Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded

reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
The only thing I can say is that it was the most horrible deed ever done by humans to other humans.Perhaps they didn't quite know what they were doing. Perhaps they didn't know that survivors would have deformed children and die slowly and painfully. I hope they didn't. My respect to the Japanese people on this sorrowful anniversary.

reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 6
At that time all Japanese people were determined to die in the event of US army landing. In fact people of Okinawa where actual US landing were taken place almost all people in Okinawa killed themselves in the event of war against US invasion.
Atomic bomb made Japanese people realise the resistance is in vain. I don't mind which nationality the victims were. I think the lesser the number of casualties the better no matter who.

reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 6
Here's a repost of something I pasted for the history discussion group, called "An opportunity to impress the world -- by using the atomic bomb":An article called "Atomic Diplomacy" by Gar Alperovitz describes the thinking of many American and British leaders in 1945 concerning the option of using the atomic bomb on real cities.When General Eisenhower was advised by U.S. Secretary of State Stimson that the bomb would be used on Japan, he described his response as follows:"During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first of the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnessary, and secondly because I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. ... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."Before the bomb was dropped, each of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff advised that it was highly likely that Japan would surrender unconditionally without either use of the atomic bomb or an invasion of the Japanese mainland. General Marshall, for example, said "The impact of the Russian entry on the already hopeless Japanese may well be the decisive action levering them to capitulation."Admiral Leahy later advised, "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."British General Ismay said he was sure Japan was "tottering", and when he heard plans for use of the atomic bomb his response was "revulsion".And Winston Churchill later wrote, "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell ...".After the war the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported: "Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."Why was it done over all these voices? In June 1945 the U.S. Interim Committee Panel debated the idea of exploding the bomb as a "demonstration" in an unpopulated area, as a warning on what could be used unless Japan surrendered. But panel member A.H. Compton persuaded most members that it must be a "combat demonstration" on an actual population center. Otherwise it would be the "loss of the opportunity to impress the world". Robert Oppenheimer said the State Department seemed mainly concerned about "the effect of our actions on the stability, on our strength, and the stability of the postwar world". He also said that much of this debate revolved around whether the atomic bomb might be of help in influencing Russia. As Secretary of State Stimson put it, "We have got to regain the lead and perhaps do it in a pretty rough and realistic way. ... We have coming into action a weapon which will be unique. Now the thing [to do is] ... let our actions speak for themselves".One atomic scientist spoke with President Truman's secretary Jimmy Byrnes in May 1945, and said, "Mr. Byrnes did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war. ... Mr. Byrnes's ... view [was] that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in Europe."from pages 234-237, "An Age of Conflict: Readings in Twentieth-Century European History", Editor, Leslie Derfler

reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
mercedo saidI don't mind which nationality the victims were. I think the lesser the number of casualties the better no matter who. I might agree if there hadn't been those terrible late effects. Unborn children as casualties of war? It's too horrible for words. And after I've seen what Brian just posted - my God!

reply
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 6
For all of this, I must offer up two points that seem overlooked in all this:1) The military leadership actually attempted to depose the Emperor once they realized he was going to offer surrender. The Japanese military may have been defeated, but they would not willingly surrender. To say invasion was unnecessary misunderstands the nature of the Japanese military leadership (and thus by extension, the entire Japanese military, given the level of obedience required).2) As much as an invasion of the islands may not have been necessary, the willingness of the Japanese populace to sacrifice and suffer for the Emperor was enoromous. The MILLION MAN army still in China was barely under control of the Emperor, it never entirely quite was from the beginning. Would this army have continued resisting if they hadn't been made aware of the atomic bomb through its actual use? As it was in the actual event, a number of Japanese soldiers continued resisting, in a few cases even for DECADES, after the war concluded. Without this awesome display of firepower, perhaps more would have been encouraged to resist, especially if they felt out of reach of the Americans by virtue of being on the Asian mainland. How much longer should the Chinese (and Koreans and Vietnamese and Burmese and Siamese, etc.) be asked to suffer just so Ike wouldn't feel so bad about using the atomic bomb? How many more civilians raped and murdered? How many villages razed and treasures looted? Just to satisfy one man's ego? From the extremely narrow perspective of the US military leadership, I suppose the atomic bomb may not have been particularly necessary, but when you look beyond that to the entire picture world wide, the case is much less clear.

reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 6
When the Russians attacked the Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea in the summer of 1945, they encountered little serious resistance and were surprized to receive large-scale surrenders of Japanese troops. The Chinese communist army was also making good headway against an increasingly feeble and demoralized enemy. Same goes for the Vietnamese resistance.I think we should believe the US Joint Chiefs of Staff when they said the bomb was militarily unneeded. And the fact that it was used (not just on an unpopulated area as a "demonstration", and not once, but twice) means that the military leaders were overridden by politicial considerations. Where the Nazis and Japanese had hoped to terrify their enemies into submission through horrific massacres of civilians or prisoners of war, the US government sought to do the same thing to all future enemies by an act even more horrifying

reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
And the cold war followed. Brian and I grew up with it."You've thrown the worst fear that can ever be hurledThe fear to bring children into the world,For threatening my baby - unborn and unnamed -You ain't worth the blood that runs in your veins."Bob Dylan: Masters of War.

reply
mikemol wrote on Aug 6
ullangoo saidI might agree if there hadn't been those terrible late effects. Unborn children as casualties of war? It's too horrible for words. And after I've seen what Brian just posted - my God! I don't believe atomic bombs were thought to produce much fallout at the time. Not to mention that there hadn't been much research into the effects of radiation on non-target generations until after the results of those two bombs were seen.

reply
mikemol wrote on Aug 6
briangriffith saidWhere the Nazis and Japanese had hoped to terrify their enemies into submission through horrific massacres of civilians or prisoners of war, the US government sought to do the same thing to all future enemies by an act even more horrifying I thought the Nazis tried to keep those activities quiet. Sure, knowledge of them could be spread by word of mouth, but they kept a lid on them as far as broadcast media was concerned. (I imagine they didn't want their ghetto populations to riot.)I'm inclined to agree with you, though, that the decision to drop the bomb was politically motivated. Perhaps the war could have been concluded in a conventional manner. Bringing it to an abrupt close immediately set the US up as a superpower. Either you did what the US asked, or you faced the big stick.If plans for the atomic bomb hadn't been leaked to the Soviet Union, the Cold War might not have been fought via proxy wars. Instead, hostilities might have quickly reignited, turning Europe into a hot front line, rather than a cold one. No telling which side would have won; atomic bombs were expensive, and effective delivery mechanisms were lacking. (The advent of nuke-carrying missiles changed that, of course, though the B-52 certainly made putting bombs on their targets easier.)

reply
ahfeiko wrote today at 2:14 AM
till today,are there or is there anymore "left-behind" Japanese soldiers in the Pacific islands ?

reply
corporatetroll wrote today at 5:27 AM
Probably not... Considering that the last one surrendered in 1974. An 18 year old in 1945 would be 80 now. It's possible, but quite unlikely by now.