Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Lancer44]

Please, do not vote with compassion but read first at least one article from links below.

http://archive.tri-cityherald.com/BOMB/bomb15.html


Attempts to answer the moral questions raised by the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are rooted in a cold-blooded mathematical equation of war.

The rationale is simple: You kill a lot of people now, hoping to save even more lives later.

An estimated 140,000 people were killed at Hiroshima and another 74,000 at Nagasaki. Would an Allied invasion of Japan have been more bloody?

Many factors cloud any calculation:

The battle for the outlying Japanese island of Okinawa a few months earlier killed at least 12,400 Americans, between 100,000 and 127,000 Japanese soldiers and between 70,000 to 80,000 civilians.

About 3,000 kamikaze suicide plane missions were flown at Okinawa, and only a handful of Japanese soldiers surrendered.

More people were killed in the battle for the small island than the combined toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What would have happened if Kyushu - the westernmost of Japan's four main islands - was invaded in November 1945 as planned?

Or if the Allies went ahead with plans to invade the main island of Honshu in March 1946?

The Allies estimated between 63,000 to 250,000 of their men would be killed or wounded in the battle for Kyushu - depending on which historian provides the figures. Japanese casualties were expected to be much greater."



http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4733


"Traditionally, the terms of the historical discussion on Hiroshima have been set by the liberal elites of the press and academia, who focus solely on the question of whether it was necessary to use the bombs at all. The revisionists’ belief is that Japan was already a beaten nation in August 1945, and that use of the atomic bombs was an immoral act tantamount to a war crime. To add punch to their argument, numerous survivors of the bombing provide first-hand accounts of the devastation and death wrought by the bombs.
This self-doubt is sometimes followed by rebuttals from American veterans of the Pacific Theater, who praise Truman’s decision as a necessary evil, giving him credit shortening the war and saving lives. They often point out that the Japanese surrender on August 14 came only five days after the dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki. Their numbers dwindling, grizzled veterans from the Battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa recall their joy when they learned that they would not have to invade the Japanese home islands at a cost of untold thousands of American lives."

"

As one might expect, the few surviving crew members of the B-29s bombers Enola Gay and Bock’s Car are interviewed each August by reporters from around the world, who invariably ask them the same question with mind-numbing familiarity: “Do you have any regrets?”

In response to this question, Lt. Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, recently issued this statement:

In the past 60 years since Hiroshima, I have received many letters from people all over the world. The vast majority have expressed gratitude (that we) were able to deliver the bombs that ended the war. Over the years, thousands of former soldiers and military family members have expressed a particularly touching and personal gratitude suggesting that they might not be alive today had it been necessary to resort to an invasion of the Japanese home islands to end the fighting.

I have been thanked as well by Japanese veterans and civilians who would have been expected to carry out suicidal defense of their homelands. Combined with the efforts of all Americans and our allies, we were able to stop the killing. It is a sentiment upon which the surviving crewmen are unanimous."

"To try to comprehend the human costs of Japan’s rampage across the Pacific, one should consider that the generally accepted casualty figures for the Hiroshima attack include at least 100,000 people killed outright by the blast and fire that destroyed the city. Thus, if we are to quantify the loss of life across Asia due to Japanese aggression in terms of Hiroshima, then the minimum number of Hiroshimas inflicted by Japan onto its neighbors, including China, Korea, Indochina, Burma, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) is at least one hundred. Beginning in 1931 with the invasion of Manchuria, Japan unleashed wave after wave of death and destruction on her Asian neighbors, the rough equivalent on one Hiroshima per month for more than 14 years."

http://www.iht.com/articles/1995/02/08/edlet_14.php

[Firefly]

I've gone for the easy option that after some years of serious thought I believe that they probably werent necessary in hindsight, but hindsight is a wonderfull thing.

The US was already carrying out low level night area attacks at the time, culminating in the firebombing of Tokyo which killed far more people than any of the A-Bombs.

I think the US could have had the following options:

1. Invade Japan - with all the consequences that this entailed.

2. Blockade Japan - which would have killed far more people than the bombings ever did.

In the end I think the final decision to use the Bomb was a combination of both military and political reasons together the other factor that it simply existed and so much effort had been put into its development that it probably had to be used.

As I keep saying, please remember that this was a diffrent time and that we cannot project our morals and values onto then.

War isnt pleasant and WW2 is so fascinating as it may have been the most unpleasant of them all.

[SS Tiger]

I'm not sure which one to vote for, I think it was a war crime by definition, but, it also had to be done to end the war.

[WaistGunner]

"You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor...Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary...Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan? It would have been terrible. The Japanese people know more about it than the Americans public will ever know."

Japanese pilot Mitsuo Fuchida in a conversation with Paul Tibbets.

Taken from Flyboys by James Bradley

As for myself I refuse to decide if it was right or wrong. It happened and that is all we need to know. The importance of Hirishima/Nagasaki for the future isn't whetther or not it should have happened but have we learned enough from what did happen to keep it from happening again

[Chevan]

You all , gentlemens dont notice one importain thing - Uncle Joe and USSR.
It's naive to think that using terrible a-bomb depend just military reasons. Mainly it was POLITIC. Let's read something

Although the motives of the solution about the use of these bombs are very multilayer, basic factors became two interconnected geopolitical purposes of the American ruling elites at the end war:
1. tendency to limit the influence of the Soviet Union in East Asia, after completing war before Soviet troops will have time to move far to the territory of China and into Japan, and
2. desire to actually show the insurmountable power of American army and her readiness to use this power for the protection of her own interests

The decision of the president's administration of Harry Truman about the application of an atomic weapon against Japan was accepted for political and strategic reasons. First of all, the use of a bomb it had to ensure to the United States the position of the unquestionable supremacy in the postwar period

The common purpose of the administration of Truman - on the level with the direct interest of the United States in the limitation of Soviet influence in East Europe and in East Asia - was the establishment of American hegemony at the end of war.
This expressed well historian Thomas McCormick:
"two dazzling flashes - terrible end of the war, which all conducted by terrible methods - for the United States proved to be key to the American hegemony". In order to dostich' this hegemonistic purpose, it was necessary to endow by cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mc Cormick notes: "the previously organized demonstration - application of an A-bomb in the unpopulated locality, what was proposed by some scientists - for this would be insufficient. It would show the power of bomb, but it would not confirm the American determination to use this terrible power. One of the reasons, on which America did not want to support careful attempts at Japan on the conclusion of peace in the middle of the summer of 1945, was the unwillingness to finish war before will be succeeded in using A-bomb

Truman and Byrnes were concerned by the fact that Japan can reach agreement with the Soviet Union and attain peace with his mediation, but not with the mediation of any neutral power or United States. The intercepted communications from Japan strengthened this preoccupation. For example, in one of the diplomatic summaries of the intercepted Japanese communications it is noted:
"on 11 July [ the Japanese ] Minister of Foreign of that sent the following " extremely urgent " communication to ambassador [ in the Soviet Union ] Sato: "we now secretly examine the possibility of the end of war because of the complex situation, which was established for Japan as in home policy sense and in foreign policy. Therefore, carrying out its encounter with [ the Soviet Minister of Foreign ] by hammer and following the previously obtained instructions, you must not be limited to reaching the rapprochement between Russia and Japan, but also probe through the possibility of using Russia in the interests of the end of war ".
Further in the communication it is indicated that Japan is prepared to go for the large concessions to Russia in order to avoid the invasion of Russians ". At that moment Japan still hoped to avoid Soviet intrusion. In the important diary record of 24 July Walter Brown assistant to Secretary of State James Byrnes, note that "Dzh.F.B. [ Byrnes ] continues to consider that Japan capitulates after A-bomb, and Russia so will not get involved in into the slaughter house in order to obtain the possibility to advance requirements with respect to China"
Later, on 3 August, in three days to Hiroshima, Brown writes:
"on board "Agusty " the President, Likhi, Dzh.F.B. [ Byrnes ] agreed that Japanes attain peace... The President fears, that they will attain the peace through Russia, but not through any other country, like Sweden " These and remaining documents attest to the fact that the American leaders not only feared the outcome of war favorable for the Soviet Union, but also they knew that Japan will any minute now ask peace.
In its book "solution about the application of an A-bomb" Gar Alperovitz convincingly proves the theory of the "two-step" capitulation of Japan. In the opinion Of Alperovitz, the combination of the threat of Soviet intrusion, nevertheless begun 8 August, and guarantees to the Japanese state of the fact that will be preserved the positions of emperor, could put an end to the war without the intrusion and without the application of an A-bomb. Specifically, this conclusion is contained in the report of the united committee of the chiefs of the reconnaissance OF THE USA, represented on 29 April, 1945, to the united Joint Chiefs of Staff: "the amplifying consequences of sea and air blockade, the increasing and joint results of the impacts of strategic aviation, and also" the amplifying consequences of sea and air blockade, the increasing and joint results of the impacts of strategic aviation, and also crash Germany... Together with the mentioned factors, the entering a war OF THE USSR will immediately convince the majority of the Japanese of the inevitability of complete defeat... When... the people of Japan and its leaders understand that the complete defeat is unavoidable, but unconditional surrender does not indicate the destruction of national state [ i.e., the displacement of emperor ], very soon can follow capitulation "
".
So gentlemens, can somebody explan to me:
What are the "millions of Japanes lives save mst. Trumen in august 1945 using A-bomb, if Japan was ready to capitulate in july 1945 ?

[Dani]

Could you give also the source of your quotation?

[Chevan]

Could you give also the source of your quotation?
Please , Dani
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/hiro-a08.shtml

American journalist Josef Kay write:

Figures given after the war about the number of American lives that would have been lost in an invasion were entirely mythical, and were conjured up largely post facto to justify the use of the bombs. This question will not be dealt with in this article, however an analysis can be found in Barton Bernstein’s essay “A Postwar myth: 500,000 US lives saved” in Hiroshima’s Shadow, edited by Kai Bird and Lawrence Lifschultz, The Pamphleteer’s Press, Stony Creek, Connecticut: 1998.

