The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[JoeB131]

True, because the Japanese tried for months to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade Russia, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet Union, provoked Japan to war.

The Japanese had been carrying out a genocidal war in China for nearly a decade... you think FDR should have rewarded them for THAT?

The Japanese were as bad as the Nazis in WWII... we just don't hear that much about it because the Jews run Hollywood and just can't stop whining about Hitler. Now, if the Chinese ran Hollywood, that'd be a different story.

 

[elektra]

Truman was the only real advocate. Stimson (sec of war) , along with the majority of top generals saw no need, nor any ending utilizing the bomb.

The real negotiation card was the Russians , Manchuria , the underlying economic inevitability , least of all the public execution of the emperor , which would have been (at the time) akin to crucifying Christ in our culture.

~S~

Wrong, where do you get this idea Stimson was against as well as the top generals. And which Generals?

 

[Flash]

Who gives a fuck? They were a murderous nation back then. As bad as the Nazis.

 

[elektra]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Can you name that battle you refer to, USSR against Japan? I am thinking it never happened.

 

[candycorn]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.

Wow…you fit so much garbage into one paragraph. I’m impressed.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.

Except that the bombs didn't end the war. The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War did.

The Jew hater is right. America could not afford for the Soviets to conquer Japan and divide it like what happened in Germany so they used the nuclear option and garnered surrender that way. Great History channels documentaries on it.

 

[mudwhistle]

The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat.

nope

they knew they were done, and were negotiating

the Russians were a huge part of that

~S~

N Korea has been "Negotiating" since 1950.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Can you name that battle you refer to, USSR against Japan? I am thinking it never happened.

Historians: Soviet offensive, key to Japan's WWII surrender, was eclipsed by A-bombs

 

[edward37]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Recall that they attacked us.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent the obvious message that we had a weapon that could destroy them quickly and at no risk to ourselves. There was nothing for the Japanese military to "process", nor any reason for us to give quarter, or a time-out.

Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.

There were think tanks back then that all said many 1000's of American lives would be saved by that bombing

 

[mudwhistle]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next

This shows exactly how ignorant you are on the subject.
Hiroshima had one of the biggest military posts in Japan.
However both were selected because of weather, travel distance, effect on morale and other reasons.


The Selection of the Target | The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com

1. Since the atomic bomb was expected to produce its greatest amount of damage by primary blast effect, and next greatest by fires, the targets should contain a large percentage of closely-built frame buildings and other construction that would be most susceptible to damage by blast and fire.
2. The maximum blast effect of the bomb was calculated to extend over an area of approximately 1 mile in radius; therefore the selected targets should contain a densely built-up area of at least this size.
3. The selected targets should have a high military strategic value.
4. The first target should be relatively untouched by previous bombing, in order that the effect of a single atomic bomb could be determined.

The weather records showed that for five years there had never been two successive good visual bombing days over Tokyo, indicating what might be expected over other targets in the home islands. The worst month of the year for visual bombing was believed to be June, after which the weather should improve slightly during July and August and then become worse again during September. Since good bombing conditions would occur rarely, the most intense plans and preparations were necessary in order to secure accurate weather forecasts and to arrange for full utilization of whatever good weather might occur. It was also very desirable to start the raids before September.​

 

[Maxdeath]

Always fun to second guess history from the modern moral high ground.
First we need to understand that the Japanese were not going to surrender. There are many times civillians and military chose death rather then surrender. They committed suicide by jumping off cliffs. They rammed planes into ships. They hid out in jungles for years.
The second thing we need to understand is that there were not unlimited funds, resources or men that we were willing to commit to the war against Japan.
Japan was convinced that we only had one atomic bomb. At least that was what they convinced their people of. I do not know for sure if the high command was convinced because of the enormous cost of such a weapon at that time or what the real reason was.
To have used only one would have proven the leaders right so even if the origanal bomb was demoralizing to have proven them right would have increased the Japanese resolve.
Could we have won without the second bomb? Perhaps. At what cost in men and material? We will never know. We do know that the war ended abruptly after the second.
As I said it is always fun to second guess history from our moral high ground but that assumes we are willing to understand the whole of history and the thought processes that went on at the time. It is also nice if we stop to think about such things as cost of lives and material if our understanding is wrong.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The Japanese had been carrying out a genocidal war in China for nearly a decade... you think FDR should have rewarded them for THAT?

If FDR did nothing to punish the Soviets for their brutality and oppression, why did he choose to pick a fight with the anti-communist Japanese over their arguably justified war in China?

The Japanese were not any more vicious than Mao's Communist Chinese forces were, and the Nationalist Chinese forces certainly did not follow the rules of warfare either in many cases. The Japanese had entirely valid interests in seeking to keep the Communists from coming to power in China, as the whole world saw after the war when Mao came to power and murdered over 20 million Chinese.

Instead of joining with Japan to defeat the Maoist Communnists, Chang Kaishek oddly chose to form an alliance with the Communists against the Japanese. Surely no one in their right mind would say that China was better off under the Communists than Manchuria had been under the Japanese.

The Japanese were as bad as the Nazis in WWII... we just don't hear that much about it because the Jews run Hollywood and just can't stop whining about Hitler. Now, if the Chinese ran Hollywood, that'd be a different story.

Actually, that is total hogwash. The Japanese were nothing like the Nazis. Tojo was a mild leader compared to Hitler and Stalin. The Japanese people enjoyed far more rights and freedoms during WW II than did the Russians under Stalin and the Germans under Hitler.

