View Full Version : My God, what have we done?
It was 65 years ago yesterday.
sorry Crayola, belated Happy Birthday !
It was 65 years ago yesterday.
And the world has never been the same since.
sorry Crayola, belated Happy Birthday !
yeah happy birthday:D
teenybash
07-Aug-10, 15:57
It was 65 years ago yesterday.
Take it we're off on another Mystery tour...................:confused
riggerboy
07-Aug-10, 16:00
didn`t do them any harm in the long run they now have items in every house in the world
didn`t do them any harm in the long run they now have items in every house in the world
In a bizarre sort of way you're probably right. The country as a whole would probably have suffered more if the alternative plans had been followed.
It's VJ Day next Sunday but somehow that never gets as much publicity as VE Day. Wonder how long it will be before these anniversaries are forgotten.
VJ day at what a cost. The hope is that it is never forgotten.
DeHaviLand
07-Aug-10, 17:03
VJ day at what a cost. The hope is that it is never forgotten.
And what would the cost have been if the US hadnt dropped the bomb? Many more millions of lives may well have been lost as the Japanese were escalating their areas of conflict. Invasions were planned for many more countries, including Australia, and the Japanese were already developing their own atom bomb. I'd say the cost in human life was minimal compared to what it would have been without Enola Gay and Little Boy.
And maybe the most important side-effect has been that no-one has dared to use one in anger since the end of WW11.
The war was already finished. The (already victorious in fact if not yet declared) Americans were making a point to the Japanese and (much more importantly) to the world . Hiroshima and Nagasaki (sp) were totally unecessary to end the war with Japan.
You know as well as I do that some issues are truly complicated _Ju_. Yes they may have wanted to make a point but there was far more to it than that and some people will argue forever more about it.
The thing, Crayola, is that so many lives were destroyed. Not only those who suffered the bombing, but sucessive generations. People who were not miltary. Civilians. These people, who are still affected in their daily lives, find it very simple to see the pointless destruction.
There is no excuse for the use of these weapons. No matter who uses them and however they justify their decision, it is just simply wrong. A wrong against humanity. But then this is just an opinion. I hope I never have this opinion reconfirmed.
There are many learned experts who disagree with your opinion _Ju_. One cannot predict with any certainty how many deaths there would have been if the war hadn't been ended that way. Indeed I find it hard to argue with any degree of certainty that there would have been fewer.
It would have been a very hard decision for anyone to make and I'm glad I didn't have to make it. The ensuing destruction was truly appalling and I share your horror. But was the alternative of full scale invasion really any better?
When is John Little when we need his historical expertise?
What you have to remember is that Japan had a rule, No surrender!!!
They would not stop fighting/invading/torturing even though they knew that Germany was defeated...The Japanese were a cruel and vile lot in the last war, 1000's more lives would have been lost if the bomb had not been used.....the good news it that one has not been dropped since but we have to watch out for N.Korea and Iran...Pakistan is also a country that is a bit unstable and I wished they hadnt got the bomb.
If anyone has any doubt about the Japanese in the last war then I would suggest reading up on how they killed, tortured and worked people to death.
At least Germany had the sense to surrender but Japan would never have surrendered so the dropping of the bomb brought it all to a swift end.
:(
DeHaviLand
07-Aug-10, 19:29
The war was already finished. The (already victorious in fact if not yet declared) Americans were making a point to the Japanese and (much more importantly) to the world . Hiroshima and Nagasaki (sp) were totally unecessary to end the war with Japan.
The war was far from over Ju. The Japanese had rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and Prime Minister Suzuki and Emperor Hirohito had both declared that Japan would be defended at all costs. They even repeated this after the bombing of Hiroshima.
Various "experts" have concluded that an invasion of Japan would have cost the lives of 1,000,000 allied troops. Japanese casualties would undoubtedly have been higher, due in no small part to their penchant for suicide when the odds were against them.
Do I agree with the use of nuclear bombs? No. But I do think in this instance there was a very large measure of justification in the milions of lives that were possibly saved.
There are many learned experts who disagree with your opinion _Ju_. One cannot predict with any certainty how many deaths there would have been if the war hadn't been ended that way. Indeed I find it hard to argue with any degree of certainty that there would have been fewer.
When is John Little when we need his historical expertise?
You do not need to be a historical expert. The war was effectively over and won when the bombs were dropped. This is the opinion I have formed after reading from several sources.
The war was far from over Ju. The Japanese had rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and Prime Minister Suzuki and Emperor Hirohito had both declared that Japan would be defended at all costs. They even repeated this after the bombing of Hiroshima.
.
I have to disagree. Japan was on it's knees already. We seem to be reading different source materials, but more recent information made available (as opposed to information close to the event) not only gives me reason for my opinion, but at the time, while the decision was being made there was division in the white house itself.
example:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hamby.htm
7. In subsequent years, the American decision makers of 1945 devoted considerable energy to the construction of a misleading "myth" that attempted to vindicate the use of the bomb by denying Japanese efforts at peace and by asserting grossly inflated estimates of American casualties that would have been sustained in an invasion of Japan.
Green_not_greed
07-Aug-10, 21:23
Crayola
If this is truly a 65th birthday post then CONGRATULATIONS AND WELL DONE!