Under the direction of Byrnes, the Potsdam Proclamation—an ultimatum to Japan demanding unconditional surrender—was worded in such a way that the guarantee to the emperor was not given. Moreover the US and Britain decided not to invite the Soviet Union to sign the proclamation. On the one hand, this made it clear that the US and Britain were taking their own route to a Japanese surrender. On the other hand, it made the threat of a Soviet invasion ambiguous, thus sustaining Japanese hopes of an eventual Soviet mediation. This made Japanese rejection of the proclamation a certainty, opening the way for the use of the bomb

Once it had gained control of Japanese airspace, the American military increasingly turned to what can only be described as terrorist methods—indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations for the purpose of spreading fear and panic. Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the most devastating example of these methods was the firebombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945, which killed some 87,000 people . This followed by less than a month the infamous firebombing of the German city of Dresden, on February 13-14, 1945.

There was an interesting exchange, during a discussion between President Harry Truman and Secretary of War Henry Stimson on June 6, 1945 that gives a sense of the manner in which the American government considered the question of the mass annihilation of Japanese civilians.

Stimson records in a memorandum that he raised certain pragmatic concerns with the area bombing of Japanese cities being carried out by the US Air Force: “I told [Truman] I was anxious about this feature of the war for two reasons: first, because I did not want to have the United States get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities; and second, I was a little fearful that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon [the atom bomb] would not have a fair background to show its strength. He laughed and said he understood” [3]. Stimson was concerned that the wanton destruction of Japanese cities would disrupt plans for the use of the atom bomb because there would be no “fair background,” that is, a suitably populated and intact urban center. The conversation also demonstrates that at this point the United States completely dominated Japan militarily, able to destroy its cities virtually at will.

The use of the bomb as a terrorist weapon—that is, as a means of instilling mass terror among the Japanese population—was underscored in a meeting of the Interim Committee on May 31, 1945. The Interim Committee consisted of those directly involved in the Manhattan Project, such as Robert Oppenheimer and other scientists, as well as Truman administration officials, including Secretary of State James Byrnes and Secretary of War Stimson. It was set up to discuss the use of the atomic bomb, propose targets and consider related issues. According to a transcript of that meeting, “After much discussion concerning various types of targets and the effects to be produced, the Secretary [of War Stimson] expressed the conclusion, on which there was general agreement, that we could not give the Japanese any warning; that we could not concentrate on a civilian area; but that we should seek to make a profound psychological impression on as many of the inhabitants as possible. At the suggestion of Dr. [James] Conant, the Secretary agreed that the most desirable target would be a vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers’ houses

the historian Gabriel Jackson remarked, “In the specific circumstances of August 1945, the use of the atom bomb showed that a psychologically very normal and democratically elected chief executive could use the weapon just as the Nazi dictator would have used it. In this way, the United States—for anyone concerned with moral distinctions in the different types of government—blurred the difference between fascism and democracy”

Have you any more questions , mate?

[Zelub]

Them drop it and then USA save alot of life..

And if them dont drop it them will not stop the war. The day after the Japans give up. 14 August the V-J day the Japans give upp. But the them sign on a leter then 1 setemper.

If them did not drop just think what will happend then? The war will keep going alot more days even alot more people will death.

[Firefly]

Them were bad were them?

[Zelub]

Who was bad? USA save lifes.

[Egorka]

Hello guys!

I agree with Chevan, the A-bombs were mainly dropped to impress/scarry USSR.
USA knew that Japan would capitulate if USSR joined the war and yet they did it. Twice!
Since then USA has been the only country in the whole world that actually used the damned thing. Yes, the greatest country in the world, not Saddam (he actually did not have one!).

Hiroshima and Nagasaki served the same purpose as Dresden - to show the might of the A-bomb and long range bombers respectively.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I know americans cracked the japaneese communication code in the very start of the war.
I just mean that they knew about the decission in the Japaneese gov. about the capitulation if USSR joins the war.

Stalin of course had his own agenda. And he of course wanted to get the peice of the cake. But formaly he had obligation to help USA as it was agreed during big 3 meeting.

P.S: By the way, here is another cherry for your brain. Do you know that when the big heads design the A-bomb the were not sure that once started the nuclear reaction of fission would not stop but would spread to the other matter around, i.e. everything: air, earth, ect. So that everything would just disintegrate. Remember that before the test they were not sure about the outcome. And yet they pushed the red button. Just try for a second imaging your self taking a desicion like that. I think those people bear moral grate guilt because when the pressed the red button they actually mentaly were ready pay the ultimate price. But this is OFF topic...

Best regards
Igor Korenev

[PzKpfw VI Tiger]

Hello guys!

I agree with Chevan, the A-bombs were mainly dropped to impress/scarry USSR.


While I do agree with you and Chevan there I also believe that the U.S. used the a-bomb as a means of ending the war faster and saving more of their troops. The other option was an invasion of japan which had projected casualties in the ten thousands and their lowest.

[VonWeyer]

Make that two of us who agree Tiger.

[town3173]

Whether the bombs were dropped to save lives on both sides, to warn the USSR what the US now had in its arsenal or simply to save Allied lives alone is irrelevant.

The US had been attacked by Japan and as far as I am concerned had every right to do whatever it felt necessary to end the war ASAP and on its own terms.

My understanding is that when the bombs were dropped nothing was known about the effect of radiation etc so in affect when the decision was made to use the bomb it was a case of using a single weapon to do the job where previously thousands were required.

As has been mentioned before, history should be judged in the context of its own time and not with the help of hindsight. I believe the fact they were used and the actual effects of this type of weapon discovered helped ensure no other nuclear weapon has been used by anybody since.

[Gen. Sandworm]

My understanding is that when the bombs were dropped nothing was known about the effect of radiation etc so in affect when the decision was made to use the bomb it was a case using a single weapon to do the job where previously thousands were required.


This is a good point. I wouldnt say they didnt know anything about radiation but I dont think radiation and health was well understood. In fact German scientists made thallium (radioactive) toothpaste for home use. :shock:

[Egorka]

to Town3173:
Whether the bombs were dropped to save lives on both sides, to warn the USSR what the US now had in its arsenal or simply to save Allied lives alone is irrelevant.
Well, many many people this it is relevant. And with this logic ones would go to other means: Biological, chemical and flying large airplanes into large buildings. Do you like that?

That is what we are dicussing in here, IMHO. Is it relevant or not.

Regards
Igor

[GermanSoldier]

I voted yes. Because Japan did not surrender after many of warnings. I believe they could have been avoided.

[angform]

I agree with SS Tiger it was a war crime by definition, but the bombs was a path to end the war.

[town3173]

to Town3173:

Well, many many people this it is relevant. And with this logic ones would go to other means: Biological, chemical and flying large airplanes into large buildings. Do you like that?

That is what we are dicussing in here, IMHO. Is it relevant or not.

Regards
Igor

I probably over simplified my point but I believe an aggressor has no right to complain over what treatment it receives once it has decided to attack another Country.

I take the point on some of your suggestions such as biological, chemical weapons but I made it clear my view was based on the US at the time knowing very little about the consequences of radiation on people or its after effects. Simply put they were using one bomb to do the job of thousands. Unfortunately civilians had become fare game during WW11 so America's decision to bomb a whole City was not very radical if you put it into the context of the time.

Rob

[Egorka]

town3173

I do not think that the responsible people were evil as such. But does not most of the terrible crimes happened for name of grater good (measured, of course, by the pepetrator)?

That is the problem for me in this issue, that they bombed on purpose a target that had civil population. They did not want to chose strictly military target ( http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html ). They needed to make big impressive effect on Japanese people (and USSR).

And I am sure other countries would used it too. Stalin said that he hoped that US will find good use for it in the war with Japan. Hitler would used it for sure too.
But it all does not take away the responsibility of each side in particular.

[Chevan]

I probably over simplified my point but I believe an aggressor has no right to complain over what treatment it receives once it has decided to attack another Country.

I take the point on some of your suggestions such as biological, chemical weapons but I made it clear my view was based on the US at the time knowing very little about the consequences of radiation on people or its after effects. Simply put they were using one bomb to do the job of thousands. Unfortunately civilians had become fare game during WW11 so America's decision to bomb a whole City was not very radical if you put it into the context of the time.

Rob
Firstly welcome on the forum Rod.
Here is one problems in your point.
Were the Nazi and Japane war criminals not not very radical if you put it into the context of the time? I think no, becouse Tokio and Nurenberg tribunal hang them independent of the context of the history.
Althought if you watch to the context you would see that the German army had the sharp shortage of foodstuffs and drugs in the last period of war. They simply could'n to feed and to treat the prisoners of the camps. (Moreover the transport system of Germany were fully crushed by the allias strategic bombings).
Thus looking them through the conditions of environment in the total war could you say we need the context of history?

...on the US at the time knowing very little about the consequences of radiation on people or its after effects

this is the aggravating circumstance indeed. Why they tested the a-bomb in the alive peoples although they didn't knew enough about all destructions factors of A-bombing.

But it all does not take away the responsibility of each side in particular.
Exactly Igor.

Cheers.

[redcoat]

Whether the bombs were dropped to save lives on both sides, to warn the USSR what the US now had in its arsenal or simply to save Allied lives alone is irrelevant.


The theory that the bombs were somehow dropped to 'warn off' the Soviet Union first surfaced during the post-war Cold War.
There is however, no real evidence to support this theory, no statements by US politicians or senior military figures, no documents, nothing.... :roll:

[Egorka]

redcoat:

There is however, no real evidence to support this theory, no statements by US politicians or senior military figures, no documents, nothing....
Our deeds speak for themself...

By the way, no one here, IMHO, claims that nukes were used ONLY to impress USSR.

[2nd of foot]

The theory that the bombs were somehow dropped to 'warn off' the Soviet Union first surfaced during the post-war Cold War.
There is however, no real evidence to support this theory, no statements by US politicians or senior military figures, no documents, nothing.... :roll:

In Berlin: The Downfall, 1945 by Antony Beevor he shows that the US at this time was fairly ambivalent to the USSR. This is also reflected in the attitude of the US following the war who were quite happy to return inside their shell. It was not until Churchill made his iron curtain speech that the US took a real interest in what the USSR was doing.

[town3173]

The theory that the bombs were somehow dropped to 'warn off' the Soviet Union first surfaced during the post-war Cold War.
There is however, no real evidence to support this theory, no statements by US politicians or senior military figures, no documents, nothing.... :roll:

Hi Redcoat,

I don't subscribe to the view about warning off the Soviet Union, I only mentioned it to aknowledge it is used & believed by some people as a reason for using the bomb.

