6
6
0
From "Scoop"
Why Americans Believe that Bombing Hiroshima was Necessary
August 6, 2015, is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, a civilian city that had minimal military value, despite the claims of President Truman when he announced the event to the American people.
The whole truth of what the Nuremburg tribunal would later help define as an international war crime and a crime against humanity has been heavily censored and mythologized ever since war-weary Americans in 1945 accepted the propaganda that the bombings were necessary to shorten the war and prevent the loss of a million US soldiers during the allegedly planned November 1945 invasion.
Of course, the reason that the United States wasn’t sanctioned like Germany was for the Jewish holocaust was that America was the victor and the occupier and thus it was in charge of making and enforcing the rules in the New World Order.
The United States military ambushed the equally defenseless Nagasaki City three days later with the second atomic bomb to ever be used against a civilian population (that no longer had any military value to Japan). “Fat Man”, the plutonium bomb named after Winston Churchill, was detonated before the Japanese leadership fully understood what had happened at Hiroshima.
<<>>
My high school history teachers all seemed to be ex-jocks who weren’t athletically talented enough to make it to the majors. The main chance for them to continue playing games for pay was to join the teaching profession and coach high school athletics. American history was of secondary importance in many small town high schools but it hardly made the list of interests for coaches, who reluctantly accepted the job; and so my classmates and I “learned” our lessons from some very uninspired, very bored and/or very uninformed teachers who would rather have been on the playing field.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1507/S00170/why-americans-believe-that-bombing-hiroshima-was-necessary.htm
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- A view seldom seen.
Why Americans Believe that Bombing Hiroshima was Necessary
August 6, 2015, is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, a civilian city that had minimal military value, despite the claims of President Truman when he announced the event to the American people.
The whole truth of what the Nuremburg tribunal would later help define as an international war crime and a crime against humanity has been heavily censored and mythologized ever since war-weary Americans in 1945 accepted the propaganda that the bombings were necessary to shorten the war and prevent the loss of a million US soldiers during the allegedly planned November 1945 invasion.
Of course, the reason that the United States wasn’t sanctioned like Germany was for the Jewish holocaust was that America was the victor and the occupier and thus it was in charge of making and enforcing the rules in the New World Order.
The United States military ambushed the equally defenseless Nagasaki City three days later with the second atomic bomb to ever be used against a civilian population (that no longer had any military value to Japan). “Fat Man”, the plutonium bomb named after Winston Churchill, was detonated before the Japanese leadership fully understood what had happened at Hiroshima.
<<>>
My high school history teachers all seemed to be ex-jocks who weren’t athletically talented enough to make it to the majors. The main chance for them to continue playing games for pay was to join the teaching profession and coach high school athletics. American history was of secondary importance in many small town high schools but it hardly made the list of interests for coaches, who reluctantly accepted the job; and so my classmates and I “learned” our lessons from some very uninspired, very bored and/or very uninformed teachers who would rather have been on the playing field.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1507/S00170/why-americans-believe-that-bombing-hiroshima-was-necessary.htm
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- A view seldom seen.
Posted in these groups: 
WWII World War Two
Nuclear
WWII World War Two Nuclear
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 23
1
1
0
I don't t think it will be the last time we drink the "Kool-aid". Right or wrong, it has always been,
"survival of the fittest".
"survival of the fittest".
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No. They were not necessary. Yes, they made sense at the time. Yes they were a logical insanity.
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-42-blitz-logical-insanity/
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-42-blitz-logical-insanity/
Hardcore History 42 - (BLITZ) Logical Insanity - Dan Carlin
After many listener requests, Dan examines the issue of the morality of dropping the Atomic Bombs in the Second World War. As usual, he does so in his own unique, unexpected way.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Unfortunately, history in 1945 cannot be viewed with 2015 eyes. The initial invasion plans for Operations Cornet and Olympic called for 30 days preliminary bombing of Japan. Now considering that on March 10th, 1945, using mere fire bombs (and for the loss of five planes), the USAAC bombed Tokyo killing 300,000 people that we know of. They are still finding "piles" of bodies and remnants to this day. A million people were made homeless.
