BF2S Forums Should the US have dropped the bombs on Japan?

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that 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'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

"If we were to go ahead with the plans for a conventional invasion with ground and naval forces, I believe the Japanese thought that they could inflict very heavy casualties on us and possibly as a result get better surrender terms. On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time."

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression.

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. . . .

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.

"it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.

The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?

LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

"the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-05 00:22:59)

-Sh1fty- wrote:

And the population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not innocent civilians?

Most weren't, as I said they had large military installations. That doesn't make them a target I don't know what does.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

There's many accounts of US submarine captains who ordered their men to machine gun the survivors of a sunken vessel.

So maybe the captains should have just left them there in the middle of the Pacific to their imminent death. Yeah really wise - do you listen to yourself?

-Sh1fty- wrote:

The target selection was designed to hit a large urban area.

Yeah a large military filled urban area.

AussieReaper wrote:

A port.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

The Japanese were already surrounded. The Japanese fleet was gone. The US was considering a land invasion. I hardly think a ship building port was that much of a threat.

They still could have killed more American soldiers who were fighting for a just cause and also didn't "deserve to die" as you like to put it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The Japanese were more than ready to surrender, it was taking time to grind through their internal political processes but it was going to happen.
The US was well aware of this.

The US was also well aware Japan is an island with few natural resources, and no Navy or Air Force left.
They could have been surrounded and isolated, there was no need for an invasion.

You can almost argue the first bomb was 'necessary', although not really.
There is no way you can argue the second bomb was, the Japanese were given no chance to surrender after the first one.

The bottom line is the US had two shiny new bombs to test, and they wanted to frighten the Russians back into their hole.
The US was incendiary bombing Japanese cities right from the Doolittle raids onwards, the plan was to annihilate Japan so the US could dominate the Pacific.

FatherTed wrote:

From a terrible liberal i steal your money POV, dropping bombs on Japan in the long run was the way to act.

Why?

They had an ingrained societal thought for Japan over everything. They would without question kill themselves before Japan fell. Fuck, women and children in their thousands jumped off cliffs as soon as they heard the Americans were coming. NOTHING the Americans could do would stop them resisting til the last person.

While the nukes killed so so so many innocents, via conventional means they would all have died anyway and infact many many more would have been lost.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

AussieReaper those men could have tried anything on the submarine and have been a huge risk to the crew and their mission. I guess you're not going to be a general anytime soon.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Aussie you're so full of shit you just want to burn America you don't even seem to give a shit about the Japs.

I hope to be proven wrong.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

In fact, you're just like the Japanese, trying to fight it out all the way when it's over anyway and you got screwed over 3 pages ago.

sh1fty wrote:

I hope to be proven wrong.

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that 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'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

"If we were to go ahead with the plans for a conventional invasion with ground and naval forces, I believe the Japanese thought that they could inflict very heavy casualties on us and possibly as a result get better surrender terms. On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time."

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression.

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. . . .

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.

"it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.

The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?

LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

"the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Potsdam Declaration wrote:

Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender
Issued, at Potsdam, July 26, 1945

   1. We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.

   2. The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.

   3. The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.

   4. The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.

   5. Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

   6. There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

   7. Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.

   8. The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

   9. The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.

  10. We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

  11. Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

  12. The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

  13. We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

mikkel wrote:

I'm not certain that this discredits the quotations provided by Dilbert. Particularly the commentary by Dwight D. Eisenhower suggests an opinion that the Japanese certainly would not have accepted abject capitulation in response to a threatening declaration, but that a compromise could eventually have been reached.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-12-05 06:49:22)

AussieReaper wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I'm not certain that this discredits the quotations provided by Dilbert. Particularly the commentary by Dwight D. Eisenhower suggests an opinion that the Japanese certainly would not have accepted abject capitulation in response to a threatening declaration, but that a compromise could eventually have been reached.

And if a compromise had been reached, the Japanese surrendering with some dignity (other than the unconditional), you wouldn't have had to compensate them so much after the war.

Germany and Japan had buckets of money poured into them by the allies to help rebuild for the simple reason they knew that the consequences of either an occupation or huge loss of territory would recreate exactly the same thing that happened post WWI. The first German attacks in WWII was said to be reclaiming lost land that was taken from them after the Armistice and that was used as an excuse to start hostilities again but Hitler.

Japan became industrialised and so did Germany, they are better for it today, but only because the alternative of leaving a bitter defeated foe would be disastrous.

Although it seems some people still seem to hold a grudge against all Japanese...