Cheers

Rob

[town3173]

Firstly welcome on the forum Rod.
Here is one problems in your point.
Were the Nazi and Japane war criminals not not very radical if you put it into the context of the time? I think no, becouse Tokio and Nurenberg tribunal hang them independent of the context of the history.
Althought if you watch to the context you would see that the German army had the sharp shortage of foodstuffs and drugs in the last period of war. They simply could'n to feed and to treat the prisoners of the camps. (Moreover the transport system of Germany were fully crushed by the allias strategic bombings).
Thus looking them through the conditions of environment in the total war could you say we need the context of history?

this is the aggravating circumstance indeed. Why they tested the a-bomb in the alive peoples although they didn't knew enough about all destructions factors of A-bombing.

Exactly Igor.

Cheers.

Hi Egorka & Chevin,

You should always put things in the context of when they happened and the attitudes prevalent at the time to judge any action by whatever side. I’m not sure what German camps you are referring to but I have no doubt many hardships were a result of the German nations collapse under the pressure of total war. However, Germany had made a business out of working & starving inmates to death as well as genocide in her work & death camps long before she fell on hard times.

It’s very difficult to argue over what is or is not a war crime. The victor will always decide this so the results will always be one sided but I don’t believe any German or Japanese officers were hung for planning bombing campaigns because they involved the killing of civilians.

However, the question here was, Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? My view is that the decision to use them was legitimate based on the knowledge at the time and the wish to save lives and end the war sooner rather than later. The US had already killed over half a million Japanese civilians in what we would now call conventional bombing so I repeat that in the context of the time they were risking a few aircraft & crews to deliver what had previously being done by many hundreds.

As for responsibility! What about that of the Japanese military who set their country on a path to a war they new in the long term they could not win. Not one Japanese civilian would have died under US bombs whether conventional or nuclear had this decision not been made. As the much maligned Bomber Harris once said about Germany “They have sown the wind, now let them reap the whirlwind” Sorry if the quote is not 100% accurate.

If you slap the big lad in the play ground and he turns round & gives you a good hiding you only have your self to blame.

All the best

Rob

[redcoat]

Althought if you watch to the context you would see that the German army had the sharp shortage of foodstuffs and drugs in the last period of war. They simply could'n to feed and to treat the prisoners of the camps. (Moreover the transport system of Germany were fully crushed by the allias strategic bombings).
.
Strategic bombing had nothing to do with the deaths in the camps. The vast majority died in the first two years through deliberate mistreatment by the Nazis, in the later war period when strategic bombing did start becoming effective, the Germans were actually treating their Soviet POW's slightly better, because they had realised that they could be used as slave labour.

The major difference between the Western Allies* and the Axis nations was that the Western Allies never organised a campaign of mass murder against the citizens of any enemy nations who fell into their hands


* Even the Soviet leadership never organised such a campaign, though they did allow their troops to seek vengeance on many citizens of the Axis nations during their advance though them

[Egorka]

I absolutely agree with town3173 on
You should always put things in the context of when they happened and the attitudes prevalent at the time to judge any action by whatever side.

BUT!

The issue is two fold. We live now. And we express our opinion now.

Whereas a certain action might emerge under unexpected angle when looked upon in the appropriate historical context (F.ex. introduction of killing machine Guillotine in France in XVIII century, which allowed easy and timeless execution of many-many people. But non the less it was an attempt to introduce a "humane" killing instrument where the victim's sufferings would be minimised.), it still can easily be described as crime or an atrocity by the members of this forum. That is what I am lacking in here: allowing for the view that the a-bombing was on the limit (or over the limit) of being a war crime.

For me, today, the bombing was an action over the acceptable limit.
Just like it is nowadays officially unacceptable to make carpet bombing of the enemy cities (I am referring to strategic bombing during WW2).

But that is in the relative peace time. If, God forbid, world war happen again, there will be carpet bombing again, no doubts. Because people are capable of terrible things.

So where is someone rapes the other drops nukes and the third uses gas. One might prefer one over the others.
I prefer neither!

.

[Chevan]

.... The vast majority died in the first two years through deliberate mistreatment by the Nazis, in the later war period when strategic bombing did start becoming effective, the Germans were actually treating their Soviet POW's slightly better, because they had realised that they could be used as slave labour.

I can't agree with honoured redcoat.
As could we see for instance in example of Aushwitz which begin to work on whole power since 1943-end 1944.(Exactly when had begin the first strategic a-bombing) As may be you know total official quantity of victins is about 1.2 million. Byt only in 1944 here were killed about 600 000 (i.e. about 50% of all victims)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/89/Selection_Birkenau_ramp.jpg/250px-Selection_Birkenau_ramp.jpg
The hungarian jews selection procedure from Wiki. At least 400 000 hungarian jews were killed JUST for 4 MONTH of 1944.
Analogical situation and in other death camps like Maydanic, Treblinka, Sobibor and ets.
This could be explaned the of beginnig of total war - in this period nazi lost any human face.(according offical Holocaust version).It seems they simply had a fear to have not enough time to kill everybody who muct be killed.
But what's strange when Red Army or Allies liberated the any camps - thay found nothing except about some thousand bodies who were dead from illness or starvation.
So what's the point. Indeed the strategic bombing had the direct influence to the famine of prisoners in the concentrations camps, becouse the crashed transport sistem of Germany was not able to support enought means. And certainly the prisoner -were the first who must feel it on it's skin.

The major difference between the Western Allies* and the Axis nations was that the Western Allies never organised a campaign of mass murder against the citizens of any enemy nations who fell into their hands

So how could you explane that during firebombing of Germany were killed about 600 000 civils + 300 000 civils in firebombing of Japane+ about 150 000 of A-bombing + about 200 000 civils who perished from radiation since 1945-1950) = is over 1.2 million civils were killed ( at least half of them were women and children)?

What was it ? May be humanitarian help? ;)

Cheers.

[redcoat]

.
But what's strange when Red Army or Allies liberated the any camps - thay found nothing except about some thousand bodies who were dead from illness or starvation.

That's because they were death camps, the vast majority of people sent to the camps were killed on the first day they arrived. The Nazis only kept alive those who would be useful as slave labour, and even with these it was the German policy to work them to death, they were only keeping these alive while they served a purpose

[redcoat]

So how could you explane that during firebombing of Germany were killed about 600 000 civils + 300 000 civils in firebombing of Japane+ about 150 000 of A-bombing + about 200 000 civils who perished from radiation since 1945-1950) = is over 1.2 million civils were killed ( at least half of them were women and children)?

What was it ? May be humanitarian help? ;)

Cheers.

Its easy to explain.

None of these people were in Allied hands when they were killed, they were still part of a nation resisting the Allies.

We know that millions of civilians were deliberately killed by the Nazis after their towns and cities had been over-run by the German army

How many civilians were deliberately killed in the cities of Western Germany after these cities had been captured by the Allies ?

[Chevan]

Its easy to explain.

None of these people were in Allied hands when they were killed, they were still part of a nation resisting the Allies.

We know that millions of civilians were deliberately killed by the Nazis after their towns and cities had been over-run by the German army

How many civilians were deliberately killed in the cities of Western Germany after these cities had been captured by the Allies ?
This is true redcoat.
But this is very controvercial question. Becouse the mass killing of civilians was also goal for the bombers. They certainly knew about victims who was inevitable perished. Moreover we have anough memours and recollections where the civilian aim was the central. ( look for instamce to the memours of Artur Harris "Strategic bombing").
Anyway IMHO we coudln't to establish the standarts of humanity by calling that the deliberately killed by the Nazis the civils was a war crime but the "incidental" victims of strategic bombing was not.

Cheers.

[Egorka]

I don't think that strategic bombing and A-bombing was on the same level of "badness" as lets say Holocaust or other German/Japanese cleansing actions.

But it looks to me that you, Redcoat, claim that USA/UK governoment were not capable of a war crime at all.
Do I understand you correctly?

[Chevan]

That's because they were death camps, the vast majority of people sent to the camps were killed on the first day they arrived. The Nazis only kept alive those who would be useful as slave labour, and even with these it was the German policy to work them to death, they were only keeping these alive while they served a purpose
Well i'm agree at all but we have the problem with figures of victims.
As may be you know the total figure of is 6 million. But where were the bodies?
If as it was stated they were burned in the crematorium , but the simple calculation get you the fact to fully burn for instance the one million bodies in Aushwitz you need such crazy quantity of wood or coal that half Germany could heat entire winter.
I think for the country which had a total war it was absolutely unacceptable at least from the purely economic point.

Cheers.

[Gen. Sandworm]

but the simple calculation get you the fact to fully burn for instance the one million bodies in Aushwitz you need such crazy quantity of wood or coal that half Germany could heat entire winter.
I think for the country which had a total war it was absolutely unacceptable at least from the purely economic point.
Cheers.


Where are your calculations???? Would like to see them. Even thou I would argue exact number maybe +or- a million I still believe that number is very close.

Also another good reason for the nazi's to get rid of the Jews (from their perpective) would be that they simply would not have to deal with them. No food water or whatever else. Means more suppliy for those who need it.

[redcoat]

If as it was stated they were burned in the crematorium , but the simple calculation get you the fact to fully burn for instance the one million bodies in Aushwitz you need such crazy quantity of wood or coal that half Germany could heat entire winter.
I think for the country which had a total war it was absolutely unacceptable at least from the purely economic point.

Cheers.
This is one of the usual denier claims going the rounds..

The fact is that the Auschwitz furnaces were designed to run continuously, using the heat energy produced by the burning of previous bodies to keep the oven hot for the next bodies. After they were fired with coke to their proper operating temperature at the beginning of the day, they required little or no extra fuel to operate.

[redcoat]

This is true redcoat.
But this is very controvercial question. Becouse the mass killing of civilians was also goal for the bombers. They certainly knew about victims who was inevitable perished. Moreover we have anough memours and recollections where the civilian aim was the central. ( look for instamce to the memours of Artur Harris "Strategic bombing").
The fact is though, that once these citizens had come under the control of the Western Allies the killing stopped, while with the Nazis, especially in the east, the killing had only just started
Anyway IMHO we coudln't to establish the standarts of humanity by calling that the deliberately killed by the Nazis the civils was a war crime but the "incidental" victims of strategic bombing was not.

Cheers.
Actually, its more a case of you not wanting to accept what legally can be classed as a war crime during WW2.

You seem intent on questioning the numbers killed by the Nazis in the holocaust while attempting to claim that the actions by the Western Allies in the war were in many ways as bad as the Nazis.

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense

[redcoat]

But it looks to me that you, Redcoat, claim that USA/UK governoment were not capable of a war crime at all.
Do I understand you correctly?