Had the USAAC bombed for 30 days straight, its possible that half of the known Japanese on the planet would have been exterminated. The Tokyo raid involved 120 B-29 bombers of which the Army had close to 1000. So a loss of 5 planes per raid would be acceptable losses. However, by that time, close to 30 aircraft carriers would be ringing Japan which would have put a lot more supporting/escorting fighters in the air. And like Germany in 1944, once our fighters started roaming the countryside, it was game over from an aerial perspective. There would more than likely have been no American losses.
The book "A Torch To The Enemy" catalogs every Japanese city bombed with boring old conventional fire bombs and how many USAAC bombers/crew were lost in each raid. More importantly, it lists the percentage of the city destroyed and how many Japanese lost their lives. By day 10, its possible that all major cities and towns would have been hit. Next would come Luftwaffe-style strafing of refugees on the road, a la Poland 1939. So all things considered, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were drops in the bucket from a death perspective. If Allied prospective casualties were a million, then the Japanese would have been proportionately higher.
Had the USAAC bombed for 30 days straight, its possible that half of the known Japanese on the planet would have been exterminated. The Tokyo raid involved 120 B-29 bombers of which the Army had close to 1000. So a loss of 5 planes per raid would be acceptable losses. However, by that time, close to 30 aircraft carriers would be ringing Japan which would have put a lot more supporting/escorting fighters in the air. And like Germany in 1944, once our fighters started roaming the countryside, it was game over from an aerial perspective. There would more than likely have been no American losses.
The book "A Torch To The Enemy" catalogs every Japanese city bombed with boring old conventional fire bombs and how many USAAC bombers/crew were lost in each raid. More importantly, it lists the percentage of the city destroyed and how many Japanese lost their lives. By day 10, its possible that all major cities and towns would have been hit. Next would come Luftwaffe-style strafing of refugees on the road, a la Poland 1939. So all things considered, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were drops in the bucket from a death perspective. If Allied prospective casualties were a million, then the Japanese would have been proportionately higher.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
In hindsight, maybe not. At the time though, there's no indication it seemed anything but necessary.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
SGT Jeremiah B. - No we could not have waited them out; at least not without sacrificing the lives of thousands of allied service members who were being worked to death while suffering from torture, starvation, malnutrition, and a hole bunch of diseases in Japanese POW camps. Whether it was necessary is not really the question that should be asked. What should be asked is whether the Japanese deserved it; they certainly did and a lot more.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
SGT Jeremiah B. - Unfortunately, history in 1945 cannot be viewed with 2015 eyes. The initial invasion plans for Operations Cornet and Olympic called for 30 days preliminary bombing of Japan. Now considering that on March 10th, 1945, using mere fire bombs (and for the loss of five planes), the USAAC bombed Tokyo killing 300,000 people that we know of. They are still finding "piles" of bodies and remnants to this day. A million people were made homeless.
Had the USAAC bombed for 30 days straight, its possible that half of the known Japanese on the planet would have been exterminated. The Tokyo raid involved 120 B-29 bombers of which the Army had close to 1000. So a loss of 5 planes per raid would be acceptable losses. However, by that time, close to 30 aircraft carriers would be ringing Japan which would have put a lot more supporting/escorting fighters in the air. And like Germany in 1944, once our fighters started roaming the countryside, it was game over from an aerial perspective. There would more than likely have been no American losses.
The book "A Torch To The Enemy" catalogs every Japanese city bombed with boring old conventional fire bombs and how many USAAC bombers/crew were lost in each raid. More importantly, it lists the percentage of the city destroyed and how many Japanese lost their lives. By day 10, its possible that all major cities and towns would have been hit. Next would come Luftwaffe-style strafing of refugees on the road, a la Poland 1939. So all things considered, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were drops in the bucket from a death perspective. If Allied prospective casualties were a million, then the Japanese would have been proportionately higher.
