why Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

[Wells]

So they bombed a town that had military HQ and not 100000 solider and another that was a major ship building town. Yeah right. During final days of the war Japan didnt had enough arms to wage a normal war + their industry was falling apart. So they decided to kill 200.000 people among then 5K+ prisoners of war....

I've already said there were two goals. Fear and military destruction. You're being willfully obtuse.

Japan has a long and historic history. The US recognized that. So they refused to hit Tokyo, Nara, Kyoto, or Osaka, cities of significant historical value to the world. Instead they hit cities, that while were still important, would not be a huge loss to the world community. While the loss of any human life is a tragedy, the bombs accomplished what they were meant to, the end of the war.

Kyoto was actually an option early on but one of the people selecting targets had honeymooned there and loved the city too much.

[logintime]

So let me ask you this: you said "starved out a surrender". If strictly speaking the same amount of people had starved as had died in the bomb is that morally acceptable to you? Not to mention a blockade of that nature would've taken a very long time.

Not really. The war, as I already said, was basically over. Once the USSR entered and began mopping up Japanese forces in Manchuria and the Kurils it was only going to be a matter of a month or two before they surrendered anyway.

Not to mention the whole time you're being harassed by the Japanese as well as having to do continuous conventional and firebombing strikes(much much more deadly then the nukes but people just sensationalize the bang of the nukes as opposed to real tragedy because it's easy) to maintain this blockade.

With what? By this point the Japanese air force was in shambles and their runways were common targets. A blockade would not have been that hard to maintain given how beaten their forces were at the time, and would likely have lasted two or three months max. And as I said, the US could have always allowed Japan that one condition for surrender which would have basically guaranteed the government said yes- immunity for the Emperor.

All countries in the war attacked civilian populations and the means of production, that doesn't excuse this but if you want a little lesson in war atrocities ask China what it thinks about Japan.

I am more than aware of the atrocities everyone committed in WWII, including Japan. It's not exactly hidden information.

War sucks and is inherently immoral. We just like to fool ourselves into thinking we're waging a "Fair" or "just" war as "humanely"(lol) possible.

Just because war is inherently immoral doesn't mean we have to embrace that, or give ourselves a blank check to act however we like in that war. Fair and just wars are more than simple ideas; they largely form the basis of US military conduct today. And as such, we ought to be able to look into the past and recognize (and acknowledge) where we erred.

[Baene]

You know on another subject to add to this thread on world war 2 you guys do realize the civilians that died in hiroshima and nagasaki didnt intimidate japan into surrender it was the fear factor and poor intelligence of a bomb on tokyo which would of been more devastating. Also the Americans even if they blockaded japan we would have seen more ships sunk by kamikaze fighters. They had more then enough fighters and people willing to die for the country. As others mentioned it was also to show off look this is what we have to the soviet union. which was in the process oif building a bomb all these factors played a role into the bombings

[Atamus]

Japan did just fine, so I wouldn't worry too much about how we didn't reform them enough. They are a staunch ally, the Emperor is nothing more than a figurehead, and they have the second largest GDP in the world. All thanks to our involvement after WW2. While they will never thank us for the bombs, in my onion they ended up better for it. They were thrust into the position of a world economic leader in only a few decades. Amazing.

[Catta]

am i the only one who wonders howcome the three axis states Germany, Italy and Japan after the war became economic powerhouses while the US and Russia both went further down - okay Italy goes down too but still... I think its the no war thing they instituted after the war

[Atamus]

I've already said there were two goals. Fear and military destruction. You're being willfully obtuse.




Kyoto was actually an option early on but one of the people selecting targets had honeymooned there and loved the city too much.

Exactly. Wells. I;m sure all the cities I mentioned were part of "the list" at one point. But those cities mean too much to too many people inside and outside of Japan. I'm sure if Japan continued to fight after the bombs were dropped, Tokyo, Kyoto, and Osaka (the 3 most important cities in Japanese history) would of climbed right back to the top of that list.

[markos82]

I bet you're not in the USA. Shows what they teach you in school. See, I can do that too.

No you cant. Just open some historical book or read an article.....