I always thought you were younger - but then again I can only judge that by your posts. As a 50+ myself I still feel mentally about 30 and so hope it keeps up for all of us who don't feel our age!
Regards
GNG
DeHaviLand
07-Aug-10, 21:31
Crayola
If this is truly a 65th birthday post then CONGRATULATIONS AND WELL DONE!
I always thought you were younger - but then again I can only judge that by your posts. As a 50+ myself I still feel mentally about 30 and so hope it keeps up for all of us who don't feel our age!
Regards
GNG
Did you read the thread GNG? Note to Crayola, maybe be a little less cryptic and you wont get mistaken for a pensioner :D
You do not need to be a historical expert. The war was effectively over and won when the bombs were dropped. This is the opinion I have formed after reading from several sources.
You are correct in that there was only ever going to be one winner at that stage but there could have been lots of losers and the question to be addressed is how it was going to end without many millions more being killed. There was no obvious right or wrong choice at that time and not only because Professor Hindsight wasn't around to tell us what the Japanese would have done over the following months.
Let us try not to judge the whys and wherefores of what happened but merely take note of what happened and learn from it so it never happens again. What happened happened. :~(
Let us try not to judge the whys and wherefores of what happened but merely take note of what happened and learn from it so it never happens again. What happened happened. :~(
I'm always slightly disturbed when recent research shows that the past was not quite what we have said it was. Already theres millions of people who may believe the holocaust didnt happen. I'm not comparing the 2 opinions but only using it to make a point.
Another 65 years and before you know it the Americans were the baddies and the Japs were hard done by.
History can cause wars as much as religion and tampering with either is always risky business.
The thing, Crayola, is that so many lives were destroyed. Not only those who suffered the bombing, but sucessive generations. People who were not miltary. Civilians. These people, who are still affected in their daily lives, find it very simple to see the pointless destruction.
There is no excuse for the use of these weapons. No matter who uses them and however they justify their decision, it is just simply wrong. A wrong against humanity. But then this is just an opinion. I hope I never have this opinion reconfirmed.
So many innocent lives of many nationalities were taken by the Japs in terrible circumstances and many still suffer. Those who survived imprisonment, both military and civilian, will never forget. A life is a life however it is lost, the difference is that the Japanese started the war in the Far East and the Americans ended it. I do not believe they would have surrendered without the bomb.
There will always be wars and suffering because we don't learn.
I'm always slightly disturbed when recent research shows that the past was not quite what we have said it was. Already theres millions of people who may believe the holocaust didnt happen. I'm not comparing the 2 opinions but only using it to make a point.
Another 65 years and before you know it the Americans were the baddies and the Japs were hard done by.
History can cause wars as much as religion and tampering with either is always risky business.
History is always more complicated than goodies against baddies but it's easier to make the case for war if the other side are presented as dirty nasty baddies. The conflict between the USA and Japan is no exception but admittedly it's not a very good example.
There will always be idiots who believe the holocaust didn't happen, that Neil Armstrong didn't walk on the moon, that Alex Jones isn't a fruit and nut case, that there are aliens in your cornflakes and so on ...................
Crayola
If this is truly a 65th birthday post then CONGRATULATIONS AND WELL DONE!
I always thought you were younger - but then again I can only judge that by your posts. As a 50+ myself I still feel mentally about 30 and so hope it keeps up for all of us who don't feel our age!
Regards
GNG
I hate being grown up as well.
oldmarine
09-Aug-10, 05:43
It was 65 years ago yesterday.
65 years ago we dropped the 2 big ones and it saved my tail. I was able to return home in one piece.
oldmarine
09-Aug-10, 06:00
I have to disagree. Japan was on it's knees already. We seem to be reading different source materials, but more recent information made available (as opposed to information close to the event) not only gives me reason for my opinion, but at the time, while the decision was being made there was division in the white house itself.
example:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hamby.htm
I have to disagree with the former statement. I was on Okinawa awaiting the invasion of Japan. Japan was not ready to surrender after the 1st one was dropped and it was only after the 2nd one was dropped Emperor Hirohito, who was a god-like figure, finally over-ruled the Japanese military and said "unconditional surrender accepted." When our military got to Japan and saw their defenses it was estimated that 2-1/2 million casualties would have occured. All of us over there at that time were thankful the 2 A-bombs were dropped. I believe Hirohito saved 2-1/2 million lives by his decision. Our military found positions where Japanese old men, women & children would be positioned shoulder - to - shoulder fighting to the death. It's strange how stories can change long after the fighting is over.
I have to disagree with the former statement. I was on Okinawa awaiting the invasion of Japan. Japan was not ready to surrender after the 1st one was dropped and it was only after the 2nd one was dropped Emperor Hirohito, who was a god-like figure, finally over-ruled the Japanese military and said "unconditional surrender accepted." When our military got to Japan and saw their defenses it was estimated that 2-1/2 million casualties would have occured. All of us over there at that time were thankful the 2 A-bombs were dropped. I believe Hirohito saved 2-1/2 million lives by his decision. Our military found positions where Japanese old men, women & children would be positioned shoulder - to - shoulder fighting to the death. It's strange how stories can change long after the fighting is over.