Oh, they were perfectly capable of commiting war crimes, its just that in WW2 they didn't wage a war of conquest and genocide, which is exactly the type of war the Nazis fought .
You may wish to consider that the bombings of civilians should have been a war crime, but the fact is, at the time it wasn't.

[Egorka]

Redcaot:

Oh, they were perfectly capable of commiting war crimes, its just that in WW2 they didn't wage a war of conquest and genocide, which is exactly the type of war the Nazis fought .
You may wish to consider that the bombings of civilians should have been a war crime, but the fact is, at the time it wasn't.
Fair enough. I agree.

By the way, I can not be sure, but I do not think that Chevan claims that German and Allied atrocities during the whole war are equal in magnitude (if one may use any calculation for this matter).
I think, his point is that, taking one specific instance (a-bombing or carpet bombing of Dresden, lets say) one can see that Allies were actually as bad or worse.
Not becauseof Germans were bunnies, just because they could not deliver bombs on the same scale as USA/UK).

I my self heard many statements about how terrible the bombing of London was. But there is no comparison between bombardent of UK and Germany.

P.S: Regarding what you say that bombing civilians was not a war crime at the time of war. Again, I am not sure if this is correct as such.
When Germans bombed Guernica in Spain on 26-Apr-1937, they did on purpose bombed urban populated area. Firstly for the terror. Secondly becasue they wanted to study the effect of the mass bombing attack on civil population (Does it remind you anything, by the way?). And as i know this attack had been presented as a crime from the begining.
But I allow for possibility that "war crime" was defined differently in the 1940th. Would be interesting to find out.

[redcoat]

Redcaot:


Fair enough. I agree.

By the way, I can not be sure, but I do not think that Chevan claims that German and Allied atrocities during the whole war are equal in magnitude (if one may use any calculation for this matter).
I think, his point is that, taking one specific instance (a-bombing or carpet bombing of Dresden, lets say) one can see that Allies were actually as bad or worse.
Not becauseof Germans were bunnies, just because they could not deliver bombs on the same scale as USA/UK).
While its true that the Allies bombing campaign was eventually far greater in scale than the German one was, the Allies attempted to avoid fighting a bombing campaign which would target civilian areas at the start of WW2. It was only the attacks by the Luftwaffe on towns and cities during the battle of France, which caused them to abandon this stance





I my self heard many statements about how terrible the bombing of London was. But there is no comparison between bombardent of UK and Germany.
Not in scale but the tactics were the same, . In fact it was the Germans who pioneered the tactic of area bombing and the use of incindiaries to create large scale fires.


P.S: Regarding what you say that bombing civilians was not a war crime at the time of war. Again, I am not sure if this is correct as such.
When Germans bombed Guernica in Spain on 26-Apr-1937, they did on purpose bombed urban populated area. Firstly for the terror. Secondly becasue they wanted to study the effect of the mass bombing attack on civil population (Does it remind you anything, by the way?).
The attack was aimed at a bridge in the center of the town which was on a supply route to the front, the terror and fear the attack caused were just an added bonus as far as the Nazis were concerned





And as i know this attack had been presented as a crime from the begining.
But I allow for possibility that "war crime" was defined differently in the 1940th. Would be interesting to find out.
It may have been 'presented' as a war crime, but legally it wasn't
Until 1947 the law on the bombardment of civilian towns and cities was that it was illegal to bomb any city or town that was undefended or had been declared on 'open city' by its government. Seeing that in WW2 no German town or city was ever declared an 'open city' and that they couldn't be classed as undefended even when they had no flak, due to the fact they had the Luftwaffe theoretically giving them some fighter defence, the bombing of these cities was not a war crime.

[Chevan]

Also another good reason for the nazi's to get rid of the Jews (from their perpective) would be that they simply would not have to deal with them. No food water or whatever else. Means more suppliy for those who need it.

According this point Gen Nazy must used the all prisoners as slave. For the profit of economy and killed just who couldn't work becouse they were of ill. Right?
So what could be the reason for total annihilation of prisoners?

[Chevan]

The fact is that the Auschwitz furnaces were designed to run continuously, using the heat energy produced by the burning of previous bodies to keep the oven hot for the next bodies. After they were fired with coke to their proper operating temperature at the beginning of the day, they required little or no extra fuel to operate.
Wow "continuous burn" its sound seriously.. Look like "reactor".
If you please show me the place of this reactor in the area photo:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f5/May311944_auschwitz.jpg/746px-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp
This is photo from Mosquito.
I think the continuous process means a great scale like the a big blast furnace. I don't think this pocess should be in the furnances like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Majdanek_piece.jpg/300px-
The Majdanek crematorium.

Cheers.

[redcoat]

So what could be the reason for total annihilation of prisoners?
Pure hate.
The Nazi regime fed on hate.

[redcoat]

Wow "continuous burn" its sound seriously.. Look like "reactor".
If you please show me the place of this reactor in the area photo:
Sorry, but I'm not the one with the obsession about questioning the numbers of Jews killed by the Nazis, so I don't know the position of the crematoriums at the camp, though I did once read that they were outside the compound, so they are possibly outside the photo (there is an arrow on the map pointing to an 'execution area' outside the frame of the photo, so it might be near there) ?





I think the continuous process means a great scale like the a big blast furnace. I don't think this pocess should be in the furnances like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Majdanek_piece.jpg/300px-
The Majdanek crematorium.

Cheers.
it is estimated that nearly 80,000 people were murdered at Majdanek, but not all were cremated in the furnaces, a large number were burned in large pyres around the camp.

[Chevan]

Pure hate.
The Nazi regime fed on hate.

Agree. The hate played the importaint role in Nazi Germany.
But here is the contradiction with common sense - you have to lead the total war, so you need to use any possibility for the victory. So why did must killed every body. I can understant the hight death rate of soviet POWS -60%. If they couldn't to work the Germans simply shoted them. But if you wish to live - you get a chance to survive if you will work for the Germans.
That's i can understand.
I know about race theries of Nazy - according them the slav was low race ( like and jews)
But how could be explaned the difference with statistic official of Holocaust and the cruel treatment with slav's slaves?

Cheers.

[Chevan]

Sorry, but I'm not the one with the obsession about questioning the numbers of Jews killed by the Nazis, so I don't know the position of the crematoriums at the camp, though I did once read that they were outside the compound, so they are possibly outside the photo (there is an arrow on the map pointing to an 'execution area' outside the frame of the photo, so it might be near there) ?

it is estimated that nearly 80,000 people were murdered at Majdanek, but not all were cremated in the furnaces, a large number were burned in large pyres around the camp.

No problems, sorry redcoat.
You know early i don't notice to this , but since one times when i read article about Holocaust i found the contradaction with figures. In Soviet Union it was the common situation to overstimated the victims. thus they proved about 4 millions victims of Aushwitz. This is absolute nonsence was the basic fact of soviet propoganda.
Another example- do you hear about "soap from the human bodies". This was also Soviet myth which at first time appeared in Nurenberg tribunal.
Its strange nobody didn't bother this lie.
Don't think i try to revise the Nazy. Those bastards killed one of my grandfather in 1942.

Cheers.

[Kirsten_Lorraine]

didn't we bomb them to end the war one and prove our immense power to russia when soon after the cold war between the us and russia happened

[Croat]

i don't know it maybe saved many lives but it destroyed 2 towns killed too much people and even now that act affects you because of radiation, years after people were dieing because of radiation. there would be less casaulites if the allies atacked japan.japan would have kapitulated because italy,3.reich and other countries did

[savoy6]

Wow "continuous burn" its sound seriously.. Look like "reactor

as for this....the prior posts are quite correct...the first body or bodies through the crematoriums would have heated the ovens to near 760 to 1150 °C (1400 to 2100 °F).the refractory bricks inside of the oven would have held the heat in and then it was a process of just loading more bodies in as each was finished.by doing this the ovens could be kept in constant operation for days at a stretch unitl they began to fill with bone fragments and had to be cleaned out.at those temperatures much of the fluids and soft tissue would quickly vaporize and very little material would be left.usually about roughly 3.5% of the body's original mass (2.5% in children, but these figures vary greatly due to body composition).

[Chevan]

Truman was a very pragmatic person who was usually interested in solving the problem in front of him at the moment..at the time,that was the impending invasion of Japan with an estimated 200,000 US casualties for the intial stages of the invasion.
Yes Trumen was enought pragmatic to send the Stalin sign ( a-bombing of Japane) when he "must to stop" in Asia.

The Japanese had already shown themselves to be willing to fight to the last man ,woman and child at Saipan and Okinawa, and had been quite public about the fact that they would make the Allies pay for every inch of Japanese soil....
There is the great difference between time of bettle for Okinawa andthe battle of august of 1945 when the Japanes had learned the USSR joined the war.
this theme has been discussed already in here
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4209&highlight=Home+Islands
The Japanes certainly know about problems between the USSR and UK/US and they probably hoped at the war conflict between us.
look for instance at Churchills "Operation Unthinkable"
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4151
In this way the Japane should get a chance for surrvival becouse if the USSR tied the allies troops in the Europe the Japane could continie resistence in the Asia.

No, they wouldn't have.....surrendering the country was completely abhorrent to the Japanes culture and mindset.For thousands of years the Japanese had been unconquered in their island home and they would have fought to the death for it....The only reason they did give up was because the Emperor ordered it...
Sorry sir but now we see the tupical american rasism where the japanes are represented as a suicidal idiot who will inevitable die for the Imperor inspate of the war has losed.
In fact they tryed to surrender through the Stalin but its obviously Washington could let them it on political reasons.
I/m sure this point come to the surface in the pitfull attempt to justify the decision of narrow circle of US politics to "execute the Japane"
May be you don't know among peoples who doubt in the military nessisity of this bombing were a lot of USA hight officers.
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[Chevan]

as for this....the prior posts are quite correct...the first body or bodies through the crematoriums would have heated the ovens to near 760 to 1150 °C (1400 to 2100 °F).the refractory bricks inside of the oven would have held the heat in and then it was a process of just loading more bodies in as each was finished.by doing this the ovens could be kept in constant operation for days at a stretch unitl they began to fill with bone fragments and had to be cleaned out.at those temperatures much of the fluids and soft tissue would quickly vaporize and very little material would be left.usually about roughly 3.5% of the body's original mass (2.5% in children, but these figures vary greatly due to body composition).
Well Well mst savoy.
760-1150 C of constant heat without any gas/oil/wood supporting.;)
in the crematorium like that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Majdanek_piece.jpg/300px-
with the sizes of home wood stove.
The new eneggy concept was borned here;)
I think we could decide the energetic problem of the world by the using the "Death bodies-Reactor-" ( with anallogy with "fast-neutron reactor").
It is amazing why this stupid Nazy did not use this free haet for the production of energy in the Germany in 1944-45 when they had a great problems with resources.