Had the USAAC bombed for 30 days straight, its possible that half of the known Japanese on the planet would have been exterminated. The Tokyo raid involved 120 B-29 bombers of which the Army had close to 1000. So a loss of 5 planes per raid would be acceptable losses. However, by that time, close to 30 aircraft carriers would be ringing Japan which would have put a lot more supporting/escorting fighters in the air. And like Germany in 1944, once our fighters started roaming the countryside, it was game over from an aerial perspective. There would more than likely have been no American losses.
The book "A Torch To The Enemy" catalogs every Japanese city bombed with boring old conventional fire bombs and how many USAAC bombers/crew were lost in each raid. More importantly, it lists the percentage of the city destroyed and how many Japanese lost their lives. By day 10, its possible that all major cities and towns would have been hit. Next would come Luftwaffe-style strafing of refugees on the road, a la Poland 1939. So all things considered, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were drops in the bucket from a death perspective. If Allied prospective casualties were a million, then the Japanese would have been proportionately higher.
(1)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
PO3 Donald Murphy - I used the word "hindsight" on purpose. Did we have alternatives? Yes. Did we see them as viable at the time? No. We can look back with modern eyes and evaluate, but I don't think we disagree on how useful that is in determining what leaders in 1945 should have done.
Also, yes, everyone under-appreciates the horror of firebombing. Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg; we'll probably never know just how many died but it eclipses anything we did with atomic weapons.
Also, yes, everyone under-appreciates the horror of firebombing. Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg; we'll probably never know just how many died but it eclipses anything we did with atomic weapons.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
SGT Jeremiah B. - Even with hindsight, the alternatives were not there. The American public by and large wanted the war over. The Japanese knew this. So the longer we stayed offshore, the more it played into their hand. And having just freshly buried sailors from Kamikaze missions, the fleet was not going to sit off the coast and blockade, let alone provide cover for an invasion. So the Kamikaze's had to go. Hence the 30 days of prelim bombing.
And with Le May burning anywhere from 30000 - 50000 a night, there wouldn't have been many Japanese left by November 1st. Even if a blockade was a viable alternative, the Navy had already made the Army aware that it had to clean the area of Kamikaze's. Le May came up with the best idea at the time. Even peacenik Leahy had to swallow his anger/disgust when he read the Navy casualty reports. He was burying too many sailors.
And with Le May burning anywhere from 30000 - 50000 a night, there wouldn't have been many Japanese left by November 1st. Even if a blockade was a viable alternative, the Navy had already made the Army aware that it had to clean the area of Kamikaze's. Le May came up with the best idea at the time. Even peacenik Leahy had to swallow his anger/disgust when he read the Navy casualty reports. He was burying too many sailors.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Yes, because military targets would have been fine from the American and International way of thinking, but from the Japanese way of thinking, the military would always be blamed for cowardice by the civilian population of Japan if the civilian population were not the ones made aware of the defeat, ultimately. The Civilians' 'Face' and the idea of the Emperor we the things driving the heart of the war. Total annihilation of a military target would not have ended the war, which was the ultimate target of any sane person. AS it was the Civilians were still near impossible to convince because it was THEY who couldn't fathom a bomb of that magnitude. No, the correct delivery form and targets were the best that could be chosen to shorten the war and save the most lives, American, Allied and Japanese.
I have on-line chatted with Tibbets, the commander of the Enola Gay.
In my Honest opinion, I think the real reason that this question hasn't "died yet," is because the American People, in DEMANDING an investigation of a magnitude comparable to the event, can't believe that such a decision COULD have been made correctly, ethically, in correlation to the time used and the completely unimaginable magnitude of the event, "To This Day, 71 years later and every brain on the planet to consider the question 'Humanistically.'"
THAT is the real answer to this question, is that it was Shear Dumb Luck (5 points to Gryphendore) That America came up with the best answer, to date I.E. 71 years later, in just a matter of a few months with the brain power available at the time... Because with 71 years and all the brain power SINCE "WE" still can't come up with any better rationale than that which was used at the time, as it was used at the time.