I saw a recent documentary based on recently released information (so not new, but previously unavailable) that the invasion plan for the home islands required an invasion force of 650,000. Expected casualties for this force were 50%. It was anticipated that there would be an unprecedented casualty rate among the civilian population and that Japanese military casualties could be as high as 90%.
After 5 years of war, I expect they would get these sort of predictions pretty accurate.
Tubthumper
09-Aug-10, 09:26
I have to disagree with the former statement. I was on Okinawa awaiting the invasion of Japan. Japan was not ready to surrender after the 1st one was dropped and it was only after the 2nd one was dropped Emperor Hirohito, who was a god-like figure, finally over-ruled the Japanese military and said "unconditional surrender accepted." When our military got to Japan and saw their defenses it was estimated that 2-1/2 million casualties would have occured. All of us over there at that time were thankful the 2 A-bombs were dropped. I believe Hirohito saved 2-1/2 million lives by his decision. Our military found positions where Japanese old men, women & children would be positioned shoulder - to - shoulder fighting to the death. It's strange how stories can change long after the fighting is over.
Thanks, Oldmarine, for being ready.
History does get bent and twisted to match later thinking or to take account of society changing. But as someone once said, we need to make sure we learn from our mistakes, or we'll be cursed to keep making the same ones forever!
65 years ago we dropped the 2 big ones and it saved my tail. I was able to return home in one piece.
I still have pictures of the day the gates were opened on our camp and know many who were thankful that they had finally surrendered. I also know many who survived but will never recover from what happened to them in that dreadful war (I was one of the lucky ones). It would have been much better if it could have ended with fewer lives lost but I'm sure at the time there seemed no other way.
billmoseley
09-Aug-10, 13:31
2 bombs, no world wars for 65 years i would say it has saved countless lives in the long run. the cold war was based on M A D. mutually assured destruction. it worked. but i fear we haven't seen the last time they will be used
Whitewater
09-Aug-10, 14:12
The bombs were dropped, they ended the war and probably saved millions of lives. It was not a nice thing but I take my hat off to old marine, who was a serving soldier at the time, he knows what he was talking about.
Does anybody know the number of lives lost when we began firebombing the German cities, I think as many lives were lost in that as with the atomic bomb also of course when the Germans were firebombing the British cities , only difference being lots of small bangs not just one big one. I know many of you will come back with the after effects of the bombs, and I agree they probably cost more lives than the actual explosion.
However, the world was at a stage where something had to be done to end the war and many people who were not even born then will of course argue against it. No matter what arguments all our modern day thinkers come up with it was the correct decision at the time, and it taught us all a valuable lesson, never to use it again. Unfortunately it did not teach us enough, it never taught us to stop wars.
John Little
09-Aug-10, 18:01
It's pretty widely accepted nowadays in a wide swathe of opinion that the dropping of the bombs was not necessary in order to bring about a Japanese surrender. John Newhouse outlined in 'The Nuclear Age' why it was dropped, and it was far more about winning the post war world than defeating Japan.
Truman takes the buck for it, in his own phrase, but Truman dropped the bomb in the full knowledge that the Japanese had already asked for terms twice by the beginning of August. Not even all the americans agreed that it should be dropped - General McCloy even advised Truman to demonstrate its power on some deserted island. That would not have had had the desired effect though- the weapon had to be used on a live city.
The policy was pushed by James Byrnes, Truman's Secretary of state in a way which Daniel Yergin set out in the 70s in 'The Shattered Peace'. Gore Vidal has commented on this too. Byrnes had been a vice presidential candidate in 1944 but Roosevelt had not wanted him because he was too savvy, too right wing in the Democratic party. Roosevelt wanted a nobody, who knew nothing whatsoever about Foreign Policy as his VP because he did not want pressure from Byrnes. So he chose Truman, as a compromise acceptable to left and right, and, notoriously, did not send him any briefing papers on Foreign policy at all.
At Yalta Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin came to a loosely worded agreement that ‘democratic’ governments be put in place in liberated eastern Europe. You could interpret that any way you liked. Trouble is that Roosevelt died on 8 April 1945 and the new president knew spit about foreign policy. And his chief adviser and new best friend?
James Byrnes.
As far as Byrnes was concerned, it was a black and white world – the Russians could not be trusted and the only thing they understood was force. Byrnes was heavily advised by the ‘Soviet Service’ inside the State department by diplomats liked George Kennan, Clarke Clifford and Paul Nitze- and Byrnes knew about the atomic bomb – and Truman did not until he was told two weeks into his presidency by Byrnes and Secretary of defense Stimson.
It must have been quite worrying for Truman to learn that Roosevelt had spent $2.5 billion on something that might never be used – without telling the Senate, the Representatives or anyone. The figure in 1945 was astounding – and political disaster stared him straight in the eye..
It had to be used.
But Byrnes was adamant that it had to be used live.
Churchill was very puzzled in June 1945 – Truman put off the Potsdam conference twice….. and Churchill could not see why. When the conference opened Churchill was puzzled, noting in his diary that the president seemed very quiet and had hardly said anything all day. He was waiting for news of the first atomic test. Byrnes had actually said to him ‘If this thing works, we’ll sure have a hammer on those boys’…meaning the Russians.