[Egorka]

as for this....the prior posts are quite correct...the first body or bodies through the crematoriums would have heated the ovens to near 760 to 1150 °C (1400 to 2100 °F).the refractory bricks inside of the oven would have held the heat in and then it was a process of just loading more bodies in as each was finished.by doing this the ovens could be kept in constant operation for days at a stretch unitl they began to fill with bone fragments and had to be cleaned out.at those temperatures much of the fluids and soft tissue would quickly vaporize and very little material would be left.usually about roughly 3.5% of the body's original mass (2.5% in children, but these figures vary greatly due to body composition).

Do you know the life expectancy of the furnances working in this mode of operation?
Ovens like those were actually much more delicate equipment than most people think. I can not remember completely right now, but the maintenance time was so high that tit approached the operational time.

[savoy6]

Well Well mst savoy.
760-1150 C of constant heat without any gas/oil/wood supporting.;)
in the crematorium like that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Majdanek_piece.jpg/300px-
with the sizes of home wood stove.
The new eneggy concept was borned here;)
I think we could decide the energetic problem of the world by the using the "Death bodies-Reactor-" ( with anallogy with "fast-neutron reactor").
It is amazing why this stupid Nazy did not use this free haet for the production of energy in the Germany in 1944-45 when they had a great problems with resources.

i'm going to chalk this comment up to you not having an understanding of just how hot the the average human body can burn.the "gas/oil/wood supporting" comes from the fat in the bodies..one of the reasons that overweight people take about a 1/3 less time to cremate than thinner people do...secondly,...the ovens in your picture are not "the sizes of home wood stove".. they were large enough to put 2 adults in...the interior of the ovens are done with a heat shielding refractory brick that holds the heat in the oven without transfering it to the outside where it would be wasted.much of the "maintenance" was usually just having to clear the ovens of ash and bone fragments.according to a very elderly friend of my mother who was in aushwitz , due to the emaciated condition of many of the prisoners towards the end of the war, they were loading people 3 at a time into the ovens....4 if they were children.they had to pull out the body racks in the ovens with a metal pole because they were usually red hot...sorry..i'll take the word of someone who was there as opposed to your word since you obviously weren't there and seem hell bent on doing your best to push a neo-nazi, revisionist view of the holocaust...
Sorry sir but now we see the tupical american rasism where the japanes are represented as a suicidal idiot who will inevitable die for the Imperor inspate of the war has losed.


as for the japanese... much of you suppositions about the great influence of the soviets rolling an experienced mechanized army over an ill equipped and poorly organized kuantung army and how they were ready to take over the entire east is...well..suppositional bullshit....the soviets did not have the equipment neccesary for a full scale invasion of japan.also,since you obviously have spent little or no time in japan itself..you would not understand the simple facts of how deep national pride in that country goes.contrary to your opinion, i don't think of the japanese as "suicidal idiots". i don't confuse fanatic nationalism with idiocy.to this day all ,at least all the ones i saw there,of the nation's war memorials only speak of how the west ,and the US in particular,left the japanese no choice but to attack all of asia...also to this day the japanese goverment,unlike the germans, has NEVER apologized for any of the atrocities that its armies commited during the war....NEVER....from forced comfort women,the rape of nanking,the murder of hundreds of thousands of philipinos during the battle for manila,to their live desections of POWs as part of there bio-warfare program,etc.,etc..

this is one of the things that i hate about the internet in the last few years..people can put out the most illogical and under- or un-informed opinions out there and since its on the internet it must be true....it's why i can't stand wikipedia as a source...

[Egorka]

as for the bricks....hmmmmm.. i not able to give you an exact time figure but i know that the crematorium in the mortuary i worked in for a time had been in regular use for almost 50 years with no need to redo the interior bricks.though i don't think the nazis were planning on the "final solution" taking that long...

Ugh, and how many cremations per day were made in those ovens you personaly woked at?
How long time did you spend working there?
What was the maintenance requierments of those ovens?

tomorrow I will answer on Kwantung army... to late... need sleep... getting crazy... want to bite someone... zzzzzzzz

[savoy6]

given that it was a major mortuary in san diego ,ca. that had a contract with the city to handle the bodies of indigent people,it was fairly busy.averaged about 30-40 bodies a week...the ovens had no maintenance other than the propane burners getting clogged with ash sometimes.nothing funner than having to sift through the crap at the bottom to get to the burner elements..not....

[Egorka]

given that it was a major mortuary in san diego ,ca. that had a contract with the city to handle the bodies of indigent people,it was fairly busy.averaged about 30-40 bodies a week...the ovens had no maintenance other than the propane burners getting clogged with ash sometimes.nothing funner than having to sift through the crap at the bottom to get to the burner elements..not....

Yes, and you spent there working for how many years?

30-40 a week ... and you suggest we compare that to ovens we are discussing in here, right?

[Egorka]

savoy6
maybe not, but what is coming through seems to be a belief that the A-bombs were dropped more to impress the soviets than to hasten the end of the war.also ,from both of you guys statements you seem to be of the opinion that the US spent the last year of the war doing more to get set to fight the russians that it was to invade japan.public opinion in america after the nazi surrender was of a "let's beat these japs by any means neccesary and get our boys home" variety.

Yes, i think that the A-bombs were dropped for 2 reasons: shorten war and show USSR what US can do. Both were equaly important. But the second one had actually higher long term effect and therefor can be valued a bit higher.

Remember that the nucks did not change the outcome of the war (neither did the soviet attack). They just hastened it. Japan was defeated already. Roughly 95% by the USA and UK, and 5% by USSR. USA and USSR would have suffocated Japan in a blocade if the war continued. But I understand that no one wanted to wait with such gadgets in the pocket.

Remember that USSR and USA/UK have been rival during the whole war. It is common danger that brought them together. The less dange was becoming the more competition between Allies appeared. It is even true in the USA-UK relationship, let alone USSR affairs!

So in August 1945 they were thinking already about the future. Truman wanted to get out of the Yalta agrement and did not want to follow them, but it was generals who said that USA needs USSR and there would not be benefit to start the confrontation before Japan's capitulation. The cald war did not start from one day to another, you know.


for the planners who were looking at such huge losses for an invasion the A-bomb was a stand off godsend.you have to remember that very few people knew about the manhattan project even after the first test bomb was set off.many of the PTO planners didn't even know there was such an item until right before it was dropped.
Ordinary planner did not know. But there were number of people responsible for the war waging who did. If you know how a big company functions you understand.

The "get our bouys back" thing is for the public. The goverment makes descision based on also many other grounds.

[Rising Sun*]

A good summary of the practicalities facing an Allied, being primarily a US, invasion of Japan and considerations relating to use of the atom bombs is here.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm

[tankgeezer]

When Truman decided enough was enough, and it was determined that despite the state of the home islands of Japan, there was still a viable threat.( Later discovered to be far more than was originally expected,) the decision was made to deploy the Bombs. Very few Americans feel guilty about it, I for one do not, It was needed at the time to end the war, without any additional loss of allied life. no amount of chin scratching, or logical obfuscation can convince me, or most every other American that it was not the correct decision to make.
Had Germany not surrendered when it did, there would have been additional missions. - Raspenau -

[cam77]

Whilst I do agree that dropping the bomb ended the war earlier and did save lives of western soldiers. I believe WWII blurred the lines and transformed a previously highly moral country (USA) into child murdering mongrels.

The allies really caught up in the war crimes stakes in 1945 and honestly their commanders should have been tried along with the Nazi's and Japanese after the war.

Who is worse the people who systematically killed millions of Jews or those who knowingly vaporised two entire cities full of innocent women and children.

Both are disgusting and low acts for civilized nations to undertake.

Shame on all of us.

[Gen. Sandworm]

The allies really caught up in the war crimes stakes in 1945 and honestly their commanders should have been tried along with the Nazi's and Japanese after the war.

Who is worse the people who systematically killed millions of Jews or those who knowingly vaporised two entire cities full of innocent women and children.

Both are disgusting and low acts for civilized nations to undertake.

Shame on all of us.

1. Man is not civilized. Most today really arent that much different from ancient Romans for instance. I wish we were but ......... we just arent.

2. Once again "History is always written by the victors" Yes your right many ppl should have been next to the Nazi's and Japs at war crime trails.

3. Im sure ill get flak on the comment but if the tables had been changed im sure the russians would have used the bomb to end the war. Dont think that many ppl from the time would disagree with this comment. "Dont like getting bombed........stop starting wars then a**hole!"

4. Personally I think it was the perfect way to end one of the nastiest wars in human history. To me its a symbol of what we have to look forward to if we dont change our stance on war. Its good that most of the leaders of ww2 are dead coz they held a much different outlook on war. Just look how close we came to a nuclear holocaust during the Cuban missle crisis. Both countries (US and USSR) had the old war pigs earging on the conflict. Thankfullly cooler heads prevailed. (Im sure ill get some flak on this one too)

[tankgeezer]

Whilst I do agree that dropping the bomb ended the war earlier and did save lives of western soldiers. I believe WWII blurred the lines and transformed a previously highly moral country (USA) into child murdering mongrels.

The allies really caught up in the war crimes stakes in 1945 and honestly their commanders should have been tried along with the Nazi's and Japanese after the war.

Who is worse the people who systematically killed millions of Jews or those who knowingly vaporised two entire cities full of innocent women and children.

Both are disgusting and low acts for civilized nations to undertake.

Shame on all of us.

You are entitled to your opinion,and to speak as you feel you must. That is one of the reasons we fought the war. as far as guilt, or shame go, you may keep all of that for yourself if you wish. There will be no apologies from America over this, The Axis attempted to rape the world, and the Allies stopped them. America is clean, and free of delusions concerning the Nuclear deployment against Japan. Later, The Chinese, and N. Korean Gov'ts knew when enough was enough, they listened, and the world was better for it.
- Raspenau -

[alephh]

Since Japanese had lost most of their tankers and other supply-vessels they could not supply their military bases and economy...

So wouldn't Japan have fallen anyways - without atomic bombs? Just by waiting.

