Shinichi’s Trike & The Lessons of War
August 6th, 2007 by SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist
Shinichi Tetsutani loved to ride his beloved tricycle outside his house in Higashi-Hakushima-Cho, a neighborhood in the Japanese port city of Hiroshima.
Shin-chan, as his family called the three-year-old, was doing just that on the morning of August 6, 1945, when there was a brilliant flash in the sky.
Shin was about a quarter mile from the hypocenter of the detonation of the first nuclear weapon to be used in anger, the consequence of a frightening new technology that its creators were all too aware would change warfare — and civilization — forever by wreaking unimaginable death and destruction.
Shin died that night, one of about 140,000 people to perish in the atomic bomb explosion and from associated effects, principally radiation poisoning. Three days later, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, taking about 74,000 lives. Kyoto, the original target of the first bomb, was spared because the government officials and generals who were desperate to end the war were sensitive of its cultural significance.
A third atomic bomb was being readied, but by August 15 the conciliators in the Japanese government had won out over hard-line militarists who had had the tacit backing of Emperor Hirohito, who was not the pitifully manipulated figurehead the Japanese claim, and was the villain of this story. In any event, Japan capitulated and World War II finally was over after some 234,874 Americans had lost their lives in the Pacific theater alone.
* * * * *
There is no military-political action in modern history laden with as much baggage as President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb.
Those who have argued in favor of his decision offer these arguments:
* The bombs ended the war months sooner and saved an estimated half million American lives that could have been lost in an invasion of the Japanese mainland
* Millions of people under Japanese occupation in The Philippines, New Guinea, Borneo and elsewhere who faced starvation, including hundreds of thousands of POWs from the U.S., Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands, were freed.
* The hard-line militarists had adamantly refused to surrender although it was obvious that the war was lost.
Those who have argued against his decision offer these arguments:
* The bombings were immoral, a crime against humanity and constituted genocide.
* In a contemporary context, they were an act of terrorism.
* They were militarily unnecessary because Japan was essentially defeated and ready to surrender.
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.
This entry was posted on Monday, August 6th, 2007 at 1:52 am and is filed under Japan, Military Affairs, World War II, Technology, History. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:49 am
War is ugly. This is no different.
The question becomes. What do you do if terrorists nuke NYC. Nothing? Scream in outrage at the UN for justice? What about a second Nuke going off in Boston. Beg Germany for help? France? What about a third Nuke going off in LA?
The question is and always has been how do we respond to being nuked by terrorists. Some would propose that if Muslims want to Nuke Americans then Americans should nuke Muslims. While I am not in favor to such an approach the issue must be discussed in the inner workings of government and the position of the US government made clear to nations around the world. I think even a terrorist understands that Nuking NYC that would respond is the Nuking of Millions of Muslims is not in anyones best interests.
A president who overtly states I will not use Nukes in the war on terror is seen to be emboldening the Terrorists to ask themselves……….well then……..Why NOT??
AS to Obama’s pledge. He is a typical left wing liberal. He is starting to paint a picture of himself for everyone. That picture is of a Jimmy Carter Wannabe. He is playing to the same people that elected Jimmy Carter. Those that were sick of war and sick of anger in the world.
Jimmy Carter made the same pledges. STronger, more powerful Military. Yet never used it. Was afraid to use it and could not find it in his heart to use it. Barack Obama is no different then Jimmy Carter. If that is the leader this nation wants then they got their MAN in Barak Obama.
I think in the end the Democrats will turn to Obama and Nix Hillary. Her lifetime ambition of being President will go up in smoke as she becomes another victim of the intense polarization that has occured in American Politics.
She is a moderate in times when only extremists will do.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:17 am
“There is no military-political action in modern history laden with as much baggage as President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb.”
Well, as I wrote in another thread, imho the truth lies somewhere in the middle:
- Nuclear devastation surely left a horrible impression on japanese officials and sped up the decision to capitulate and thus saved the lifes of numerous soldiers on both sides.
- However, the dropping of the scond bomb was totally unnecessary, the point had already been made. Its only purpose was to live-test a different bomb design. Cynical and shameful!
- Dropping a bomb on a highly populated area was a crime against humanity. This show of strength would have had the same effect if the target would have been a military outpost with only a few thousand soldiers that would have been totally annihilated. Japanese officials still would have known any resistance against a nuclear armed enemy was totally futile.
So, really, nothing in this story for Americans to be too proud of. Truman’s reasoning may be understandable, regarding the time and circumstances, but even under wartime pressure he could have acted much more rationally and humanely. He sure wasn’t a bad guy overall, but imho he rots in hell for giving the orders that started this carnage.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:26 am
“A president who overtly states I will not use Nukes in the war on terror is seen to be emboldening the Terrorists to ask themselves……….well then……..Why NOT??”