That night Stimson received a phonecall telling him about the successful birth of a new baby. The phone was tapped – the Russians actually congratulated him on the birth of a new grandchild – to his embarrassment. But the call meant that the first bomb had been a success. Next day Churchill said that Truman was a man transformed – decisive, snappy, demanding – in charge..
Byrnes was injudicious enough to be overheard talking about ‘The gun on the American hip which will allow us to dictate events for the next 20 years or so.’
Truman walked round the conference table and told Stalin that the Americans had succeeded in perfecting a very powerful new form of explosive. Stalin replied hoping that the Americans must make good use of it against Japan. Truman returned to Byrnes and said ‘I think the little bstard knows….’ As indeed he did because Alger Hiss had been merrily supplying the Russians with plans of the bomb.
As Stalin came down the steps of the conference chamber that day his Foreign Minister Molotov passed a comment overheard by General Zhukov who put it in his memoirs, to the effect that the Americans were threatening them – to which Stalin replied ‘’Let them – we’ll tell Kurchatov to speed things up’ – being the chief scientist developing the Russian nuclear device.
The Japanese had already requested peace talks through Prince Konoi asking the Russians to mediate – Stalin was not at war with Japan at that time. Truman decided to ignore that. Then came Potsdam and its declaration. The Americans offered terms which included the abolishing of the Japanese Emperor- which they knew, as McCloy pointed out, the Japanese could not possibly accept.
They did not have to drop the atomic bomb.
Carpet bombing was devastating Japan’s cities. Her airforce was outclassed and resorted to suicide planes. She was defeated and Truman knew it. He could have ended the war before he did.
The bomb is not a weapon as much as it is an expression of power and influence.
As the Potdam conference ended Molotov sidled up to Byrnes and asked him if he had a gun on his hip. Byrnes asked if Molotov was afraid he would shoot him if he had. They decided that you could not shoot a man you were having a drink with and went to the bar instead, thus diverting the mood.
The whole history of these events is shrouded in mystery and versions of it change as evidence becomes available. My own thoughts are not the final version
One thing only is clear. The old old propaganda version that the bombs were dropped to end the war simply no longer holds water.
It took years for it to emerge that no presidential order was ever given for the dropping of the Nagasaki bomb. It was done at the order of General Curtis LeMay who excused his action by saying that he regarded the bomb as simply another weapon that he was able to use.
But it served its purpose.
272 Russian divisions did not invade western Europe.
Congress was happy that the $2.5 billion had been well spent.
Truman was re-elected.
Oh yeah - I forgot.
After the bomb was dropped they let the Japanese surrender on the same terms that they had turned down in May - they let them keep the Emperor.....
History is always more complicated than goodies against baddies but it's easier to make the case for war if the other side are presented as dirty nasty baddies. The conflict between the USA and Japan is no exception but admittedly it's not a very good example.
Your right, it's not a good example. I was brought up in the shade of WW2 and there are some on this thread who lived and fought through it who will confirm that sometimes it no more complicated to accuse the Japs of being the baddies than to know that the Americans were the goodies.
It's pretty widely accepted nowadays in a wide swathe of opinion that the dropping of the bombs was not necessary in order to bring about a Japanese surrender. John Newhouse outlined in 'The Nuclear Age' why it was dropped, and it was far more about winning the post war world than defeating Japan.
What bothers me about this idea that the bombs didnt have to be dropped is whether it's history that says that or historians. My own guess is that it is historians with the benefit of hindsight who say the bombs neednt have been dropped. Great historical decisions are no longer historical if modern day historians use their skill and research methods to put a different angle on proceedings and what could have been.
Put yourselves in the place of those people in 1945 who had just fought a long war against a cruel enemy and not the nice cultured Japenese we have become so used to 70 years later. Its all very well to use academia as a weapon against historical decisions 65 years after the event but the danger in suggesting there could have been a different outcome is liable to taint future generations perception of how the second world war begun and how it panned out and how it eventually ended. There may well be instances where the victors behaved no better than the defeated but that's the nature of war. No doubt theres a strong school of thought that would convince any laymans convention that there was no need for the war to start in the first place.
My own opinion is biased by my childhood and the spirit of a country who hated the jerries and the Japs. I find it slightly disrespectful that now, 70 years later the motives of our wartime leaders are being questioned and their honour tarnished because historical research with no first hand observation or experience of the spirit of the times and therefore an incomplete picture, has deemed it necessary to point an accusing finger where there should only be acclaim.
John Little
09-Aug-10, 23:17
I really do not know how to reply in proper fashion to you because you seem to want things both ways. It is often said that the first casualty in war is the truth, and I hope that you would not seriously contend that governments tell the truth in wartime. It is necessary to control what version goes out in order to preserve national unity, prosecute the war and discomfort the enemy.
You were not "there" any more than I was.
That is to say, you were alive at the time and fighting but you were not privy to what was going on in the Cabinet, in the White House, in the headquarters of SHAEF etc.
Or maybe you were?