And since there were already quite a strong peace movement inside Japanese goverment, surrendering wouldn't have been that long step to take.


_

[Rising Sun*]

Since Japanese had lost most of their tankers and other supply-vessels they could not supply their military bases and economy...

So wouldn't Japan have fallen anyways - without atomic bombs? Just by waiting.

What would be worse?

Starving just about all the Japanese to death, or nearly to death (they couldn't supply all their needs) over a number of years, or dropping the atom bombs and killing a tiny proportion of their population?

[alephh]

What would be worse?

Starving just about all the Japanese to death, or nearly to death (they couldn't supply all their needs) over a number of years, or dropping the atom bombs and killing a tiny proportion of their population?

Well, supply-troubles worked very well in WW1 Germany, and couple of germans even survived. ;-)

As people get more and more dissatisfied the power of opposition leaders/groups grows greatly. And in 1945 half the japanese cabinet was already pro-peace.

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 Dec 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 Nov 1945, 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."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey




_

[Chevan]

Well, supply-troubles worked very well in WW1 Germany, and couple of germans even survived. ;-)

As people get more and more dissatisfied the power of opposition leaders/groups grows greatly. And in 1945 half the japanese cabinet was already pro-peace.

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 Dec 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 Nov 1945, 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."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey

_

I/m totally agree with alephh

[Rising Sun*]

I/m totally agree with alephh

So, what was going to happen between early August 1945 and 31 December 1945 that would drive Japan, without an invasion, atom bomb, or Russian attack, to decide that it would suddenly accept unconditional surrender?

Particularly when the whole posture of the nation as exemplified by its leadership was disposed to fighting to the last man.

[savoy6]

as an aside....here's just how sorry the japanese are about things they did during the war.....

Japan Rules Against War Claims
Published: 5/10/07, 6:46 AM EDT
By HIROKO TABUCHI
TOKYO (AP) - Japan's Supreme Court rejected compensation claims by Chinese victims of atrocities committed by Japan in the 1930s and 40s, which included the use of biological weapons and a massacre in the city of Nanjing, defense lawyers said Thursday.

In two separate decisions made Wednesday, the top court upheld rulings by lower courts since 1999 that the current Japanese government was not liable for compensation demands from foreign citizens for wartime actions, according to defense lawyer Norio Minami.

The plaintiffs from the two cases, who totaled 198 people including the families of the victims, had demanded apologies and combined compensation worth $15.8 million for death and suffering caused by wartime biological experiments, the so-called "Rape of Nanjing," and the firebombing of Yong'an city in China's Fujian province.

"These are unjust decisions that ignore the human rights and personal suffering of the defendants," Minami said. "The Supreme Court has completely neglected its responsibility to uphold justice."

Of the 180 plaintiffs involved in one of the cases, which sought compensation for biological warfare experiments, only 10 are actual survivors, the rest are relatives, lawyer Shuji Motonaga said. The remaining 18 plaintiffs sought payback for germ warfare, the Nanjing occupation and the bombing of Yong'an, said Masahiko Yamada, one of that group's attorneys.

The court refused to provide details of Wednesday's decisions.

But despite Wednesday's rejection, a lower court ruling in 1999 acknowledged that a special section within the Imperial Army, known as Unit 731, used biological weapons against China.

The Japanese government has never formally apologized over its germ warfare program or its rampage in Nanjing. The government acknowledged a germ warfare unit existed, but has remained mum on its details.

Historians estimate that Unit 731 may have killed as many as 250,000 people in their experiments - which included vivisections of Chinese prisoners and the use of germs - during the 1930s and '40s, when Japanese troops occupied much of China.

Researchers generally agree Japan's military also slaughtered at least 150,000 civilians and raped tens of thousands of women during its 1937-38 occupation of Nanjing. The Chinese government puts the number of dead at more than 300,000.

According to defense lawyers, Japan's bombings of Yong'an killed or injured more than 10,000 people in 11 raids from 1938 to 1943.

Tokyo's stand has long been that compensation claims were settled under postwar treaties between Japan and other nations. None of Unit 731's members has ever been tried for the killings.

Japan's refusal to compensate victims has fueled views among many Chinese that Tokyo has never sufficiently atoned for its brutal occupation.

[tankgeezer]

Since Japanese had lost most of their tankers and other supply-vessels they could not supply their military bases and economy...

So wouldn't Japan have fallen anyways - without atomic bombs? Just by waiting.

And since there were already quite a strong peace movement inside Japanese goverment, surrendering wouldn't have been that long step to take.


_

When The Home islands were finally occupied by the Allies, they discovered a huge cache of stored aircraft, vehicles, weapons munitions, and all of the supporting supplies needed to contest a land invasion. I dont know the Japanese word for them, but the Germans called them "Werewolf redoubts" .The government of Japan was capable of inflicting very large numbers of casualties upon the invading Allies. The Allies, had no intention of accepting even one more casualty at the hands of the Japanese, and remembering the murder of thousands of military, and civilian personel at pearl Harbor, (yes, it was murder, as no Declaration of War had been served, and no state of war existed.) There was little compassion to be found for Japan.The Americans possessed the means to end it with out risking any Allied troops, or expending huge amounts of treasure.
Sorry guys, but no one can sell me on "War Crime" sophistry, or any of the other political fantasies that have been assigned to this event. I will not second guess the decisions made, or those who had to make them.

[royal744]

This is a good point. I wouldnt say they didnt know anything about radiation but I dont think radiation and health was well understood. In fact German scientists made thallium (radioactive) toothpaste for home use. :shock:

True, there was massive ignorance regarding the effects of radiation. There was a whole industry in the US, probably well before the war, of people painting luminous paint on watch "hands". Most of these people developed radiation related cancers by the late 40s or early 50s. I recall seeing an article in Life Magazine about it.

Also, during the 50s, the US military conducted tests in the desert with nuclear artillery shells and exposed hundreds, perhaps thousands of troops by making them stand around in the desert, away from the blast, but close enough to get a dose. What we didn't know then....

[royal744]

Who is worse the people who systematically killed millions of Jews or those who knowingly vaporised two entire cities full of innocent women and children.

Both are disgusting and low acts for civilized nations to undertake.

Shame on all of us.

You're undoubtedly right cam77 - shame on all of us. But consider the simplest fact of all: if Japan had never attacked us, none of this would have happened.

I think any military commander faced with the prospect of multiple landings on multiple beaches against an enemy that is more than willing to die for the greater glory of the homeland, the emperor and his own people, and estimates - however flawed they may be - of a million casualties, that military commander would drop the bombs. It's a very simple equation - no casualties among your own soldiers versus a million.

Be honest, cam77, which would you choose? It's so easy to make these moral judgments in hindsight.

[Rising Sun*]

True, there was massive ignorance regarding the effects of radiation. There was a whole industry in the US, probably well before the war, of people painting luminous paint on watch "hands". Most of these people developed radiation related cancers by the late 40s or early 50s. I recall seeing an article in Life Magazine about it.

Also, during the 50s, the US military conducted tests in the desert with nuclear artillery shells and exposed hundreds, perhaps thousands of troops by making them stand around in the desert, away from the blast, but close enough to get a dose. What we didn't know then....

Not to mention the shoe-fitting X-Ray, which I couldn't get enough of as a kid in the '50's. Unfortunately the shoe salesmen got too much of it.

http://www.orau.org/PTP/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm

[royal744]

So, what was going to happen between early August 1945 and 31 December 1945 that would drive Japan, without an invasion, atom bomb, or Russian attack, to decide that it would suddenly accept unconditional surrender?

Particularly when the whole posture of the nation as exemplified by its leadership was disposed to fighting to the last man.

This is interesting ex-post-facto speculation but really completely beside the point. No one at the time had 20-20 foresight and it may have been wrong in any event. What I do know for certain is that if Japan had surrendered at the time that Germany surrendered, no atomic bomb would have been dropped on it.

[Croat]

how can i choose a diferent rank i want a german rank?

[Gen. Sandworm]

how can i choose a diferent rank i want a german rank?

visit the FAQ.............link at the top 2nd from left

[Chevan]

So, what was going to happen between early August 1945 and 31 December 1945 that would drive Japan, without an invasion, atom bomb, or Russian attack, to decide that it would suddenly accept unconditional surrender?

You know what was going to happen - the fulll sea and air blocade of Japane islands by the US army ,USAAF and NAVY.
And i/m sure the befor the inevitable famine has bagan in islands the japanes ( being the not stupid nation ) themself throw dowm the military clique and the imperror would force to sign the peace.
This war could be stoped even early ( and without the cruel bombing) if the allies refused its famouse the UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER note in the Potsdam conference.

Particularly when the whole posture of the nation as exemplified by its leadership was disposed to fighting to the last man.
This leadership was not agains the surrender in the jule of 1945. All what they need to save the institute of japane Monarhy i.e. post of Imperor.
Thay even could admit the war crime trial above the japanes high officers (but most of them killed themself right after the capitulation)
But for allies it was unacceptable. Do you accidentally know why;)?
It seem the British monarhy do not bother the democraty in the England:)

[Rising Sun*]

You know what was going to happen - the fulll sea and air blocade of Japane islands by the US army ,USAAF and NAVY.
And i/m sure the befor the inevitable famine has bagan in islands the japanes ( being the not stupid nation ) themself throw dowm the military clique and the imperror would force to sign the peace.

I can’t see that happening. The militarists had enough people and arms to resist a popular uprising, as they had had since they established before the war what was effectively a military junta to replace the civilian government.

The militarists would probably have let the masses starve as long as they stayed in a position to influence events, just like Hitler and his mates let the German people starve and suffer and let Germany be destroyed around them, rather than surrender. I don't know how that would have played out with the civilian government actually in power, but still at risk of being displaced again by the military, in the last months of the war.

If the Emperor decided independently to surrender (which in a sense he ultimately did, anyway) then surrender might have happened as it was likely that the armed forces would follow his orders, as they had during a murderous rampage by ultra-nationalist troops in Tokyo in 1936. Then again, junior army officers tried to stage a coup and invaded the Imperial Palace after the Emperor announced the surrender, although apparently in the belief that the Emperor had been deceived by his advisers into surrendering.

This war could be stoped even early ( and without the cruel bombing) if the allies refused its famouse the UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER note in the Potsdam conference.