Somebody has a point here. However, somebody is badly uninformed. Obama didn’t say this, since this hasn’t this hasn’t been the question at all. Obama stated, he wouldn’t use nukes to kill Bin Laden or other Al Quaeda leaders in Pakistan. Totally understandable, since this would come at the cost of a huge ‘colateral damage’ on Pakistani civilians. This wasn’t about a scneario where terrorists nuked the US. We don’t know what Obama would do in this case. As we don’t know how GOP candidates would react, with the sole exception of nutcase Tancredo, who would destroy Mekka and Median, regardless if there are terrorists there or not.
Well, all in all another example where somebody raises a good point on the totally wrong topic…
August 6th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Gray:
It is worth noting before this thread plays out much further, and as I would imagine you well know, there is ample evidence in the historic record to support all shades of opinion.
The question of the Nagasaki bomb is a good example.
It is your view that the second bomb was dropped merely to test a second design. It is my view that the bomb was dropped because in the 72 hours between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, there was very little indication through all monitored diplomatic channels that the Japanese were coming around to surrendering. In fact, most of the diplomatic traffic concerned Japan trying to get the Soviet Union to not enter the war in the Pacific.
Your point about nothing to be too proud of is well taken. This was not a matter of being prideful. It was a matter of ending the war.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Genocide? War crime? Definitely not the first and if the second, this has to stand in line behind the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo. Nukes are terrible weapons, but it’s hard to see how they’re that much more terrible than the contemporary conventional weapons.
The main difference was in how many planes it too to deliver them. People died a horrible death either way.
And Shaun’s right, the main reason the second bomb was dropped was that the Japanese had not responded to the first and we thought they might think we didn’t have another one. Or refuse to surrender even in the face of this terrible weapon.
It’s hard to understand from the distance of many years how resistant the Japanese were to the idea of surrender. It was hard for the Allies to understand even during the war, but after the experiences at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, they were afraid the Japanese would fight to the bitter end no matter what they faced. Heck the last Japanese soldier surrendered on Iwo Jima in 1949 and at least one held out on tiny Guam until 1972. Many, many more commited suicide rather than surrender.
The Japanese silence after Hiroshima has to be looked at with eyes who had seen all that for the Allied decision to use the second bomb to be fully understood.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:32 am
“It is my view that the bomb was dropped because in the 72 hours between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, there was very little indication through all monitored diplomatic channels that the Japanese were coming around to surrendering.”
3 days is like a second in diplomatic matters. The more so, since the humanitarian help for Hiroshima was the most urgent thing in the heads of japanese officials and the possible date for an US invasion of heartland Japan was a long way off. Sry, Shaun, but this explanation isn’t really satisfying.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Btw, Shaun, check the log of Kikoshouse and you’ll see that I klicked that link before posting here. But I think the decision on which part of your story I want to comment (and the right to stay away from another useless discussion of Obama’s misused remark) is totally mine, right?
August 6th, 2007 at 6:44 am
“The Japanese silence after Hiroshima has to be looked at with eyes who had seen all that for the Allied decision to use the second bomb to be fully understood.”
Again, there was no real urgency. Why the haste to kill even more civilians? Understandable, maybe - right, no way.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Somebody has a point here. However, somebody is badly uninformed.
What is left unsaid. What is left hinted. What is implied and not spoken. What is forgotten. What is misplaced. What is ignored.
These are the things Presidents and diplomats do on purpose. These are the legs diplomacy stands on.
Saying he would not use the option in Afghanistan and Pakistan while not addressing the larger issue of the policy of what to do in the event of a nuke attack by terrorists is a powerful answer to this question.
He is strongly implying….. The nukes are off the table. That is why Hillary responded the way she did.
Obama is an incompetent NO more like an incapable, untrainned and poorly prepared politician who is playing to the antiwar crowd and just might end up being the lefts candidate in 08. Even worse the President in 09.
We just spent 8 years with one of those (You know the fella I refer too)
Do you actually want another one?
August 6th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Gray said: “Sry, Shaun, but this explanation isn’t really satisfying.”
There is a lot of historical debate on this issue, but Shaun is pretty much right.
You have to situate yourself in the context of the time, and what Truman et al knew of Japan.
Every island battle as the US forces moved closer to Japan was fiercer and more brutal than the last. Iwo Jima and Okinawa were horrific, “No Surrender” bloodbaths. The number of 500,000 est. US dead for an invasion was based pretty much on the “Operation Olympic” invasion itself. For the total invasion, Leahy and Pacific Command had estimated about 35% of the US invasion force of the Japanese islands would be dead (over a million US dead).
There were back-channel peace feelers, but nothing from people with real power in Japan.
Also, to be blunt, - after the Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking etc. - Japan’s enemies had enjoyed a full measure of Japanese “humanitarianism” and were not feeling inclined towards hand-wringing about the Japanese.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:08 am
For the third time, The US invsion wasn’t due in the next days, it was still a long way ahead! And I understand that the japanese war conduct emotionally affected the deciders, but the usage of such a devastating weapon should be based on rational arguments, not on a lust for revenge. No, sry, I can understand Truman, but It was his decision to il those people and, even with the limited facts he was basing his decision on, it was ethically false.
