it really matter anymore? Can we change the past? The only thing we can do now, is make sure history does not repeat itself. Too bad we never learn our own lessons. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
So how do you respond to the original post in this thread? The apparently evidence-supported analysis that the USA thought that Japan would eventually surrender regardless?
|
Problem is with the 'evidence' and analysis from a Western mindset.
Surrendering for the Japanese was a great humilition (and had been for thousands of years) and greater than death.
Why should have the U.S. have expected them to surrender? That just doesn't make sense... |
|
|
| Durafei |
| Keep in mind that if America didn't drop the bomb then, it might have been dropped during Cold War. In that case the consequences would have been much more severe. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
Keep in mind that if America didn't drop the bomb then, it might have been dropped during Cold War. In that case the consequences would have been much more severe. |
That I totally agree with...
And even then we were very, very close... |
|
|
| d!abolic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Problem is with the 'evidence' and analysis from a Western mindset.
Surrendering for the Japanese was a great humilition (and had been for thousands of years) and greater than death.
Why should have the U.S. have expected them to surrender? That just doesn't make sense... |
Because they OFFERED to surrender TWICE? |
|
|
| d!abolic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
Keep in mind that if America didn't drop the bomb then, it might have been dropped during Cold War. In that case the consequences would have been much more severe. |
I don't think so. The Hiroshima bomb greatly influenced the public, but as far as driving the point across to Stalin, a detonation in the desert would have accomplished the same thing. Surely he wasn't incapable of imagining what would happen if it WERE detonated in a city instead? |
|
|
|
|