And, we refuse to let the 'Magnitude of the Question, itself,' be forgotten, least we forget how 'out classed' any 'complacent' Nation might end up being challenged to the same type of question time and time again in the future, near and far. Any lesson forgotten is doomed to be repeated and a lesson of THIS magnitude is one that we know now, "Humanity cannot afford to repeat the asking of the question, EVER again!" And, it is the answer to that question, "How to avoid the asking of it 'Forever in Humanity's Future,'" that it is the real question we are asking there.
In spite of the misdirection to the real reason we ask this, I hope this question is one we never stop asking...
(The military were forced by the availability of only two bombs, and the need to make the second one had the best chance to 'count at all' despite its fragile and unproven nature. They had to make sure that a second, single plane would be allowed to deliver its payload to show the Japanese people what it would be like to continue the war, a war where "The Allies" could remove Japan from the face of the ocean, literally. Ergo that exact time frame, not a minute more, not a minute less, on exact regular bombing mission time tables of regularity to show what would be happening if the war didn't stop, then and there. There was not a deceit there, it was a schooling. It might not have been the third day where a continuation like that occurred. But, if the war continued then the day would come when that frequency of bombing would occur. THAT was the message to be conveyed to the 'Face' of the country of Japan, as surely as could be managed at the time. )
(( You're asking someone who thinks that Humanity's 'big nuclear mistake' was WhiteSands, not Hiroshima or Nagasaki... It was less than 24 hours to an assured "we're gonna blow this thing" before anyone had the presence of mind to even consider asking the question if "It was going to 'Vaporize the entire planet as well?'" Humanity is a child with powerfully destructive weapons, yet. THAT is the real 'Current Battle Field.' ))
original posting to
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/were-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-necessary
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1507/S00170/why-americans-believe-that-bombing-hiroshima-was-necessary.htm
I have on-line chatted with Tibbets, the commander of the Enola Gay.
In my Honest opinion, I think the real reason that this question hasn't "died yet," is because the American People, in DEMANDING an investigation of a magnitude comparable to the event, can't believe that such a decision COULD have been made correctly, ethically, in correlation to the time used and the completely unimaginable magnitude of the event, "To This Day, 71 years later and every brain on the planet to consider the question 'Humanistically.'"
THAT is the real answer to this question, is that it was Shear Dumb Luck (5 points to Gryphendore) That America came up with the best answer, to date I.E. 71 years later, in just a matter of a few months with the brain power available at the time... Because with 71 years and all the brain power SINCE "WE" still can't come up with any better rationale than that which was used at the time, as it was used at the time.
And, we refuse to let the 'Magnitude of the Question, itself,' be forgotten, least we forget how 'out classed' any 'complacent' Nation might end up being challenged to the same type of question time and time again in the future, near and far. Any lesson forgotten is doomed to be repeated and a lesson of THIS magnitude is one that we know now, "Humanity cannot afford to repeat the asking of the question, EVER again!" And, it is the answer to that question, "How to avoid the asking of it 'Forever in Humanity's Future,'" that it is the real question we are asking there.
In spite of the misdirection to the real reason we ask this, I hope this question is one we never stop asking...