Oh, btw, I critizised the choice of the target, too. Would you pls comment on this, too? Maybe you’re arguments on this issue sound more compelling to me…
August 6th, 2007 at 7:19 am
There is also a lot of historical debate about the projected number dead in an invasion of Japan. Hell, there is debate over whether or not we would have invaded Japan at all.
In my opinion, in the absence of nuclear weapons we likely would have blockaded and starved the Japanese people while continuing a bombing campaign.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:20 am
For the third time, The US invsion wasn’t due in the next days, it was still a long way ahead!
Too use this logic then……whats the hurry in getting out of Iraq?
Why not suffer many, many more casualties in an effort to use back door channels and negotiation to get the deal done without dropping the big one? or in this case running away.
The war was raging all over the world……Every day that the war raged meant deaths all over the pacific and Asia. US, Japanese and civilians of all stripes.
Why wait another day if you can end it today?
Is this not what you preach in getting out of Iraq? Why the difference here?
Secondly the US had been bombing Civilians for about 3 years prior to this. Bombing civilians at this time in history was……….well it was like how you fought a war. Everyone was a target.
After this war we all changed our minds and decided it was not kosher to bomb civilians in ANY war. Prior. Its the way you did business in war.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Two things that played into the decision, I think, were the desire for an unconditional surrender (rather than a negotiated truce which Japan was ready to begin even before Hiroshima) and a desire to project US dominance over the USSR.
Desire for unconditional surrender was partly due to need for vengeance, also need for containment of Japan. It was also partly conflated with the second reason (dominance over USSR) I think, because Japan had begun making overtures to Stalin to negotiate a truce. I think the US felt that we had to end the war with Japan on our terms, not Stalin’s, and we were already looking ahead to the post WWII global power structure.
I do think it’s relevant too that even after Nagasaki and the Emperor’s decision to surrender, there were elements in the military leadership of Japan who wanted to keep fighting. It’s hard for us to imagine or remember how tenacious they were, and that context does make the second bombing more understandable.
Gray: It’s interesting to note that Truman probably engaged in a bit of revision of history- when he announced the Hiroshima bombing in a radio address he called H a “military base”. I think there were military targets near the cities chosen on the list to bomb (there were important munition factories and storage areas near Nagasaki), but obviously the targets included large civilian population centers.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:36 am
C Stanley:
Thank you for introducing the unconditional surrender aspect into the comments thread. I am well aware of that and well read on it, but it seemed like one thing too many to include.
There was as much debate in FDR’s war cabinet over the terms of surrender that would be acceptable as there was over using the A-bombs, perhaps even more since fewer people close to the president were aware of the Manhattan Project and the fact two bombs already were in the Pacific and a third was on the way.
The question of what kind of surrender would pass muster had much to do with the kind of post-war Japan that the U.S. wanted to occupy, and central to this was whether the emperor should be tried as a war criminal.
In a tradeoff of historic consequence, it was decided that although the emperor did qualify as a war criminal, the U.S. would look the other way, so to speak, and allow him to continue as a figurehead as the occupation played out. In retrospect, it was a brilliant decision.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:51 am
“Why not suffer many, many more casualties in an effort to use back door channels and negotiation to get the deal done without dropping the big one?”
Now, would you pls show some evidence that the casualty rate really was alarmingly high and not, in fact, going down? The invasion would have come with a high blood toll, sure, but, as long as there wasn’t fighting on japanese mainland, the enemy’s ability to hit the US was at an all time low. No fuel for ships and airplanes, the US having superiority in the air and on the seas, no support anymore for the last armed outposts…
August 6th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Oh, and this is totally besides the point anyway, somebody. I already wrote that I agree with the decision to drop a bomb. It’s just the choice of targets, and the second bomb, that are questionable imho…
August 6th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Gray:
The U.S. had run out of Pacific island to hop to, the last two being Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the latter providing a glimpse of what was to come when and if there was an invasion of the mainland — fights to the death, mass suicides and a further increase in deadly kamikazee attacks.
The battle plan for an invasion of the mainland — code-named Operation Downfall — has been thoroughly dissected by historians and other scholars. A death toll of upwards of a half million invaders was not unreasonable should Downfall have had to go forward.
So were the deaths of 200,000-plus Japanese in the A-bomb cities an appropriate trade-off? I know that it’s playing God, but my answer is absolutely.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:03 am
I’m going to throw my hat in and suggest the bombs were totally unnecessary to end the war sooner. The Soviets had already agreed to enter the fray by a certain date, and did a few days before Japan surrendered. I think it would have been just as likely that the Japanese would have surrendered without the bombs being used because of the threat of Soviet occupation, which they would have realized would be much harsher than an American occupation, not to mention the fact that they had had more friendly relations with the US before the war than Russia. While they may have seen a threat of retaliation through American occupation, the enmity between Japan and Russia ran much deeper since before that time Japan had humiliated Russia again and again.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:15 am
The first bomb was dropped to impress the Japanese. The second bomb was dropped to impress the Russians.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:15 am
“So were the deaths of 200,000-plus Japanese in the A-bomb cities an appropriate trade-off? I know that it’s playing God, but my answer is absolutely.”
