I have not read much on the subject, but it seems to me it would have been the humane thing to do. It makes Truman seem like a small, revenge-minded man, to drop it without warning on two populous cities. Any WWII history buffs know anything about this?
shareAs the movie said, it could've been a dud, and if Truman announced that the Americans had this devastating megabomb and nothing happened when they dropped it, it would've been embarrassing for the Americans and the Japanese would've fought on. Even if it wasn't announced and it was a dud when dropped, it would just have been seen as a mysterious item that fell from the sky.
True, what Truman did WASN'T humane, except for the saving of American soldiers, who were expected to fight and risk themselves anyway, so it's really baffling.
It's "baffling" to want to save your soldier's lives over the enemies, and to not want extended death and destruction on both sides instead of just one? You know, to win a war?
shareOh, right. So NO American SOLDIERS lose their lives at that point, but up to SEVERAL THOUSAND Japanese CIVILIANS, INNOCENT, I might add, lose their lives just so the Americans get what they want? Fuck off.
Around 100,000 American soldiers had already lost their lives fighting in the Pacific at that point. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important to the Japanese war machine, and were valid military targets.
"The sooner the Americans come, the better… one hundred million die proudly" - Japanese propaganda slogan, 1945.
Interesting how you seemingly aren't putting any of the blame on Japan here even though they were allied with Nazi Germany, struck Pearl Harbor/brought the US into the war, and stubbornly refused to surrender even though their eventual defeat was guaranteed. Even the firebombing of Tokyo and the A-bomb in Hiroshima didn't change their minds initially - an additional bomb on Nagasaki with the real threat of more bombs was the only thing that made them budge.
But hey yeah, let's continue the war for a couple more years, add the deaths of millions of American soldiers (these were the estimates), and probably millions of civilian deaths on the Japanese side with a brutal invasion of their homeland. Or not.
You are entirely correct. However, you expect people to be as familiar with history and reality to the same degree you are. Mostly, they will just double down on their ignorant nonsense.
shareYeah, I'm not a history buff or anything but it seems pretty insane to not see the clear logic in this. Just imagine if the world found out after millions upon millions more people died from a Japan invasion that it could have all been avoided had they used the power of the atomic bomb to force a surrender. That is a much more controversial decision from almost every perspective imo.
shareI think dropping the bomb was a terrible necessary evil. It saved countless lives on both sides. There were Japanese soldiers who didn't surrender till the late 1960's which is a testament to their devotion to their duty.
What if they didn't surrender after the 2 bombs? It was a pretty huge gamble and it payed off.
I am well aware of this history, and it sounds to me that the Americans are FAR, FAR more AGGRESSIVE than the Japanese ever were.
Was your beloved Pearl Harbor THAT precious to you Yanks? Honestly.
But thanks for entering the war and relieving the pressure from us Brits against the Germans. Your ferocious AGGRESSION really helped, although against the Japanese it sure was OVERKILL.
Thank GOD you didn't bomb Kyoto, a cultural centre of one of the oldest civilisations in human history, even though it was only because one of the military men had vacationed there or something.
As for the Japanese imperialism and barbarism, that was a surely SORRY chapter of slaughter and genocide that they're not normally known for, and I'm sure everyone now appreciates a PACIFIST Japan.
Labeling US actions in WWII as "ferocious AGGRESSION" (I wonder what you'd frame Nazi Germany's actions as), and trying to defeat the Japanese being "OVERKILL"? Sorry, your comments are becoming too ridiculous to respond to seriously. That other poster was spot on about you doubling down though.
shareSorry, but the Germans and Japanese were in AWE of the USA's military might over them. Wasn't it that Japanese admiral who famously said, "I fear we have awakened a sleeping dragon"?
No, out of the Germans, Japanese and Americans, the latter are the biggest aggressors, the others didn't stand a chance against them. After all you Yanks DO aspire to be "the most powerful military in the world", or don't you?
The Japs did start the fight...
shareTwo atomic bombs PLUS a declaration of war against Japan by the USSR...
shareHiroshima was so far down the list of military priorities that it hadn't been bombed prior to that, in the whole war. The USA had already fire-bombed Tokyo, with even greater loss of life.