27 January 1941, Dr. Ricardo Shreiber, the Peruvian envoy in Tokyo told Max Bishop, third secretary of the US embassy that he had just learned from his intelligence sources that there was a war plan involving a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. This information was sent to the State Department and Naval Intelligence and to Admiral Kimmel at Hawaii.

10 August 1941, the top British agent, code named "Tricycle", Dusko Popov, told the FBI of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor and that it would be soon. The FBI told him that his information was "too precise, too complete to be believed. The questionnaire plus the other information you brought spell out in detail exactly where, when, how, and by whom we are to be attacked. If anything, it sounds like a trap." He also reported that a senior Japanese naval person had gone to Taranto to collect all secret data on the attack there and that it was of utmost importance to them. The info was given to Naval IQ.

BTw Dusko Popov was an inspiration for James Bond...

24 September 1941, the " bomb plot" message in J-19 code from Japan Naval Intelligence to Japan' s consul general in Honolulu requesting grid of exact locations of ships pinpointed for the benefit of bombardiers and torpedo pilots was deciphered. There was no reason to know the EXACT location of ships in harbor, unless to attack them - it was a dead giveaway. Chief of War Plans Turner and Chief of Naval Operations Stark repeatedly kept it and warnings based on it prepared by Safford and others from being passed to Hawaii. The chief of Naval Intelligence Captain Kirk was replaced because he insisted on warning HI. It was lack of information like this that lead to the exoneration of the Hawaii commanders and the blaming of Washington for unpreparedness for the attack by the Army Board and Navy Court. At no time did the Japanese ever ask for a similar bomb plot for any other American military installation. Why the Roosevelt administration allowed flagrant Japanese spying on PH has never been explained, but they blocked 2 Congressional investigations in the fall of 1941 to allow it to continue. The bomb plots were addressed to "Chief of 3rd Bureau, Naval General Staff", marked Secret Intelligence message, and given special serial numbers, so their significance couldn't be missed. There were about 95 ships in port. The text was:


So what now? Read some books don't trust everything you read in a school book edited by the politicians.

[Catta]

There is no similarity. You obviously have no understanding of what I am talking about. There is a VAST difference between a cultural acceptance of being told to go commit suicide with no chance at all of surviving compared to an individual saying they are willing to die for their country. If you cannot make that distinction then I actually feel sorry for you.

obviously an army that has its personal commit suicide to damage the enemy as a first choice isnt gonna last very long and very quickly run out of pilots... Saying that they would just instantly go die doesnt stick well with me - all the footage you see of kamikaze pilots only shows that they try to hit the things with their craft after they sustain damage or otherwise lose ability to fight

[darkwarrior42]

The Japanese government attacked the US first. The citizens did not.

As everyone else has said, it was to scare Japan into surrendering, and to cripple the industries providing for the military.

Welcome to war.

Besides, Japan was prepared to fight down to the last man, woman, and child. It's probable that more Japanese civilians would have died if we had *not* bombed them, to say nothing of the many millions of soldiers who would have died.

Keep in mind that conservative estimates of a traditional invasion of Japan put the casualty rate of American soldiers between 1.7 and 4 million, with 400,000-800,000 fatalities. Conservatively, there would have been 5-10 million Japanese fatalities. That says nothing of the fact that the traditional invasion of Japan would have involved destroying far more cities than we destroyed with the two bombs we dropped.

The reason those two cities in particular were chosen have already been explained; suffice to say, they were not strictly civilian targets. Yes, we hoped to force Japan to surrender; doing so saved literally millions of lives. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to feel bad about that decision. It sucks for the people that were there, but it is an unfortunate reality that was made necessary by the situation.

[logintime]

am i the only one who wonders howcome the three axis states Germany, Italy and Japan after the war became economic powerhouses while the US and Russia both went further down - okay Italy goes down too but still... I think its the no war thing they instituted after the war

Well, it kind of made sense. All three were economic powers before the war. They all had well educated populations with industrial infrastructure that, while damaged, still existed. And Germany and Japan were both strategically useful to the US in the Cold War and received a lot of attention and support due to that. It seems rational that they all became economically quite strong in the post-war period.