Your version of events is the one you were given in the media and I do not see how the passage of time can gild that with the shine of 'truth'
What I have said is not said 'with hindsight' because I do not have it - I was not even alive then. All I have is the evidence.
The 100 year secrecy rule was relaxed in the 60s. A lot of what was once top secret is now in the public domain. The USAAF report on the dropping of the bombs was declassified in the 70s and I have had it out at the National Archives and scanned through it.
What I have said to you is true factually and the books I have mentioned lay it out clearly. There are others.
The reasons for Truman's decisions, the thoughts of various counsellors and national advisors, the whys and wherefores are laid bare and may be discussed based on the available evidence. In this way we can understand the decisions made and the reasons for them.
"I find it slightly disrespectful that now, 70 years later the motives of our wartime leaders are being questioned and their honour tarnished because historical research with no first hand observation or experience of the spirit of the times and therefore an incomplete picture, has deemed it necessary to point an accusing finger where there should only be acclaim.'
This is not a standpoint I can relate to because it is based not on what happened but upon what you wish to believe. You are comfortable with your view.
Should we then not question our politicians and their motives?
Honour in Politics?
No first hand observation or experience?
You were there and fighting and taking part but unless you tell me that you had regular conversations with Churchill or Truman or the people taking these decisions, then how can I take what you say as having any bearing on what they did?
Your experience is relevant and valuable in your sphere.
But in understanding the circles in which they moved?
Accusing finger?
You misunderstand me. I accuse no-one.
I seek to understand them.
No disrespect intended but the version of the past I prefer if I am talking of the decisions of the generals is to be found among their private correspondence, their letters, their papers, their diaries and books written by people who have read them and thought on them. These are readily available in places such as the National Archives, the House of Lords Records Office, the British Library and so on.
That way lies understanding.
But to base my view solely on what the Daily Mail said in August 1945 would be purblind on my part.
No disrespect intended but the version of the past I prefer if I am talking of the decisions of the generals is to be found among their private correspondence, their letters, their papers, their diaries and books written by people who have read them and thought on them. These are readily available in places such as the National Archives, the House of Lords Records Office, the British Library and so on.
That way lies understanding.
But to base my view solely on what the Daily Mail said in August 1945 would be purblind on my part.
I feel no disrespect that you should choose to form your opinions from these valid sources. I suspect though your sources will be compatable with your own subjectivity just as mine is tainted by my life experience.
No one has a monopoly on truth least of all historians who have fed us half truths and speculation since history first became a human interest. One thing is not in question. 2 atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945 to bring to an end 6 years of a total and destructive war. I know which side I support through the mists of time and although I'm aware of the wranglings involved in international politics, could someone tell me please how else it could be?
The bombs were dropped. Taken as a moment in history there was no other decision could have been made.
The important thing now is for future generations to be made aware that the battles that were fought and decisions that were taken during that time were the right ones and the only ones that could have been taken. Any modern ideas although valid today have little or no relevance for the time they allude to.
John Little
10-Aug-10, 08:08
revisionist rubbish
That remark is the personification of intellectual poverty and quite unworthy of you.
I feel no disrespect that you should choose to form your opinions from these valid sources. I suspect though your sources will be compatable with your own subjectivity just as mine is tainted by my life experience."
All views of History will necessarily be subjective. But by application to source we may approach closer to what may be truth
"No one has a monopoly on truth least of all historians who have fed us half truths and speculation since history first became a human interest."
I disagree with your 'least of all'. I do not know where our contempt for historians comes from unless it be the fact that most 'history' books are not written by historians but by broadcasters and journalists. Is it because they step outside your comfort zone?
"One thing is not in question. 2 atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945 to bring to an end 6 years of a total and destructive war."
On the contrary - that is the very subject of this discussion.
" I know which side I support through the mists of time and although I'm aware of the wranglings involved in international politics, could someone tell me please how else it could be? "
It can be otherwise because a mass of evidence, once classified, is now available on which to revise your view. Not only that but the advisers who guided Truman put their views on record - some of it is, I think, available on Youtube- I shall look for you - it used to be anyway. There are no 'sides' here.
"The bombs were dropped. Taken as a moment in history there was no other decision could have been made. "
The dropping of the bomb was the culmination of months of discussion and argument in the administration in Washington I do assure you, and not all were in favour, particularly General Frank McCloy who found its proposed use appalling - and so did Robert Oppenheimer
"The important thing now is for future generations to be made aware that the battles that were fought and decisions that were taken during that time were the right ones and the only ones that could have been taken."
Of course - I agree- and it should be done with a clear view, stripped of its propaganda
" Any modern ideas although valid today have little or no relevance for the time they allude to."
Modern ideas?
I have put forward no modern ideas.
I repeat - I have looked at available evidence and set out for you a more accurate version of events. It's all there in the places I have mentioned already. If you choose not to believe me for whatever reason then I cannot help it.
Indeed I find it puzzling because your last statement, if taken generally, would mean that there was absolutely no point in studying history at all.