Well, my answer of course looks different, because I still think that the killing, of say, 10000 Japanese would have done the trick, too. What was important was showing the radius and the degree of devastation the bomb could cause. This could have been accomplished, by say, annihilating the japanese air base on Hokkaido. I’m not sure how many soldiers were there in early August 1945, but certainly less than 140000 and it was an important military target, destroyed by an conventional airraid on 8/4/1945. Again, where was the need to chose a mainly civilian target?
August 6th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Fair enough point, Ashen Shard- but again, would Soviet occupation of Japan have been an acceptable outcome for the US?
August 6th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Or, if you think the ‘terror’ aspect on japaneses civilians was necessary, why not drop the bomb on Nagasaki first? ‘Only’ 70000 victims vs. 140000. What kind of math says you need to kill more than 100000 people to make a lasting impression?
August 6th, 2007 at 8:21 am
“would Soviet occupation of Japan have been an acceptable outcome for the US?”
Jalta showed that an unbelievable amount of crow meal was acceptable to the US. Why not Japan, too?
August 6th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Somebody:
Bingo! The Postdam Conference was history by the time the bombs were dropped, and the Soviet Union was indeed very much on the war cabinet’s mind.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Now, would you pls show some evidence that the casualty rate really was alarmingly high and not, in fact, going down?
A little known fact of WW2 and certainly a turning point in the decision to drop the bombs.
May 5, 1945- A Balloon bomb, one of Japan’s secret weapons, killed 5 hikers in Oregon
With the promise of more and more of these floating across the pacific and doing any damage to the USA and the fact that despite what many have thought of the USA we ourselves were running out of money to fight this war. Our raw materials were drying up and the prospects of fighting the USSR was always on the minds of the entire military command structure.
Had we needed to fight the Soviet Union at the conclusion of the war, I am not sure the USA would have had the resources to do so.
it was time to end the war. These two bombs presented that chance.
Dropping these two bombs were intended to end the war. The second bomb was meant to inform the world and keep them guessing………”How many bombs do they actually have?” We cant afford to find out.
Secondly dropping of the second bomb forced the Soviets to dispel any notion of taking on the USA and England in Europe.
It was meant to end the war and it did what it was intended. It trully ENDED WORLD WAR on planet earth.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Gray,
This was about more than saving face though; the US was concerned with how the map would look after the war, and one more Asian territory in Soviet hands would’ve been significant. I don’t think we felt we could risk it-nor could we take the risk of the Soviets negotiating a settlement. By dropping the second bomb we made sure that didn’t happen and of course the intent was to intimidate the Soviets into submitting to a subordinate position after the war ended as well.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:55 am
“May 5, 1945- A Balloon bomb, one of Japan’s secret weapons, killed 5 hikers in Oregon”
Somebody sure is joking here. The balloon bomb, this total waste of material and efforts, one of the most ineffective weapons of all times, surely didn’t lead to headaches in the Pentagon or in the WH. the japanese somehow noted that themselves and stopped the program in April 45, but, of course, several bombs were still on their waya months later. Sadly, even the six [sic!] sole victims could have been avoided by a more serious effort to inform the public about the danger. A 13 year old girl triggered the bomb, not knowing about the danger…
This was the reason for dropping the bomb? Somebody isn’t ashamed of the making the most ridiculous arguments here
August 6th, 2007 at 8:57 am
“By dropping the second bomb we made sure that didn’t happen”
Yeah, because the soviets soemhow totally missed the first one. Come on, C, that’s really a lame argument!
August 6th, 2007 at 9:12 am
No, I didn’t mean that the Soviets ‘missed the first one’. My point is that the diplomatic chatter we were picking up after the first one indicated that there were still plenty of Japanese military and political leaders who thought that negotiations might still be possible. By proving that the first bomb wasn’t a fluke, that we had more in our arsenal, we made both the Japanese and the Soviets take it more seriously.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:33 am
C, don’t BS me, I’ve got that anti-BS weapon. It’s called google. Now, pls check these documents:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hiroshim.htm
Would you pls point out which of these documnets, if any, or any others you can find, support your views that
a) the soviets were unaware of the consequences of the new weapon. I refer especially to this document http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/57.pdf citing Stalin himself saying the bomb would end all wars.
b) I didn’t find anything supporting your view that Japan was still focussing on keeping the russians out of the war between August 7th and 9th, but I noticed that even top secret ‘Magic’ intelligence from decoding japanese code, covering japanese reaction on the bomb, not only showed that japanese officials were still assessing the damage and the consequences but wasn’t hardly available before the second bomb was dropped! Check the dates, pls:
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/61.pdf
Hmm, where did you get your explanation for the reason behind the second drop? You sure you weren’t misled?