(The military were forced by the availability of only two bombs, and the need to make the second one had the best chance to 'count at all' despite its fragile and unproven nature. They had to make sure that a second, single plane would be allowed to deliver its payload to show the Japanese people what it would be like to continue the war, a war where "The Allies" could remove Japan from the face of the ocean, literally. Ergo that exact time frame, not a minute more, not a minute less, on exact regular bombing mission time tables of regularity to show what would be happening if the war didn't stop, then and there. There was not a deceit there, it was a schooling. It might not have been the third day where a continuation like that occurred. But, if the war continued then the day would come when that frequency of bombing would occur. THAT was the message to be conveyed to the 'Face' of the country of Japan, as surely as could be managed at the time. )
(( You're asking someone who thinks that Humanity's 'big nuclear mistake' was WhiteSands, not Hiroshima or Nagasaki... It was less than 24 hours to an assured "we're gonna blow this thing" before anyone had the presence of mind to even consider asking the question if "It was going to 'Vaporize the entire planet as well?'" Humanity is a child with powerfully destructive weapons, yet. THAT is the real 'Current Battle Field.' ))
original posting to
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/were-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-necessary
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1507/S00170/why-americans-believe-that-bombing-hiroshima-was-necessary.htm
Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki NECESSARY? | RallyPoint
From "Scoop" Why Americans Believe that Bombing Hiroshima was Necessary August 6, 2015, is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, a civilian city that had minimal military value, despite the claims of President Truman when he announced the event to the American people. The whole truth of what the Nuremburg tribunal would later help define as an international war crime and a crime against humanity has been heavily censored and...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Under the just war doctrine, it was debated and decided that Japan would more than likely never surrender. In loss of lives estimates, there would have been less lives lost in the display of nuclear power than a protracted war. It should be noted that both locations were communicated well in advance in order to spare lives and display the power of the nuclear bomb. The first was considered a bluff. The second was also considered a bluff as the Japanese government did not believe we had more than one bomb. Little Guy and Fat Boy. I believe Fat Man was named for its design shape and for a character in The Maltese Falcon and not named after Winston Churchill.
Here is some interesting information for you:
Home//Library//Center for the Study of Intelligence//CSI Publications//Studies in Intelligence//studies//vol46no3//The Information War in the Pacific, 1945
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no3/article07.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/
Here is some interesting information for you:
Home//Library//Center for the Study of Intelligence//CSI Publications//Studies in Intelligence//studies//vol46no3//The Information War in the Pacific, 1945
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no3/article07.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
PO3 Donald Murphy
Yes. It was the spiritual capital of Japan so it was off limits from a bombing perspective.
(0)
(0)
TSgt Kenneth Ellis
PO3 Donald Murphy - The history blurb. Was that someone spent there honeymoon there. I'm going to watch it again and will get the name of the person.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There were going to be hundreds of thousands of casualties no matter what. The only difference? Would they be Americans, when invading? Or Japanese, with the intent of breaking their will?
Who was it said, "The thing isn't to die for your country. It's to make the other poor bastard die for his." So yes. It was necessary.
Who was it said, "The thing isn't to die for your country. It's to make the other poor bastard die for his." So yes. It was necessary.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
It was Patton who said roughly "you don't win a war by dying for your country. You win by getting the other bastard to die for his country." I'm sure someone will chime in with his complete speech.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
COL Ted Mc
SSgt Alex Robinson - Staff; Exactly.
NEITHER of the bombs were "militarily necessary" since the Allied forces has several other methods of defeating Japan available to them.
However, regardless of the "human cost per incident" of dropping the bombs, it is likely that doing so actually ended up saving more lives (in total) than the bombs took (in total).
Absent the use of atomic weapons, a negotiated surrender simply wasn't politically saleable in Japan at that time (even though the Japanese leadership was under no delusions as to whether or not Japan had already lost the war and that it was only a matter of time before the dying stopped).
It might well have been eventually - after the famine and food riots had killed off a significant percentage of the Japanese population - but it certainly wasn't at that point in time.
NEITHER of the bombs were "militarily necessary" since the Allied forces has several other methods of defeating Japan available to them.
However, regardless of the "human cost per incident" of dropping the bombs, it is likely that doing so actually ended up saving more lives (in total) than the bombs took (in total).
Absent the use of atomic weapons, a negotiated surrender simply wasn't politically saleable in Japan at that time (even though the Japanese leadership was under no delusions as to whether or not Japan had already lost the war and that it was only a matter of time before the dying stopped).