[Surfd]

Japan has a long and historic history. The US recognized that. So they refused to hit Tokyo, Nara, Kyoto, or Osaka, cities of significant historical value to the world. Instead they hit cities, that while were still important, would not be a huge loss to the world community. While the loss of any human life is a tragedy, the bombs accomplished what they were meant to, the end of the war.

Which is why they basicly gutted Japanese culture when they took over after the War? Pre War Japan is very different from post war Japan. They also firebombed the hell out of Tokyo. They turned like half the city into smoking rubble.

[zakayron]

Soldiers fighting soldiers is not the same as civillians getting vaporised in a mushroom cloud with no warning or true purpose.
Both were large cities with some military importance. Neither was irreplacable to the military. There were picked because the casualties would be devastating so they would stand a chance of scaring Japan into surrender.

USA are assholes for dropping the bomb. They had their reasoning and rationalle that allowed them to carry through with it. It was a gray decision where thousands of families were killed. Nobody in the states thought about that, the whole population cheered it as another military victory. Oh well, history is written by the victors.

US dropped bombs to kill civilians to scare Japan into surrender. They knew that Japan wouldn't give up via traditional warfare until US took over Japan. Traditional warfare would have resulted in loads more deaths because if Japan had been invaded the country's leadership would cause civilians to take up arms to defend their homeland from attackers. So the US destroyed 2 cities instead of all of them.

Japan has a long and historic history. The US recognized that. So they refused to hit Tokyo, Nara, Kyoto, or Osaka, cities of significant historical value to the world. Instead they hit cities, that while were still important, would not be a huge loss to the world community. While the loss of any human life is a tragedy, the bombs accomplished what they were meant to, the end of the war.

The US targeted based on how damaged the cities already were. By destroying an already half destroyed city it would seem less intense to Japanese leadership. So they targeted cities which were relatively fine to send the strongest message.

[Supermantra]

If US could nuke 2 japanese cities full of people

why couldn't they bomb Iran?

[Atamus]

Which is why they basicly gutted Japanese culture when they took over after the War? Pre War Japan is very different from post war Japan. They also firebombed the hell out of Tokyo. They turned like half the city into smoking rubble.

When was the last time you were in Japan, because I was there last year and yes there are tons of Western influences all over: Mickey Ds, KFC, american clothing, etc... But to say the US "gutted" their culture is ridiculous hyperbole. They speak the same language, eat the same types of traditional food, pray at their same amazing temples, celebrate hanami, have a strict social order, etc... Yes things have changed, things change a lot around the world. But to say they were "gutted" is a bold face lie.

[zakayron]

Lots of text.

Japan at the time was seen as a country of honor. Surprise attacks aren't terribly honorable which is why reports were probably ignored. Also this was in days of traditional warfare so the US was most likely seeing if Japan would declare war before doing anything

[Supermantra]

am i the only one who wonders howcome the three axis states Germany, Italy and Japan after the war became economic powerhouses while the US and Russia both went further down - okay Italy goes down too but still... I think its the no war thing they instituted after the war

I think it was because they got hit in the face and everything was taken from them, especially Germany... If you cannot go down you have to go up.

[markos82]

Welcome to war.

Besides, Japan was prepared to fight down to the last man, woman, and child. It's probable that more Japanese civilians would have died if we had *not* bombed them, to say nothing of the many millions of soldiers who would have died.

Keep in mind that conservative estimates of a traditional invasion of Japan put the casualty rate of American soldiers between 1.7 and 4 million, with 400,000-800,000 fatalities. Conservatively, there would have been 5-10 million Japanese fatalities. That says nothing of the fact that the traditional invasion of Japan would have involved destroying far more cities than we destroyed with the two bombs we dropped.

The reason those two cities in particular were chosen have already been explained; suffice to say, they were not strictly civilian targets. Yes, we hoped to force Japan to surrender; doing so saved literally millions of lives. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to feel bad about that decision. It sucks for the people that were there, but it is an unfortunate reality that was made necessary by the situation.