I have to disagree with the former statement. I was on Okinawa awaiting the invasion of Japan. Japan was not ready to surrender after the 1st one was dropped and it was only after the 2nd one was dropped Emperor Hirohito, who was a god-like figure, finally over-ruled the Japanese military and said "unconditional surrender accepted." When our military got to Japan and saw their defenses it was estimated that 2-1/2 million casualties would have occured. All of us over there at that time were thankful the 2 A-bombs were dropped. I believe Hirohito saved 2-1/2 million lives by his decision. Our military found positions where Japanese old men, women & children would be positioned shoulder - to - shoulder fighting to the death. It's strange how stories can change long after the fighting is over.
You were not "there" any more than I was.
John I am sorry, I prefer to believe Oldmarine. He was there!!!
And I am afraid I fell asleep after your 3rd paragraph.
John Little
10-Aug-10, 08:37
My point is that he was not there in the Oval Office, in the Pentagon, at Los Alamos.
He was alive at the time and taking part in his bit of the war. That makes him an expert and a primary witness on what he saw and did.
It does not put him in the position of being privy to the decision to drop the bomb.
On that matter he is not an expert or primary witness at all.
The sub-text of this discussion is between what the evidence shows quite clearly, and what people wish to believe.
Witnessing a happening or even participating in a historical event does not mean you have acessed information. Observation or participation in an event does not mean understanding why it has or is happening.
We all know that governments, especially when making controversial decisions, will spin them whichever way they have to, so that they reflect in a more positive light. It was no different then. Remember that History was always the story told by the victor. It is not exact nor is it imparcial.
Tubthumper
10-Aug-10, 09:09
One doesn't become a noted historian, sell features or books or for that matter gain one's PhD, by simply repeating what is accepted. However the masses require historical facts they can understand, accept and move on from.
There is very little known about Minoan civilisation, but that doesn't stop swarms of archaeologists and historians making a living in the sunshine.
Why aren't they in Caithness digging up OUR history?:eek:
John Little
10-Aug-10, 09:10
Cos it's too damned cold and there's midges there!
John Little
10-Aug-10, 12:02
In 1995 the Beeb did a documentary called 'Was it necessary to drop the bomb?'
I thought it might be useful so I sat watching it with my laptop on my knee and made notes as it played. Having read through them again, and having said that much of what I have said has been in the public domain for years, I take the liberty of putting my notes here as a discussion aid.
VIDEO NOTES ; WAS IT NECESSARY TO DROP THE BOMB ?
Opening shots are of survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs as they are today, followed by film of the Enola Gay - the plane that dropped the first bomb, which was equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT.
President Truman announced that a bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima which ‘destroyed its usefulness to the enemy’.... we have spent more than 2 Billion dollars on a gamble and ‘we have won..’
Joe Drago, an ex US marine said it was ‘A wonderful thing ... it saved a lot of American boys ... the world was better off..’
Grayford Payne, an ex prisoner of war said ‘My only regret is that we didn’t lay 10 bombs on them’
Ise Togo, daughter of Japanese Foreign Minister Togo said ‘Saying that the bomb is the reason why Japan ended the war may be what some people think but it is not the whole of the picture.’
130,000 people, mostly women and children died in the Hiroshima blast.
Survivors describe awful details of what they experienced.
Three days later on August 9th 1945 70,000 died at Nagasaki.
This was the end of a chain of events that began on December 7th 1941 when the Japanese attacked the US fleet at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii when 2000 died.
Prof. Paul Fussell said that the US was ‘humiliated and embarrassed before the world.’
President Roosevelt promised the American people ‘absolute victory.’
Japan was ready to seize the whole Pacific region and wanted war to get it.
Many atomic scientists were Jewish and had fled to America to get away from Nazis.
The US military assembled a huge team at Los Alamos in New Mexico to work on the Manhattan project, the most costly plan in US military history, designed to build the first ever atomic bomb for the US.
Prof. Hans Bethune said his workmates were ‘motivated with the desire to build the atomic bomb before the Germans could get it.’ ‘Our aim was to create the most powerful bomb in History.’
By Spring of 1945 the bomb was almost ready. Germany was beaten but the bomb could still be used against Japan.
American casualties in the Pacific war were heavy. The small island of Iwo Jima alone cost the US 6000 men. Okinawa cost more dead. 60,000 marines faced the Japanese and the fighting was the bloodiest of the war.
Ex Marine George Niland said the ‘Japs loved killing Westerners’ The Americans learned to like killing them - he describes it like a racial war..
President Roosevelt died in April 1945. Vice President Harry Truman became President. He had been a surprise choice.
George Niland said he did not like Truman at first because of his ‘crude style’ - he was a ‘hick’ but he turned out to be a ‘tough little guy.’
Truman had never been close to Roosevelt and was ‘excluded from the inner circle.’
Congressman Donald Fussell said ‘He was out of the military situation and had to be brought up to speed’- in other words he did not know what was going on .
Secretary of War Henry Stimson did not tell Truman about the bomb until two weeks after he became President. Fussell said ‘Truman probably didn’t realise what the A bomb was - he just thought it was a big big bomb.’ It took time before he realised its significance.
One of the Bomber pilots, later General Charles Sweeney did realise - one of the scientists told him that the bomb would reduce a city into dust - Sweeney was ‘absolutely flabbergasted.’