But the USA didn't have very many bombs, so a demo wouldn't prove they were willing to use it and could deliver it, only that it worked.
The real inhumanity was only giving them 3 days to surrender before they bombed another city.
Certainly fire-bombing Tokyo wasn't any more ethical...
shareJust so the Americans get what they want? Have you studied any history whatsoever?
The Americans, and the rest of the world, wanted the war to end. Dropping the bomb saved not only American lives, but Japanese lives as well. Between 129,000 and 226,000 people are estimated to have been killed by the two bombs. Meanwhile, it is estimated that between 1 million and 30 million people would have died had the war continued without the usage of the two atom bombs.
Between 1 and 30 MILLION people? Who exactly has made these estimates? Sources please?
Honestly, trying to make it seem like throwing two atomic bombs over whole cities - deliberately targeting civilians - saved not only America, but Japanese lives, is pretty damn rich.
Another "humane" alternative if the Japanese hadn't surrendered - the blockade and starvation of Japan over the winter of 45/46 - would like have resulted in far more deaths than the two A-bombs. This doesn't even take into account the ongoing fighting in various parts of the Asian mainland that would also have continued if no surrender happened.
shareThe Japanese made it very clear they had no intention of surrendering. Conservative estimates at the time said it may have cost over 600,000 lives to take the islands by traditional methods. So the bombs did save lives.
shareWhile several hundred Japanese died, it ultimately saved millions, not to mention the actual nation. Just imagine the barbarity and absolute destruction of Okinawa, but spread over all the Japanese islands. It would have literally knocked them back into the stone age. While physically much of Germany was destroyed, the population survived to rebuild. In Japan it would have been obscene, and ultimately set them up for a communist takeover.
I used to debate this with my grandfather, who was navy vet of the war, and actually stationed in Manila on Dec. 8 (7th here). It took a long time to understand that it wasn't just those two cities, or their citizens. It was all the Allied soldiers, the nation of Japan, and helped prevent several generations of complete hostility towards Japan, beyond what we already had.
Truman made it clear what would be done to Japan if they didn't surrender: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSgq0jMJYT4
A bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, and the Japanese didn't surrender in the days afterward, so what exactly would an inert demonstration have done (being ultra kind to a vicious enemy, btw)? It was only until an additional bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9th, with the real threat of more bombs, that they finally came to their senses.
Also you appear to be unaware that the fire bombings prior to the a-bombing didn't discourage Japanese leadership.
But since you haven't "read much on the subject" (your words), then maybe you should before stating an opinion.
This probably would help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa_NpZszBqE
shareYou have received a lot of good responses to your post. Do you care to comment?
shareThey could have sent Japan a video of the test as proof, isn't it?
shareCould have (film), but that's very indirect and could have been called fake. If I were President, I would have bombed a sparsely populated rural area first, and send a message that a city is next if you don't surrender. Could have worked?
shareIf you watched the video I provided you would probably understand targeting civilians started long before nukes, most Japanese cities were already burned to the ground due to napalm bombs designed specifically for Japanese civilian housing as vast majority of them were made of wood at the time.
I think testing the power of nuclear bomb and find out how many civilians it can kill in dense populated urban area was one of the main purposes.
If the purpose was solely to get Japan to surrender the second bomb would not have been dropped just 3 days later. They would have waited at least a week or 2.
Also the second bomb was using a completely different design, so it was quite clear it was about comparing the effectiveness of 2 designs, before Japan had a chance to surrender.
So I think the humane concern never entered their minds. You were thinking way too highly of those people.
It took years & $2 billion in 1940's money to enrich enough material (uranium in one bomb and plutonium in the other). I can see why the US would not want to expend all that effort on a demonstration. But also maybe a demo would have worked? We'll never know but very interesting to ponder.
shareAnother factor not mentioned above ~ Japan had over 1,000 American Prisoners of War at the time.
The possibility of the Togo government, putting these P.O.W.'s on a boat near the demonstration site had to be considered by Truman.