:-/
August 6th, 2007 at 9:40 am
I’m sure I wasn’t misled, since the views I expressed were only my own musings on the info that I’ve read in the past. I’ll keep digging around if I have a chance and will check out your links to see if I’m missing some piece that would alter the way I see the timeline.
And a funny side note is I saw earlier an article in the Guardian where my narrative is being debunked as a ‘leftist’ one. LOL, I guess I’m now farther left than the Guardian.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:45 am
“And a funny side note is I saw earlier an article in the Guardian where my narrative is being debunked as a ‘leftist’ one. LOL, I guess I’m now farther left than the Guardian.”
Hehehe, C, you lefty, you! Who would have thought?
Well, and how does it feel, being now a liberal and so?
August 6th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Given the nature of historical data, perhaps instead of looking at hindsight, we should ask the simple question:
If you were the president in the same war today, would you drop the bomb?
August 6th, 2007 at 10:45 am
belli,
I think that if there were any reasonable chance of alternative strategies, I would not drop the bomb- but I also think it’s impossible to separate ourselves from the benefit of hindsight and to ignore the filters that people were operating under at that time. I also am continually shocked when I think about Truman not being informed about the Manhatten project. Who can even fathom such a thing now? Who can really put themselves in his shoes; inheriting the presidency and such a monumental project, and having to make a decision that would claim hundreds of thousands of lives and forever change the course of history- after only having learned about it three months prior??
Gray: I don’t feel much different, really, except for this sudden weird desire to protest against something.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:51 am
the japanese somehow noted that themselves and stopped the program in April 45, but, of course, several bombs were still on their waya months later.
Google. Gawd how i hate google.
You must look at historical events in the context of the time. Not 62 years later. Hindsight is great but it does not instill in you an understanding of the times as they were happening.
Gray. The United States did not know that Japan canceled the program. They did not know that there were NOT thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of these on the way or laying all over America.
What other secret programs were in the works? They did not know. 62 years later and google we know. In 1945 Harry Truman and company were very much in the dark as to what other kinds of secret projects were in the works. Germany had fighter jets by the end of the war…..what if the Japanese sent 1000 fighter jets after its fleet of b29’s and blew them all out of the sky.
Context. It tells us what History really means. Google does not.
No Im not making a joke here. This was a serious violation of America in a war that at any moment could see the Japanese invade California. Or so Americans feared for over 3 years. Suddenly finding bombs in America sent by ballon…….yes in 1945 that was a very BIG thing.
In hindsight and Google sight………we are going to become a dumbed down generation full of facts and void of meaning.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Who can really put themselves in his shoes; inheriting the presidency and such a monumental project, and having to make a decision that would claim hundreds of thousands of lives and forever change the course
That’s why I put it that way. It forces us to have empathy for the person who made teh decision. Truman may have been a bastard, but he was probably wasn’t heartless.
People will often say this sort of thing is always wrong, and I agree, on an indivdual level, there’s no way to justifiy it. However, when one wears the head of state cap, indivdual morality can’t be put on the same judment mechanisms (which most people understand, just that it doesn;t always come up as a first though). I jsut feel more comfortable when political decisions get put under this light, especially on contentious issues.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I agree 100%, belli. I think the context of the decision Truman made is immensely important so that we can honestly evaluate the decision; we ought to be willing to say that it might not have been the right decision but that it was still an understandable decision. It ought not to be about whether or not the US is always the good guy or always the bad guy, but how it has made strategic decisions in its own interest. If we look at it in that context, then we can accept responsibility and we can be willing to look for better strategies which might better protect our interests without inflicting harm on others.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I have not read the entire comment thread, but I thought people would be interested in knowing that the effects of the Hiroshima bomb, at least, continue in 2007, 62 years later. A team of doctors from Hiroshima travels here to Hawaii every year to visit with and study atomic bomb survivors. It is just one stop of many they make around the world to track and treat the radiation-caused diseases from the attack. So while for most of us, it is a matter of historical debate, for some number the bomb is still with them today.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Pacatrue, I rememebr reading a lot of studies about that during my nuclear power training. What surprised me most was that outside of the initial effects (first year or two), that the bomb didn’t seem to cause the sort of permamnent damage in terms of long term mortality rates that I was under the impression that sort of thing would do (of course, this is like saying, I expected a hundred people to die, but only 20 did).
August 6th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
“Context. It tells us what History really means. Google does not.”
Imho I know the cont4ect from various aother sources, and I use Google to find some details. However, I knew about that crazy balloon program, but it’s total news to me that it was regarded serious enough to influence Trumans decision in july/august 45. Also, this would leave the question why a bomb on Hiroshima instead of , say, Hokkaido wozuld have been the best waqy to stop it. So, sry, but I remain a bit skeptical about this detail.
August 6th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
“we ought to be willing to say that it might not have been the right decision but that it was still an understandable decision”
Uh huh.