US casualties went on rising. On Okinawa 12 and a half thousand were lost and over 100,000 Japanese. The United States became obsessed with ending the war and saving lives. Truman broadcast a promise of ‘no failure’ and the US planned to invade Japan itself.
George Elsey, a naval assistant to Truman, was worried by the possibility of huge casualties.
Alexander Leighton of US intelligence said that Japanese had problems with communications and transport. People were starving and losing faith in their government. They were in dire straits because of US blanket bombing ; but the military had no thought of giving up.
The Japanese Emperor formed a new government. The new Prime Minister Mr Togo wanted to end the war. Japan was not at war with Russia so he asked them to start negotiations with the US. But Truman wanted unconditional surrender. The US people were not told of the Japanese moves.
In America the mood was for revenge. Propaganda made Japan hated. ‘Get the Jap and get it over’ was the mood. Politician Stuart Udell said that propaganda called the US troops ‘rodent exterminators.’ The Japanese were sub-humans and not normal human beings.
By the end of May 1945 Truman had received two messages. 1. The bomb was nearly ready. 2. The Japanese were wanting to negotiate surrender.
American code breakers confirmed that the Japanese wanted surrender. Prof. Henry Graf, an ex code- breaker confirmed this was true - Truman knew about their wish. Truman was unsure what to do and kept it secret.
The position of the emperor was vital. The US saw him as a war criminal, but any attempt to get rid of him would make Japan fight to the death. He was God to his people who worshipped him as God on earth.
Admiral Leahy told Truman ‘Surrender can be arranged with terms.’
Ex President Hoover advised Truman to accept the surrender and ‘preserve the Mikado (Emperor)’
General McArthur compared hanging the Emperor with crucifying Christ.
Joseph Grew told Truman that failure to ensure the Emperor would prolong the war.
Secretary of State James Byrnes was a hard liner and told Truman not to negotiate - he wanted to use the bomb.
On 1 June 1945 Truman again promised he would only accept ‘unconditional surrender’.
On 16 July 1945 the first A bomb was exploded in New Mexico. Scientist Edward Teller described it as a ‘bright sun.’
Truman and Byrnes were now in Potsdam Germany, to meet Churchill and Russian leader Stalin. They wanted to stop Stalin from spreading Communism in Europe and Asia. Although Britain the USA and Russia were allies they were already plotting against each other.
Truman was talking about the Russians and said about the bomb ‘If this thing works I’ll certainly have a hammer on those boys.’
News of the successful first explosion was flashed to Truman. George Elsey who was with him said that Truman was ‘very pleased’ and that he thought it would save lives.
The Emperor asked Stalin to negotiate with the US - he wanted to end the war. He sent a member of his family Prince Konoi to Moscow to se him, but Stalin was in Potsdam. Stalin told Truman about it, but Truman did not press Stalin to negotiate. The Russians thought that the US wanted to show that they could end the war on their own without Russian help. The Russians had agree to attack Japan in August but Truman wanted to use the bomb to end the war before that so that the Russians would not be able to take over any of China or Japan.
Byrnes did not trust Stalin. While at Potsdam he and Truman decided to use the bomb as a ‘Show of power’. Byrnes called it ‘A gun on the American hip that will put us in a powerful position for the next decade or so.’
Donald Fussell, an assistant to Byrnes said that his boss though the bomb ‘Would influence others..... we would be able to get a more reasoned attitude in the whole diplomatic situation’.
It was a ‘sword of Damocles.’
John Little
10-Aug-10, 12:03
At Potsdam Stalin Churchill and Truman sent a message to the Japanese - the ‘Potsdam declaration’ - that they would only accept unconditional surrender. They gave no promises about the Emperor so the Japanese ignored the message.
General Eisenhower later said ‘It was not necessary to hit them with that awful thing.’
Colonel Paul Tibbits was ordered to take his plane and drop the bomb on Hiroshima.
The targets had been selected by committees. (Their recommendations can be found on the Internet) The bomb was to be dropped without warning.
The idea of demonstrating the bomb to the Japanese had been discussed but Truman did not take the suggestion seriously.
Congressman Udall said that using the bomb was ‘Contrary to the rules of war.’
On 6 August 1945 the Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima at 8.15 am. Survivors describe what happened. There was total destruction. Apart from the 130.000 dead tens of thousands died of burns and radiation in the next 5 years.
Truman and Byrnes heard the news - Truman called it ‘The greatest thing in History’. He told the American people that they were paying the Japanese back.
On 8 August Russia attacked the Japanese in China and on some islands - they wanted to grab land before the Japanese surrendered. Truman was worried.
Colonel Sergo Beria thought the Americans used the bomb to stop the Russians because if Japan surrendered the Russians would have to stop attacking them. Large Japanese armies began to surrender to the Russians. Beria thought this was what made them surrender.
The Japanese military did not say anything about surrender and kept news of Hiroshima as quiet as possible.
The Japanese government was split. Some wanted to surrender and some wanted to hold out for better terms. The US did not se any change on the Japanese attitude so on 9 August a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki - Truman would not wait any longer as the Russians worried him. The decision to drop the bombs was popular - 85% of the American people supported it.
Prof. Bruce Mazlish of US intelligence said there were other reasons for the decision and asked ‘Why should we not have dropped the bomb?’