Again not true. During the final days of the war, after German surrender Japan was on a brink of losing the war. They had no ammunition so many have been told to use kamikaze to deal as much as damage as they can. Also the war was never with Japan but the attack on Pearl Harbor was used as an excuse. USA wanted to enter war in Europe and they needed approval of congress and they never had it. So your government sacrificed 5000 young soldiers and entire fleet to gain votes.

[Treeskee]

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

* Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
* Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
* Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
* Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
* Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
* Surrender of designated war criminals.

Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

^^^ ain't that a kick in the head

[Kulthor]

Soldiers fighting soldiers is not the same as civillians getting vaporised in a mushroom cloud with no warning or true purpose.
Both were large cities with some military importance. Neither was irreplacable to the military. There were picked because the casualties would be devastating so they would stand a chance of scaring Japan into surrender.

USA are assholes for dropping the bomb. They had their reasoning and rationalle that allowed them to carry through with it. It was a gray decision where thousands of families were killed. Nobody in the states thought about that, the whole population cheered it as another military victory. Oh well, history is written by the victors.

May the innocent people that were hit by that bomb rest in peace.
However, I am hoping that's the only time we have to use a Nuke... The only good thing that comes out of it is the fact that other countries know we're not afraid to use it... Other than that this could have been handled in a much better way. Japan thought they couldn't be defeated and we over did it by a long shot. It's getting scary who knows what else they have I'm sure there are things we have no idea about that are much worse than Nukes. I find the topic interesting though.

Using guns is one thing but bringing nukes is another ballpark... Any country can be defeated even the US and I wish people weren't so cocky about our countries military because it could easily hit us in the ass. Is there any country doing well these days though? Seems like I hear on the news everyday they're all going to shit... U.S being one of the first of course. Makes me wonder what the world will be like in a decade... So many possibilities...

Maybe the bomb was a good decision maybe not... My history is a bit rusty.

[ghtybv]

No you cant. Just open some historical book or read an article.....

27 January 1941, Dr. Ricardo Shreiber, the Peruvian envoy in Tokyo told Max Bishop, third secretary of the US embassy that he had just learned from his intelligence sources that there was a war plan involving a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. This information was sent to the State Department and Naval Intelligence and to Admiral Kimmel at Hawaii.

10 August 1941, the top British agent, code named "Tricycle", Dusko Popov, told the FBI of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor and that it would be soon. The FBI told him that his information was "too precise, too complete to be believed. The questionnaire plus the other information you brought spell out in detail exactly where, when, how, and by whom we are to be attacked. If anything, it sounds like a trap." He also reported that a senior Japanese naval person had gone to Taranto to collect all secret data on the attack there and that it was of utmost importance to them. The info was given to Naval IQ.

BTw Dusko Popov was an inspiration for James Bond...

24 September 1941, the " bomb plot" message in J-19 code from Japan Naval Intelligence to Japan' s consul general in Honolulu requesting grid of exact locations of ships pinpointed for the benefit of bombardiers and torpedo pilots was deciphered. There was no reason to know the EXACT location of ships in harbor, unless to attack them - it was a dead giveaway. Chief of War Plans Turner and Chief of Naval Operations Stark repeatedly kept it and warnings based on it prepared by Safford and others from being passed to Hawaii. The chief of Naval Intelligence Captain Kirk was replaced because he insisted on warning HI. It was lack of information like this that lead to the exoneration of the Hawaii commanders and the blaming of Washington for unpreparedness for the attack by the Army Board and Navy Court. At no time did the Japanese ever ask for a similar bomb plot for any other American military installation. Why the Roosevelt administration allowed flagrant Japanese spying on PH has never been explained, but they blocked 2 Congressional investigations in the fall of 1941 to allow it to continue. The bomb plots were addressed to "Chief of 3rd Bureau, Naval General Staff", marked Secret Intelligence message, and given special serial numbers, so their significance couldn't be missed. There were about 95 ships in port. The text was:


So what now? Read some books don't trust everything you read in a school book edited by the politicians.

Actually American text books do say that they knew about the attacks, but do your books mention Britin directly bombing german civilians?

No one was innocent in the war.