Comment #2 (by a guy named Gray):
“Truman’s reasoning may be understandable, regarding the time and circumstances, but even under wartime pressure he could have acted much more rationally and humanely.”
Comment #8 (same guy):
“Understandable, maybe - right, no way.”
Thx for saying I’ve been right all the way, C! I already wondered why my (imho quite moderate) opinion generated so much controversy. Can we all be friends now, again?
August 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
LOL, friends now, is it?
I guess I’m just nervous about noting those times when I agree with you, Gray, since the agreement seems to make you, shall we say, overly friendly (though that was probably the alcohol talking
).
On a more serious note, I never really was agreeing or disagreeing with you here: I was just elaborating on what I think the US decisions were based on. That isn’t necessarily condoning the decisions, just noting them. Frankly I can see it both ways. I do think that Truman believed he was doing the right thing but I also think that to some extent, he was duped into believing that he had no alternatives. His advisors had led him to believe that either the A-bomb or land invasion was going to be necessary.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I do have to agree with CS on this one, because I remember reading that the Japanese were so determined to fight to the end, that we had to show them that we had an unlimited supply of bombs that could cause unlimited death and destruction if they didn’t surrender unconditionally. Truman made the decision after many sleepless nights, and was tormented over the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But the positives were an immediate end to the war in the Pacific, new respect for US power, and a transition to the occupation of Japan. The negatives were that by posessing weapons that we really couldn’t use on anyone after the first explosions, we were destined to fight limited wars in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“I guess I’m just nervous about noting those times when I agree with you, Gray, since the agreement seems to make you, shall we say, overly friendly (though that was probably the alcohol talking
)”
Now that’s typical for conservative women: Every time an honest guy talks straight from his heart, you blame it on the alcohol! Ok, ok, I see you’re looking for a charming republican liar…
August 6th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Actually I’m happily married so not looking at all- just couldn’t pass up an opportunity to rib you about your comments. I am a bit curious as to how you surmised that I’m cute from my comments here though! I’m guessing you like women who argue with you?
August 6th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
One other element to remember in President Truman’s decision making process. Unlike FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter or our present President, Harry S. Truman had experienced combat. He was an officer in France during World War I, and he had the first-hand experience with violent death and the resulting duty of writing letters home to tell parents that their son would not be returning from France. I think it unlikely that an officer with combat experience would look for ways to cost the lives of his men needlessly. Looking at the best estimates he had to work with, Truman had very good reason to fear that an amphibious invasion of the Japanese home islands would be very bloody, that there was a probability of large civilian casualties regardless of what action he took, so the course of action with the least loss of allied troops was logical.
Another point to remember is that many in Washington in the 1940’s could remember the failure of the armistice and later Treaty of Versailles in bringing an good end to World War I; the failure of such civilized efforts to minimize war and civilian death as the Kellog Briand Pact (outlawing war) and the Washington Naval Conference and treaties limiting armament. Truman was old enough to remember all of these things.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
“we had to show them that we had an unlimited supply of bombs”
Uh huh. Well, then it was quite irresponsible to waste the only two nuclear devices in the whole theatre in just three days, when the only other prototype was thousands of miles away, right? Also, there’s a theory that Truman was surprised by the dropping of the second bomb, and it was General Groves who gave the orders. Not surprisingly, that’s the same Gen. Groves who led the target committee. And he had stated in July that the war would be over after Japan was hit by the SECOND bomb. Can we say, self fulfilling prophecy.
Well, I guess we won’t know exactly what was really happening in the days before the drop. However, Truman bears the final responsibility. He didn’t second guess the work of the target committee, he ignored the petition by Leo Szillard and 70 other nuclear scientists to not use that weapon, and he didn’t give clear orders that he alone had the sole authority to order deployment before August 10th. If he was tormented by the carnage, he surely knew he deserved that.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
“I’m guessing you like women who argue with you?”
Hehe, quite close to truth. Imho intelligent women are cute and almost nothing is worse than a boring woman.
Kudos to your husband, and I do hope he isn’t just another small animal
August 6th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“hope he isn’t just another small animal”
Heh, no, we veterinarians generally keep a professional distance and refrain from dating our patients (at least that’s certainly been a standard that I abide by).
August 6th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Mr. Buggeigh:
Good points all, and more examples of the peril of judging a 62-year-old decision through a contemporary lens.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“we veterinarians generally keep a professional distance and refrain from dating our patients”
LOL!
++ C
August 6th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
It was WWII, how many tens of millions died? The gloves came off early in that war and so did the restraint of force used. I fail to see how the nukes are any worse morally than the other millions of tons of ordanance used in the course of that 6 year global bloodbath. The world was sick to death of the war and those that started it now wanted to continue well past any rationale point of even limited surrender. Those cities would have perished just as surely under incendiaries as they did under uranium. The distinction is ludicrous to me as well as the concept that somehow we “Hit them too hard”.