Prof. JK Galbraith said ‘It was a new weapon - naturally we used it - that was the military psychology of the time.’
The Japanese surrendered on 14 August.
There were several reasons for dropping the bomb.
1. The Japanese refused to surrender unconditionally.
2. For revenge.
3. It was an opportunity to experiment with the new weapon.
4. Byrnes wanted to demonstrate US power to the Russians and scare them.
Byrnes told Truman that he could not trust the Soviets (Russians). The bomb would ‘give them some idea of our power.’ He said that the bomb would ‘Allow us to dictate our own terms’.
Using the bomb would ‘Make Stalin more manageable in Europe and prevent Soviet expansion in Asia.’
The message was understood - Stalin cancelled his orders to invade Japan.
Politician Henry Graff said that it would show the Russians ‘ We don’t hesitate to use the big stuff.’
The Japanese surrendered, and after all this they kept their Emperor - Truman went back on the Potsdam declaration.
Stuart Udall thought that the bomb prolonged the war. - it could have ended in May 1945 but it made Truman very popular. The use of the bomb was unnecessary - ‘we did not need to use them’
Using the bomb did not trouble Truman at the time but later he was sorry that ‘it had to be used.’
One American said using the bomb was ‘Absolutely inhumane even in the horrors in the midst of war.’
Prime Minister Togo’s daughter asked ‘Did they know what they were really unleashing on the world?’
Within 2 weeks of the Hiroshima bomb the Russians began research to find their own bomb. The first Russian A bomb was exploded in 1949.
In 1964 China exploded their first A Bomb.
Today 20 countries are known to have the bomb or the means to build it.
John Little
10-Aug-10, 12:14
John Little's infallible sleep aids are available on the internet by PM application.
Let insomnia trouble you no longer but apply to the poster above and a restful night is assured..........
My point is that he was not there in the Oval Office, in the Pentagon, at Los Alamos.
He was alive at the time and taking part in his bit of the war. That makes him an expert and a primary witness on what he saw and did.
It does not put him in the position of being privy to the decision to drop the bomb.
On that matter he is not an expert or primary witness at all.
The sub-text of this discussion is between what the evidence shows quite clearly, and what people wish to believe.
I accept John Little speaks with a certain authority and although I respect that I dont accept his conclusion that the bombs didnt need to be dropped or other factors didnt enter the decision making process apart from the evidence he presents.
Although he presents evidence the actual decision to drop the bombs cant be made in the lab or by studying the diaries of long dead generals that the war was over militarily, and although I accept that there was still a winning to be done and some lessons to be handed out.
Nothing can be taken in isolation and that's where I believe revisionism falls short of the mark by claiming a whole truth when its only part of a greater whole with many other truths all effecting one another. Call it holistic if you like.
On a personal level I was a young boy in the fifties and we still fought the japs at the Burnside during the school holidays. The Japs were still our enemies and killing them was as easy as killing blue bottles with a rolled up newspaper. Comics were full of the horror and the jap was portrayed as an evil monster anf if he got a hold of you, you were in trouble. I think the propeganda of the time certainly helped mt to form an opinion on the Japenese similar to the ones my uncles had and I suspect most of the 100000 European prisoners of war released after the bombs were dropped would vouch for their cruelty too.
My opinions are tinged by no personal experience which contrary to Ju's views, I suggest play an important part in making decisions for the moment, in the moment and although I agree none of us would be privvy to the discussions by our leaders I suspect whoever the leaders were, maybe even a 1945 version of John Little with a headful of war, they would be making the same decision to drop the bomb
I agree my perceptions and opinions of the bomb dropping is formed by my childhood but I prefer to hold onto it rather than swallow the revisionist idea that the bomb didnt need be dropped as gospel. It was dropped and I'm glad it was the side I am shouting for who droppped it. You can argue about the morals until the cows come home.
I believe, considering eveything, and I mean everything, from the arguments presented against dropping the bombs, to oldmarines and his comrades sacrifice, to the psychology of the day and the tiredness of war and to the more unconscious decisions taken by human beings including the underlying mechanisms involved in seeking power and maintaining it, doing their jobs as world leaders and showing those with a different philosophical idea about controlling the masses that we are not to be mucked with or else.
Strong reasons in their own right for dropping the bomb at the end of a long war without considering the hundreds of thousands of marines waiting in the wings to invade Japan to be met by a population where martyrdom was a wonderful weapon in the fight against the invader.
Thousands would have died in a different way but by dropping the bomb the horrors induced in a microsecond into the psyche of the human race may have thwarted any need for it ever to be used in anger in the future as well as bringing the war to an end in a flash.
That's my case for dropping the bombs and I offer it for consideration.
John Little
12-Aug-10, 17:35
I've said my piece and would not say more save for this bit of what you've said;
"You can argue about the morals until the cows come home."
I'll leave that for others. I was not arguing about the morality of dropping the bomb. In my experience morality comes a very poor last when politicians and the military are shaping their policy.
I neither condemn nor approve, but just try for a clear understanding of reasons.
Thats fair enough but taking things in isolation does not give a clear understanding.
John Little
12-Aug-10, 18:07
I agree.....................
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.