It might well have been eventually - after the famine and food riots had killed off a significant percentage of the Japanese population - but it certainly wasn't at that point in time.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
COL Ted Mc - The initial invasion plans for Operations Cornet and Olympic called for 30 days preliminary bombing of Japan. Now consider that on March 10th, 1945, using mere fire bombs (and for the loss of five planes), the USAAC bombed Tokyo killing 300,000 people that we know of. They are still finding "piles" of bodies and remnants to this day. A million people were made homeless.
Had the USAAC bombed for 30 days straight, its possible that half of the known Japanese on the planet would have been exterminated. The Tokyo raid involved 120 B-29 bombers of which the Army had close to 1000 to play with. So a loss of 5 planes per raid would be acceptable losses. However, by that time, close to 30 aircraft carriers would be ringing Japan which would have put a lot more supporting/escorting fighters in the air. And like Germany in 1944, once our fighters started roaming the countryside, it was game over from an aerial perspective. There would more than likely have been no American losses.
The book "A Torch To The Enemy" catalogs every Japanese city bombed with boring old conventional fire bombs and how many USAAC bombers/crew were lost in each raid. More importantly, it lists the percentage of the city destroyed and how many Japanese lost their lives. By day 10, its possible that all major cities and towns would have been hit. Next would come Luftwaffe-style strafing of refugees on the road, a la Poland 1939. So all things considered, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were drops in the bucket from a death perspective. If Allied prospective casualties were a million, then the Japanese would have been proportionately higher.
Also note that the populace was tiring of the war and war bond drives were promising mom and pop a quick end to Japan. So while a blockade was already in effect since 1944, the USA didn't have a year to play with to wait for Japan to "act sensible." So sadly, Operations Coronet and Olympic were scheduled to take place a mere four months after Okinawa ended.
Had the USAAC bombed for 30 days straight, its possible that half of the known Japanese on the planet would have been exterminated. The Tokyo raid involved 120 B-29 bombers of which the Army had close to 1000 to play with. So a loss of 5 planes per raid would be acceptable losses. However, by that time, close to 30 aircraft carriers would be ringing Japan which would have put a lot more supporting/escorting fighters in the air. And like Germany in 1944, once our fighters started roaming the countryside, it was game over from an aerial perspective. There would more than likely have been no American losses.
The book "A Torch To The Enemy" catalogs every Japanese city bombed with boring old conventional fire bombs and how many USAAC bombers/crew were lost in each raid. More importantly, it lists the percentage of the city destroyed and how many Japanese lost their lives. By day 10, its possible that all major cities and towns would have been hit. Next would come Luftwaffe-style strafing of refugees on the road, a la Poland 1939. So all things considered, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were drops in the bucket from a death perspective. If Allied prospective casualties were a million, then the Japanese would have been proportionately higher.
Also note that the populace was tiring of the war and war bond drives were promising mom and pop a quick end to Japan. So while a blockade was already in effect since 1944, the USA didn't have a year to play with to wait for Japan to "act sensible." So sadly, Operations Coronet and Olympic were scheduled to take place a mere four months after Okinawa ended.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Honestly looking back at history and seeing how the Japanese were willing to die to complete their objectives, ie the kamikaze bombers, it was necessary. It broke the Japanese Fighting Spirit. The Emperor was willing to send his Soldiers to die but was not willing to watch another bomb go off over another city full of civilians. Was it the morally right thing to do no but there is an old saying, "All is fair in love and war."
Then you have the after effects of seeing what those bombs could do. People were scared. Yes it led to the nuclear arms race but no nation wants to be the nation that starts that nuclear war.
Personally, I am glad it was the US to drop the bombs and not the Soviets or Germans or Japanese, for I could see them hitting higher populated targets and causing more destruction than the US did.
Then you have the after effects of seeing what those bombs could do. People were scared. Yes it led to the nuclear arms race but no nation wants to be the nation that starts that nuclear war.
Personally, I am glad it was the US to drop the bombs and not the Soviets or Germans or Japanese, for I could see them hitting higher populated targets and causing more destruction than the US did.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google