It could have been stopped immediately after Potsdam if the Japanese accepted unconditional surrender, but they were trying to negotiate terms when they weren’t in a position to do so. The sticking point was leaving the Emperor alone, which the Allies eventually agreed to do. I don’t think they should have agreed to this from a war crimes viewpoint because the Emperor knew what was going on, and approved all the most important decisions, and was up to his ears in the war from approving it in July 1941. From a post-war and occupation viewpoint it was probably a better idea to leave him there to maintain as much unity and stability as possible in Japanese society. MacArthur deserves most of the credit for his deft handling of the Emperor and his position during the Occupation, which avoided a lot of problems which could have occurred.

I don’t have the slightest problem with requiring unconditional surrender, in the sense that Japan didn’t get to negotiate terms but just laid down its arms; abandoned all conquered territory; and accepted occupation. Here is what Tojo said in a speech to the Diet in January 1942 about my country.

“As regards the Netherlands East Indies and Australia, if they continue as at present their attitude of resisting Japan, we will show no mercy in crushing them.”.

We know what 'crushing them' meant in practice after Japan occupied the NEI. Murder, torture, rape, sexual slavery for captured women, starvation, and general brutality and inhumanity towards all Europeans.

The Allies were much kinder to the Japanese after they surrendered than the Japanese were to the people in any country they conquered, and than they would have been to my people if they had occupied Australia.

Japan didn’t surrender because the Japanese wanted to preserve their Emperor, and I suspect because he wanted to preserve himself. Japan clearly didn’t want peace at any cost. If it had, it wouldn’t have got bombed, conventionally or atomically, after Potsdam because it would have surrendered. The bombing was a consequence of Japanese intransigence, not Allied brutality or inhumanity or unreasonableness.

This can be turned around by saying that it was the Allies’ fault for not conceding preservation of the Emperor’s position earlier. I don’t think so. Why should the dominant party concede anything? Japan never did when it was in the same position. It just took everything it wanted by force. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

This leadership was not agains the surrender in the jule of 1945. All what they need to save the institute of japane Monarhy i.e. post of Imperor.
But for allies it was unacceptable. Do you accidentally know why;)?

It was an article of faith with the American people after Pearl Harbor, although precisely what it meant wasn’t clear and shifted in the minds of different people at different times, as explained here http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Pearlman/pearlman.asp

It seem the British monarhy do not bother the democraty in the England:)

It’s a constitutional monarchy with the monarch having little real direct power, and the entitlement to remain in power only as long as he or she doesn’t use it to interfere too much with the democratically elected government.

The British King or Queen (used to be an Emperor as well until WWII finished off the British Empire) can’t be compared with the Japanese Emperor who was a god (until WWII put an end to that). The British monarch was only head of the Church of England, and answerable to the Christian god. Not all that important, really. :D

[tankgeezer]

One might ask the survivors of Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima ( just to pick a few,)what they think about the idea of The deployment being a disgusting and low act, or that America turned into murdering baby killers, or maybe you could bring it up to the next of kin to those who didnt survive....
- Raspenau -

[Rising Sun*]

One might ask the survivors of Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima ( just to pick a few,)what they think about the idea of The deployment being a disgusting and low act, or that America turned into murdering baby killers, or maybe you could bring it up to the next of kin to those who didnt survive....
- Raspenau -

Building on that theme, only 6 men - all Australians - survived out of 2,400 men (1,650 Australian and 750 British) from the Sandakan POW camp in Borneo, and then only because they escaped on a death march in 1945 intended to get rid of the evidence of mistreatment.

In Japan in the last months of the war, the Japanese caved in mines in Japan killing hundreds of Allied POWs working as slave labourers, again to get rid of the evidence of mistreatment.

Early in 1942, 21 Australian nurses were herded into the sea at Banka island and murdered by the Japanese (one survived), while at least one other was, on Japanese records, being raped by the Japanese around the same date. There is no record of what happened to her afterwards, but it's not hard to guess.

There were countless other similar incidents, along with the institutionalised brutality and depravity of the Japanese in most POW camps towards tens of thousands of prisoners.

Does a nation which carried out such acts deserve gentle consideration about how to prosecute the war when it has the opportunity to surrender but chooses not to?

Not as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sorry for the people who suffered in the bombings, conventional and nuclear, if they weren't part of Japan's evils, but apart from that Japan deserved what it got. And more.

[32Bravo]

Personally, I believe that when one discusses the pros and cons of these historical decissions, one should do it from the knowledge and perspective of the time. Put one's self in the shoes of the decision-makers. They would have had to consider many of the points already made, some of them they would not have been aware of without the wisdom of hindsight.

I also believe that unless one wants one's deeds to come back and kick one in the butt, then the decision has to be the lesser of the weavels presented.

Did the dropping of the bombs slaughter thousands of innocent Japanese? - Of course it did!

Did this action prevent greater numbers of deaths of innocent Japanese? - Of course it did!

[Rising Sun*]

Personally, I believe that when one discusses the pros and cons of these historical decissions, one should do it from the knowledge and perspective of the time. Put one's self in the shoes of the decision-makers. They would have had to consider many of the points already made, some of them they would not have been aware of without the wisdom of hindsight.

Exactly.

One can analyse events from what was known at the time and or from what was known subsequently.

One can judge the 'rightness' of past actions only from the knowledge which the actors had at the time.

Bad historical judgments occur when people confuse what was known by the actors at the time with what is known subsequently.

A brilliant example of confusing past and present knowledge to produce outstandingly bad, indeed ridiculous, historical judgments comes from the Principal Historian at the Australian War memorial in a tenuous paper, which includes gems such as this about the Australian Prime Minister, John Curtin believing that Australia was still at risk of invasion during all of 1942:

What explains Curtin’s anxiety? Australian and Allied leaders in Australia
knew of the Japanese decision not to invade within a month of the debates
between staff officers in Tokyo in March 1942. In early April “Magic”
intercepts reached Australia which confirmed that no invasion was
contemplated. An actual danger of invasion had never existed and the
likelihood diminished through 1942 as Allied victories eroded Japan’s
offensive capability. Curtin was told as much by London and Washington,
and MacArthur, Curtin’s principal strategic adviser, consistently advised that
it was improbable. Why did Curtin continue to bang the invasion drum? http://www.awm.gov.au/events/conference/2002/stanley_paper.pdf p.8

How was Curtin to know whether or not the Magic intercept was accurate, or even enemy disinformation?

All the evidence from 7 December 1941 to April 1942, including Japan's repeated demands for Australia's surrender and its steady advance towards Australia, was that it intended to invade.

All the evidence in the second half of 1942, from the Battle of the Coral Sea to the advance over Kokoda and the rest of the Papuan campaign to the Guadalcanal campaign, was that Japan was aiming to invade Australia.

We know now that that was not the case.

Nonethless, the Principal Historian at the AWM maintains that Curtin should have relied upon an isolated Magic intercept and assurances from others that Japan wasn't going to invade when everything he could see at the time screamed exactly the opposite.

Coming back to Japan's surrender, we know now that Japan was putting out peace feelers for a few months before it caved in, and that America was intercepting Japanese coded traffic that confirmed it was inclined to look for a negotiated peace. So? In October-December 1941 Japan was, apparently, negotiating with America to avoid a war despite having decided in July 1941 to go to war if it couldn't get what it wanted by negotiation. It then launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Malaya, the Philippines etc. Why would anyone with that recent knowledge put any trust in Japan's purported attempts to negotiate peace while it refused to adopt the simple course of accepting unconditional surrender?

Why would anyone who had experience of Japan's ferocious defence on the islands nearing Japan infer anything other than that it would get worse rather than better the nearer they got to the Japanese heartland?

People can only act on what they know at the time, even if it might cause a tragedy which could have been avoided if they had been fully aware of all relevant factors.

There was no reason on what was known at the time not to drop the atomic bombs. On what was known at the time, there was every reason to drop them.

[Egorka]

One might ask the survivors of Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima ( just to pick a few,)what they think about the idea of The deployment being a disgusting and low act, or that America turned into murdering baby killers, or maybe you could bring it up to the next of kin to those who didnt survive....
- Raspenau -

Exactly! That is why when a court takes place they make sure that the Judge is neutral person, and not related to the given case in any way.

I hope my point is clear? ;)

[Egorka]

How was Curtin to know whether or not the Magic intercept was accurate, or even enemy disinformation?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Americans cracked the Japanese code even BEFORE Pearl Harbour. That is why the "Magic" intercepts came.

[Rising Sun*]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Americans cracked the Japanese code even BEFORE Pearl Harbour. That is why the "Magic" intercepts came.

Yes, they were reading the Japanese diplomatic code as events unfolded before Pearl Harbour.

My point in relation to Curtin was that while the Americans could read the code, it didn't follow that what was being transmitted was an accurate representation of Japanese intentions. There was always the risk that one side realised the other side had broken its code and was transmitting intentionally deceptive messages.

[royal744]

4. Personally I think it was the perfect way to end one of the nastiest wars in human history. To me its a symbol of what we have to look forward to if we dont change our stance on war. Its good that most of the leaders of ww2 are dead coz they held a much different outlook on war. Just look how close we came to a nuclear holocaust during the Cuban missle crisis. Both countries (US and USSR) had the old war pigs earging on the conflict. Thankfullly cooler heads prevailed. (Im sure ill get some flak on this one too)


You'll get no flak from me on that.

[royal744]

Yes, they were reading the Japanese diplomatic code as events unfolded before Pearl Harbour.

My point in relation to Curtin was that while the Americans could read the code, it didn't follow that what was being transmitted was an accurate representation of Japanese intentions. There was always the risk that one side realised the other side had broken its code and was transmitting intentionally deceptive messages.

There were many Japanese codes, so it depends which one you're talking about. Apparently the diplomatic code was well and truly borken and the Imperial Japanese Navy's codes were not all or fully broken. Thus it became necessary to send out fake messages from places like Midway in order to ferret out what the Japanese designation for the island was, thus permitting, only 6 months after the war began, the US to inflict a mortal wound on the Japanese. Even the Germans could never bring themselves to believe that their precious Enigma machine was being duplicated at Bletchley Park by the Turing Engine (computer).

[Rising Sun*]

There were many Japanese codes, so it depends which one you're talking about. Apparently the diplomatic code was well and truly borken and the Imperial Japanese Navy's codes were not all or fully broken. Thus it became necessary to send out fake messages from places like Midway in order to ferret out what the Japanese designation for the island was, thus permitting, only 6 months after the war began, the US to inflict a mortal wound on the Japanese. Even the Germans could never bring themselves to believe that their precious Enigma machine was being duplicated at Bletchley Park by the Turing Engine (computer).