August 6th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Imho the death toll of WWII could have been much lower but for sociopaths on all sides who didn’t care about human lifes at all…
August 6th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
“judging a 62-year-old decision through a contemporary lens”
Difficult, sure, even though we have lots of details like these:
“I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. ”
“The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. ”
http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html
“The 509 Composite Group, 20th Air Force will
deliver its first special bomb as soon as weather will
permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945 on one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Nagasaki.”
http://www.dannen.com/decision/handy.html
Well, somehow these two different details don’t compute, right? Who lied here, the president (in his diary!), or the General who wrote the order? Hell, we can’t even be sure what happened in the Plame case, or even more recently, what led to the death of Pat Tilman, so, no chance finding the truth in this negligible episode. Anyhow, hey, who cares?
August 6th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
My two cents and some observations
Civilian casualties
Curtis Lemay made two discoveries, most Japanese homes were made of wood and Japanese air defenses were inadequate. This allowed him to change tactics and order devastating low level incendiary attacks that wiped out huge sections of Japanese cities and inflict tremendous losses of Japanese civilians. As one commenter has already pointed out after the “rape of Nanking” and Battan we were not too caring about Japanese deaths. The number of casualties in the two attacks were in line with other air attacks done with conventional weapons.
The decision to drop the bombs in quick succession was to bluff the Japanese [and very probably the Russians] into thinking we had a large stockpile of the weapons, that a city every few days would be leveled.
The Russians
The USSR did more than just declare war, they launched a major offensive that quickly overran or bypassed Japanese defensive positions. The only hope remaining to the Japanese was to withdraw its forces in China to the home islands and give the US the prospect of horrific casualties if we invaded. The Soviet offensive by powerful mechanized units was so rapid that it was very evident that hopelessly outclassed Japanese forces, most still using horse drawn vehicles, would be overrun before they could make it back to the home islands.
There is a lot of debate on the effect of the bombs, my feeling it was the Russians entering the war that had more of an effect than anything else. The Japanese had started to build a series of large underground bunkers to make weapons and shelter military assets, one of which survived the Hiroshima blast. They has already written off the cities as being indefensible so the bombs would only show that the US had the power to knock out cities faster than expected. The Russians were a different story, the Imperial Army would not get back to the home islands and that was the last straw.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Gray,
In one of your posts you say that you understand the context that Truman’s decisions were made in. Sorry, but every single post you made in this thread shows that you understand absolutely nothing about the period. You write of using a blockade and bombing campaign. Do you really understand what the war was like on the home front? It wasn’t like now, where there are “only” 120,000+ troops in Iraq. There were 16,112,566 men at war, 291,557 deaths and 670,846 wounded just in the United States. Resources were being rationed and it was truly a national effort. The nation wanted the war to end and Truman wanted it no less than any other citizen.
And then you posted this little gem.
I’m sorry, but you show how incapable you are of actually attempting to understand anything about the people of that time with that one.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Thanks, Mr. Mullen re: No. 51. The term historians have for using the lens of the present to judge the past is “presentism.” I think it is a valid concept, and Mr. Satterfield’s response to Gray (No. 57) encapsulates some of what I was preparing to say, so I won’t repeat myself on that score.
I think it is very hard for those of us talking about this in the abstract to understand what the total mobilization for war meant. Not only rationing of gasoline, food, and virtually all construction supplies, but a great shortage of personnel - which led women back into the work force in large numbers. Much of what we accept as the normal world we inhabit was shaped by World War II. The virtually unanimous will of the entire nation was behind winning this war, and winning it as fast as possible, with the loss of the fewest American lives. Contemplating the possible collateral damage to German and Japanese civilians was not likely to get much, if any thought.
Complicating matters for the military were the fact that most manufacturing plants, railroad yards, ports, and the like - all legitimate military targets - were surrounded by tenements and apartment blocks where many of the people who worked in these facilities lived. Taking out a factory might well include the incidental deaths of many of the civilians working there. In spite of all the ballyhoo about precision bombing, there were a lot of misses. For one thing, the Germans and Japanese shot back, air crews dodged flak and all kinds of AA fire, and frequently bombs were landing near, but not on the target. Precision laser guided weapons were NOT available. Deaths of bomber crews, like deaths of civilians hit by stray bombs were simply part of the calculus of war then. You may not like it, but very few US citizens in 1945 blamed President Truman for using the atomic bombs. However, you may be sure that had he followed the advice to wait and encourage Japanese surrender, and Drew Pearson (the Rush Limbaugh of the 1940’s) had found out about it, the public would have been outraged to know that the President was sacrificing American lives to save Japanese or Germans of ANY sort, be they civilian or armed forces.