One book that documents this fact is Israeli historian Ben Shillony's book Politics and Culture in Wartime Japan (Clarendon Press, 1991). Two other good books on the subject are Meron Medzini's Under the Shadow of the Rising Sun: Japan and the Jews during the Holocaust Era (Academic Studies Press, 2016) and Samuel Yamashita's Daily Life in Wartime Japan, 1940-1945 (University of Kansas Press, 2017).

Many readers will be astounded to learn of the degree and frequency of political opposition and criticism that was tolerated in wartime Japan. They will also be surprised to learn that much more often than not Japan's legal system protected citizens against unjust actions by the government. Japan was certainly not as free and open as America and England were during the war, but open criticism/opposition and the rule of law existed in Japan to a degree that was unheard of in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

 

[rightwinger]

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness. "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."

I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.

AFTER the war. After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.

But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people? Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.

WWII ended on July 16, 1945
That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.

The trade off has never been.....
Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion

The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?

Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option? No, it wasn’t.

We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb

Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target

 

[rightwinger]

Always fun to second guess history from the modern moral high ground.
First we need to understand that the Japanese were not going to surrender. There are many times civillians and military chose death rather then surrender. They committed suicide by jumping off cliffs. They rammed planes into ships. They hid out in jungles for years.
The second thing we need to understand is that there were not unlimited funds, resources or men that we were willing to commit to the war against Japan.
Japan was convinced that we only had one atomic bomb. At least that was what they convinced their people of. I do not know for sure if the high command was convinced because of the enormous cost of such a weapon at that time or what the real reason was.
To have used only one would have proven the leaders right so even if the origanal bomb was demoralizing to have proven them right would have increased the Japanese resolve.
Could we have won without the second bomb? Perhaps. At what cost in men and material? We will never know. We do know that the war ended abruptly after the second.
As I said it is always fun to second guess history from our moral high ground but that assumes we are willing to understand the whole of history and the thought processes that went on at the time. It is also nice if we stop to think about such things as cost of lives and material if our understanding is wrong.

We had three bombs
One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki

We had the bomb, nobody else did

At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.

 

[mudwhistle]

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness. "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."

I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.

AFTER the war. After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.

But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people? Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.

WWII ended on July 16, 1945
That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.

The trade off has never been.....
Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion

The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?

Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option? No, it wasn’t.

We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb

Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target

Again you show your ignorance on the subject.
All of this was taken into account and it was decided that dropping the bomb on an isolated island wouldn't scare anyone.
I hate to think of the death and destruction that dropping one in a heavily populated area causes, but the Japanese were spread all over Asia causing death and destruction everywhere they went. The war crimes they had committed were horrific. We can't blame most of the population for this, but this wasn't some Western society where everyone wanted peace and tranquility. Japan was a feudal society where violence and death unfortunately was as common as taking a shit. Dropping those bombs saved the Japanese people from the oppression of their own military establishment as much as anything else.

 

[JoeB131]

The Jew hater is right. America could not afford for the Soviets to conquer Japan and divide it like what happened in Germany so they used the nuclear option and garnered surrender that way. Great History channels documentaries on it.

Um, no. Your reading comprehension is a little confused.

The bombs didn't make the Japanese Surrender.

They surrendered because the USSR entered the war and we promised to not hang Hirohito, even though the cocksucker deserved it.

 

[JoeB131]

We had three bombs
One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki

We had the bomb, nobody else did

At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.

Except that it really wasn't.

What we were realizing by 1945 is that the Soviets couldn't really be trusted. they were installing Soviet puppet states in Eastern Europe, and now they were in a position to send hundreds of divisions into China, Korea and Japan.

We'd have gotten to the same place, but with the Sovietns firmly in charge of the region... As it was, we still ended up losing China in 1949, and the Korean war in 1950. Imagine if the USSR had completely occupied Korea and maybe half of Japan.

 

[miketx]

The Japanese we're clearly told they had a chance to surrender BY THE ALLIES at potsdamn
THey ignored it !!!
The soviets were skunks and Finally joined the battle in between nukes ...how convenient

The Soviets lost 20 million people fighting the Axis.

We lost 400,000. You tell me who made greater sacrifices to end fascism.

The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward. The sticking point in the negotiations was the status of the Emperor. The Japanese felt that if he was tried as a war criminal, their society would fall apart.

The thing few people talk about was how after the USSR got into it, the US dropped it's insistence on trying Hirohito as a war criminal, which he obviously was. In fact, a massive whitewash was done after the war to make it look like Hirohito was this nice guy who just wanted to study marine biology and those mean old generals tricked him into a war.

Sez the cut and paste pirate.

 

[rightwinger]

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness. "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."

I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.

AFTER the war. After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.

But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people? Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.

WWII ended on July 16, 1945
That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.

The trade off has never been.....
Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion

The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?

Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option? No, it wasn’t.

We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb

Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target

Again you show your ignorance on the subject.
All of this was taken into account and it was decided that dropping the bomb on an isolated island wouldn't scare anyone.
I hate to think of the death and destruction that dropping one in a heavily populated area causes, but the Japanese were spread all over Asia causing death and destruction everywhere they went. The war crimes they had committed were horrific. We can't blame most of the population for this, but this wasn't some Western society where everyone wanted peace and tranquility. Japan was a feudal society where violence and death unfortunately was as common as taking a shit. Dropping those bombs saved the Japanese people from the oppression of their own military establishment as much as anything else.

We don’t know that because we never gave Japan a chance. We gave them two days to decide then sent 70,000 to their deaths at Nagasaki.

We had the bomb...the war was over

A less lethal demo had no downside
Worst case, Japan ignores it and we go to Plan B which is escalate the bombing.

Japan loses either way

 

[DGS49]

It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.

The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.

Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, to the death.

The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground. The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives. It was the most fully justified military decision in human history. A pox on anyone claiming otherwise. You make me want to puke.

If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.