The code in this (Curtin's) case was the Japanese diplomatic code, known as PURPLE.

You're right about the IJN codes.

America and the Allies were lucky that the IJN didn't change its codes after the post-Midway publicity about how it had broken the code.

For those who don't know the story.

The classic blunder of inadvertence making the case for censorship occurred in 1942 when the Chicago Tribune reported the Battle of Midway in a way that could have prolonged the war with Japan. The story has been much garbled over 50 years, so it is worth setting the record right, with acknowledgements to the interviews by Richard Norton Smith for his 1997 biography of Tribune publisher Robert McCormick ("The Colonel"). One of the closest kept secrets of World War II was that the U.S. Navy had broken much of the Japanese naval code. It was foreknowledge of the Japanese fleet movements that enabled Adm. Chester Nimitz to ignore a feint and concentrate his carriers near Midway to win a decisive victory.

No American correspondents were at Midway, but a colorful Tribune reporter, Stanley Johnston, was with the carrier Lexington when it was sunk in the preceding Battle of the Coral Sea. Johnston was a giant Australian, a champion sculler and a World War I hero. He had been recommended for a Victoria Cross for his valor at Gallipoli and in France. When the Lexington was hit, he made heroic efforts to rescue badly burned sailors from the ship's hold. He was very popular when transferred to another ship for transport back to the United States, and spent much of the time in the quarters occupied by the Lexington's executive officer, Cmdr. Mort Seligman.

Johnston, writing his account of Coral Sea while in Seligman's cabin, noticed a blue-lined paper that had the names of Japanese warships in an order of battle. He copied the list and later took this "dope" with him into the Tribune offices. His editor, Pat Maloney, was interested mainly in the Coral Sea account, but he accepted a sidebar on the Japanese order of battle at Midway, which Johnston hurriedly wrote. Johnston wouldn't reveal his source, but assured Maloney he had checked the list against the authoritative reference, "Jane's Fighting Ships." Maloney rewrote the first two "muddy" paragraphs, then wrote a headline that was not justified by Johnston's text:

NAVY HAD WORD OF JAP PLAN TO STRIKE AT SEA

Maloney did not clear the story with censors, convincing himself that there was nothing in the guidelines to suppress news about the movement of hostile ships. And then, to protect Johnston's real source, Maloney attributed the story to "reliable sources in naval intelligence" and put on it a fake Washington, D.C., dateline.

The Navy was appalled. The Japanese had only to read the Tribune to realize that such knowledge could only mean that their codes had been compromised. President Franklin D. Roosevelt — a bitter enemy of McCormick — initially was disposed toward sending Marines in to shut down Tribune Tower. He was talked out of that, then considered trying McCormick for treason, which carried a death penalty in wartime. It ended up with the attorney general taking the Tribune men to a grand jury. But there was no cooperation from the Navy, which rightly was concerned that a trial would mean disclosing the code-breaking. The grand jury refused to indict. The Japanese missed the Tribune blunder — as they also missed the false charge by columnist and broadcaster Walter Winchell that the Tribune knowingly had based its story on a decoded Japanese message.
http://www.newseum.org/warstories/essay/secrecy.htm

The failure by Japan to note the Tribune article suggests that the Japanese spy network wasn't operating too widely in the US during the war. If they had been aware of it the code would have been changed and, among other things, Admiral Yamamoto wouldn't have been shot down.

The IJN code that was broken was JN-25, which was the main general code but just one of a number of IJN codes.

As far as I'm aware the IJA codes were not broken during the war, but Australian troops captured code books in New Guinea early in 1944 that allowed the Allies to read IJA code for a few months until the codes were altered.

[Rising Sun*]

Exactly! That is why when a court takes place they make sure that the Judge is neutral person, and not related to the given case in any way.

I hope my point is clear? ;)

Trials happen only after a war, no matter how fair or unfair the trials may be.

During a war decisions are made by each side according to their own partial assessments and aims.

Wars might be conducted very differently if there were umpires on the field with power to suspend players. But, given that umpires would stand in the way of what nations want to do, the umpires would be the first target. Not unlike the UN post taken out by the Israelis in last year's war in Lebanon.

[Cojimar 1945]

Does anyone know why the unconditional surrender of North Korea was not insisted upon in the Korean war?

[Dutch Knight]

I beliave that the the bomb was necessary to end the war. My mothers family experienced many hardships under jappanies occupation in the dutch east Indies.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Just to add to my point they should have been dropped!

1. It was nothing that the allied forces could not have done anyway with incendiary bombs or other types of bombing. Would have taken longer. With all of the Allied bombers being redeployed to the Pacific it would have made things go quicker. Look up the figures of Allied bombing before the bombs.

2. It wasnt anything that the Japanese werent already used to......just on a quicker scale. Again the destruction caused by these 2 bombs were much less than previous bombing.

3. The only difference besides the power of one blast was the fallout. Which in retrospect.......Chernobyl was far worse (WRT radiation release) than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_compared_to_other_radioactivity_releases #Chernobyl_compared_to_Hiroshima

4. I will admit that it was somewhat political decision but with the above factors it was a win-win situation for the US. As I said before the USSR or any other nation for that matter would have done the same thing.

Edited to add: If you consider bombing Japan a war crime then yes the nukes were as well!

[Chevan]

2. It wasnt anything that the Japanese werent already used to......just on a quicker scale. Again the destruction caused by these 2 bombs were much less than previous bombing.

That's right Gen the initual effect of a-bombing was much less then for instance the firebombing of Tokio in march of 1945 - then at least died much more peoples for the first day.
So this is only proves the point the japanes indeed do not considered a-bombing as the really worstest thing ( i.e they do not think they need to capitulate to prevent it). If they calmly suffer the firebombing - they will suffer the a-bombing.
Thus the reason of the capitulation was the pure hopeless war situation for the Japane in august of 1945 after the USSR joining to the war.
The some historical documents and memours of Japanes tells as the Japane intelligence was waiting the soviet attack in Manchjuria no early then the sunner of 1946 i/e/ they hoped they will have at least one year for the defence of home islands.
For this long time they hope the relations of USSR and UK/US could reach the critical point and the war should began. in this case the Japane get the chance to survive in coalition with the USSR coz the inevitable attack of Western Europe by the Red Army would force the USA send a most of allies troop to the European front.
they were "unpleasant wondered" when the in 8 august of 1945 the soviets declared the war.

3. The only difference besides the power of one blast was the fallout. Which in retrospect.......Chernobyl was far worse (WRT radiation release) than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Example:

That right the radiation fallout of Chernobyl was much worst.
But...Chernobyl was an accident - the Hirosima was a planned attack.
See the difference.
True , in the 1945 the scientists knew a nothing about danger of radiation - but in this way Why they USA politics had sanctioned the testing of a-bomb in alive peoples - even if they were an enemy people.
We know about disgusting japanes experiences of vivisections of alive peoples - but could we ignore the fact thet the WHOLE two Japanes cities were the GIANT TESTING laboratory for the USA politicans and crasy scientists who wish to check the effect on alive peoples?
What do you think about the japanes feels of the tragedy of Hiroshima- could they request the forgiveness for the "world" for own war crimes - if the "world" justify the own "a-bombing ladoratory experiments" above a handrets thousands of japanes as for the "saving of lives of american soldiers and japanes civilians".
This is a criuel insolent cynicism - nothing more.
And Japanes are not so stupid to ignore this relation - therefore we will never hear the apologies from them.

4. I will admit that it was somewhat political decision but with the above factors it was a win-win situation for the US. As I said before the USSR or any other nation for that matter would have done the same thing.

You know i/m always was wondered the logic like that - if the Hitler or Stalin had a a-bomb - they inevitably drop it too.Therefore they are bastards.
This is a wery funny point to justify the a-bombing by a such argument;)
Indeed i could admit the USSR ( or the any other state) could drop this bomb in the critical situation when the threat of the existence of state was a real - this is the right of any state.
But i could not imagine - what was the criticaly danger for the US army in the aug 1945 when the Japanes froces were fully crushed?
And what was the reason of hurry for the droping the bomb that was not enough studied even.
It seem it was a political "critical" point for the US gov - for the own interests to drop the bomb as soon as it was possible.

Cheers

[Gen. Sandworm]

But i could not imagine - what was the criticaly danger for the US army in the aug 1945 when the Japanes froces were fully crushed?

Japanese forces were not fully crushed! On japan they had ~2500 planes. If they had good pilots or not it doesnt take long to train someone to be a kamakazi. Kids were being trained to use bamboo spears if needed. If you look at Iwo Jima and Okinawa an allied invasion would have been costly. Advancement by the Allied nations would have succeeded but been quite costly for all allied nations.

I think the USSR would find out that maybe they arent as well armed as the Germans but far more fanatical than the what they were used too! One more thing and no offense but the Soviets/Russians dont seem to fight near as hard when they arent pissed. ;) Would been quite a different war for the Soviets.


And what was the reason of hurry for the droping the bomb that was not enough studied even.


Well one thing that everybody learned in this war was time it very important. Another was that we werent sure what was going to happen. Some scientist believed it could start some kind of chain reaction that would destroy the planet. We were happy enough just getting one to work. Only after the devastating effects were realized that major exploratory testing was done.


It seem it was a political "critical" point for the US gov - for the own interests to drop the bomb as soon as it was possible.


Remember we did not get a complete unconditional surrender from the Japanese even after the bombs. Many were very upset about the surrender. The Emperor meet alot of resistance to capitulation. Some of the JA tried to stop the surrender anouncement. I do think the USSR's declaration of war helped much. They knew that they would be facing overwhelming odds and the possible complete destruction of Japan.

The US were already starting to loose support for the war now that Germany had been defeated. People were tired of war and now the Govt was asking them to take part in an invasion that could have horrible losses. The US did not want to a partitioned Japan like that of the European countries. Stalins plans for the post world were starting to come clear.

Also remember that the Japanese could have refused to surrender after the bombs. This would have been devastating for everybody. Coz now your are still at war and against an enemy that does not care about its own destruction. Its one thing to destroy towns its another to wipe a civilization off the map.

Lastly it was a way to scare others around the world. USSR mainly.

So again its a win win situation from our side.

But like I said if you consider the bombing of Japan as war crimes then really the dropping of the bombs play a quite smaller role. War is very complex and almost beyond the capability for man to understand all the factors and hence mistakes are going to be made