It is easy to look at this with hindsight, and deplore the carnage. At the time, it was just another bombing. A little note - forgive the cynicism, but why is being burnt to a crisp with an atomic bomb any different from being incinerated by a raid using conventional ordnance? For whatever it’s worth, more civilians were killed in the the conventional bombing of Dresden and the Ruhr than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Horrific as it sounds, it appears that Truman’s decision to use the atomic bombs brought a speedy end to the war, and saved lives as compared to estimated deaths due to starvation if a blockade were imposed, or conventional bombing, had that continued. Truman, unlike the armchair politicians on this forum, had real life experience with war, and he was doing what, in his judgment, would end it fastest, with the fewest allied casualties. No other president, be it FDR or anyone else, would have been likely to avoid use of the atomic bomb in the summer of 1945.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:42 am
History through the ages just seems like an orgy of people killing people. It’s war after war after war after war. Wars are either glorified or exposed as beling the hell they are, but you can bet your last dollar on the fact that wars are always followed by more wars. .
It seems incredible, that with all the advances man has made in science and knowledge of all kinds, including self-knowledge, no one is able to propose a plan for making war avoidable. From armament as a deterrant to passive resistance, all attempts seem to fail. What does that say about us as human beings?
If I were an ET observing this planet, I would steer my ship away as soon as I possibly could.
Why do we have children, then? To furnish the manpower for future wars? Is it in our genes to survive by killing until we, ourselves are killed?
This thread gives me nightmares of revulsion.
Here we are cooly arguing whether or not the massive fatalities we caused during WWII were justified. Not being a Polyanna, I fervently agree that they were, but I feel as if blood were dripping from my fangs when I do.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:10 am
“Sorry, but every single post you made in this thread shows that you understand absolutely nothing about the period.”
Your opinion, Jim. But pls note that at least I was digging in old documents to bolster my knowledge about this important periods. Others just restated their prejudices and offered questionable ethical stances, like all rules were abandoned in WWII and so no ethical decison can be sencond guessed. Sry, but I’m neither impressed nor convinced.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:44 am
“The term historians have for using the lens of the present to judge the past is “presentism.†I think it is a valid concept, and Mr. Satterfield’s response to Gray (No. 57) encapsulates some of what I was preparing to say”
By digging into docs that show what the deciders knew and how they reacted on the information, at least I tried to get the circumstances of this historic episode. I don’t see that others tried to do this, instead they seem to express the opinion that everything should be excused and we won’t be able to analyse the chain of events and the motivation in hindsight. That’s what you want to say, too? Needless to say, every historian would be flaggergasted by such sloppy thinking.
All you offer are general points, without referencing to the examples I posted at all. For instance, here: “Contemplating the possible collateral damage to German and Japanese civilians was not likely to get much, if any thought.”
Well, the diary of Pres. Truman that I cited and linked states otherwise. He did think about the collateral damage, and was eager to minimize it, even though he saw the responsibility of the enemy citizen for their nation’s actions. A very honorable stance, and much more rational and humane than what many offered here.
Or here: “However, you may be sure that had he followed the advice to wait and encourage Japanese surrender, and Drew Pearson (the Rush Limbaugh of the 1940’s) had found out about it, the public would have been outraged to know that the President was sacrificing American lives to save Japanese or Germans of ANY sort, be they civilian or armed forces.”
Well, despite your grandstanding, we’re talking here about a waiting period for just a few days that would have been needed to correctly evaluate the japanese response. As I have shown above, the order to drop the second bomb was made without any sufficient time to check the intelligence from top secret source ‘magic’, that had just come in. And this information was still dealing with japanese investigation of the nuked site on the 7th. Nothing about diplomatic efforts to keep the russians out of the war, which would have been fruitless at this point, because the russians declared war on the 8th (Shaun, btw, I would really like to see you showing evidence for your view that this played any role). I also provided evidence on Truman’s intentions and his actions, that imply that he was (deliberately?) misled by his secretary of state and/or General Grove and make it at least questionable that he really authorized the use of the second bomb at the 9th.
Of course, what to make of these facts, how to weigh them is open to discussion. But pls do discuss them, instead of just offering broad general points that add nothing towards a real understanding of the issue. And don’t try to divert from this well defined issue to the broad question of collateral damage in WWII. We could talk for weeks about this without getting anywhere, and I guess you know that perfectly well, too.
Well, all in all, I see that the patriotic desire to simply dismiss all objections against the US decision surrounding the use of the nukes is strong here. This has been famously framed into words by a patriotic officer as ‘Right or wrong, my country’.
This stance is understandable, sure, but perfectly righteous and honest, it ain’t.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
“It seems incredible, that with all the advances man has made in science and knowledge of all kinds, including self-knowledge, no one is able to propose a plan for making war avoidable. From armament as a deterrant to passive resistance, all attempts seem to fail. What does that say about us as human beings?”
It says nothing about us. We are just products of the world we live in, a world with a finite amount of resources populated by trillions of organisms trained by evolution to fight whenever there is a dispute. Even plants kill eachother in the struggle for resources. As long as there is any group out there without the education to see alternatives AND access to more than they can possibly need there will be war. Its nature’s way and it runs deep in all living things.