Why do some people consider the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unjustified?

[vengen]

And again that line of reasoning means that conclusions like "the air campaign significantly contributed to ending the war" can be dismissed as opinion also. In which case you need to start defending all strategic bombing again because a lot of it was frankly done in the most stupid way possible.

It can be dismissed as opinion, but it is an opinion from experts on bombing and industry who analyzed measurable facts to reach their conclusion. I would not dismiss it unless I found additional facts, or what I thought was a flaw in the analysis.

As stated repeatedly in this thread - the strategic bombing was done in an effort to destroy the enemy's war industry. Was some of it done stupidly? Of course some was - war is horrible like that.

Hindsight is fine. Hiding assessments and pretending they are suddenly just opinion is by contrast revisionism. There was in fact many assessments even as early as 1946 that the bombing was a huge mistake. Fifty years have been spent denying these facts. Indeed, it's rather ironic that you challenge me to "prove" it was a mistake when your very first act was - with no evidence or cause - your dismissal of the evidence showing it was a mistake.

I didn't dismiss any evidence or facts - all I said was that the bombing survey's prediction that Japan would have surrendered in November or December without the atomic bombing is opinion. The only thing that I am challenging you to do is provide a way for the US government to end the war that results in fewer US casualties than dropping the atomic bombs.

Again, those discussions are all based on a lie. The original estimate was the one I linked. There was no further study showing 500,000. It was invented entirely based on a handful of quotes by Truman.

Again, I'm not that knowledgeable about the casualty estimates. That's why I used a range of 100,000 to 500,000. The estimate that you linked gives 100,000 casualties for the first 90 days of Operation Olympic and says nothing about Operation Coronet, so it's not even the estimate for the entire invasion. As I stated before, it's the fact that there will be US casualties, not the number of them that matters here.

That you pretend there is a "debate" on the casualty figures and once again ignore the actual primary documents showing the real estimates is indicative of how much actual "denial" there is in Western history that they constantly project on other countries.

There are various ways of predicting casualties. They can be predicted from casualties per square mile captured, casualties per number of enemy troops, casualties per day of combat, and probably a lot more. I have no idea which one was used for the study you linked, and I have no idea which one is the most accurate. That's where the debate comes in. I also mentioned that the US produced 500,000 Purple Heart medals for casualties from the invasion - just another anecdote, but an indication that there was more thinking going on than just the study you linked.

You are arguing in bad faith by ignoring the fact I said that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria would have been sufficient to force a surrender. Then you repeat the lie that the US ground invasion would have resulted in 500,000 casualties.

I'm not ignoring the Soviet invasion. I would include that in the wait option. Do you think the US would just do nothing while the Soviet invasion plays out? Of course not, they would continue strategic bombing and carrier bombing. Which is going to entail more casualties for US air crews and Japanese civilians. They weren't going to absorb a surprise attack, then fight their way across the Pacific at a tremendous financial cost and a horrible human cost, then do nothing when they got just offshore of Japan. When you are at war, you fight. You don't passively wait for someone else to finish off the enemy.

This is precisely the sort of blatant historical denial that I am speaking of. You are so wedded to believing the lies your government created to justify the bombing that you play theoretical games based on these lies rather than the real facts. Indeed, you outright dismissed the real facts and still insisted on the righteousness of your position.

No, in an effort to understand the decision, I put myself in the shoes of the original decision makers to try to understand the issue from their perspective. You know - wargame it out. Does that shock you on the forum of a company that makes computer strategy games?

Again, two very simple and real facts: Japan would have likely surrendered after the Soviet invasion of Manchuria regardless, and even an actual US invasion would not have resulted in 500,000 casualties. That you ignore these two facts and pretend there's still no evidence to show the bombing could be a mistake is simply the same sort of "war crime denial" that guilty American and British consciences regularly foist on the Japanese.

I don't think you know what a fact is. A fact is something know with certainty or something that has been objectively verified or something having real demonstrable existence. Predictions of the future or of alternative futures do not fit that description.

I know this is a sensitive subject, and I'm not trying to upset you, but I am going to defend my position. So let's please stop talking about lies, Western history, denial and guilt. Those words just make me think that you have another purpose here.

 

[vengen]

Look at it again. This thread is called "why some people think the bombing was unjustified". I have told my reasons why.

Fair enough, and I have stated my view, so at this point we agree to disagree.

Nope. It was an effort to shock the Japanese government by causing an unprecedented destruction and loss of civilians lives. It didn't matter what Hiroshima or Nagasaki's factories did.

Again, we'll agree to disagree.

Ending the war, of course it was a good idea. Targeting civilians in order to that, no so much good idea.

I think we all agree on that one.

Just to be extra sure: I am not American, nor German, or Japanese. My country was (somewhat) neutral during WW2. I feel no need to justify anything and I feel sincerely horrified at the mere idea of "punishing the civilian population".

We're all horrified by the idea of punishing civilians. My asking you for another option was just offering you a chance to change my mind.

 

[vengen]

In addition, there is an argument that he could have attempted to demonstrate the bomb in an unpopulated area to invoke fear rather than use it as on a city.

That's actually the best alternative to dropping, at least the first one, on cities that I've heard yet. That's definately worth considering. Thanks for adding it to the mix.

 

[thedarkendstar]

All these ways to end the war exist on a negative to force Japan to surrender bombings invasions starvation are there any positice incentives that could have been given to ensure unconditional surrender.

 

[Geriander]

All these ways to end the war exist on a negative to force Japan to surrender bombings invasions starvation are there any positice incentives that could have been given to ensure unconditional surrender.

What positive incentives can there be to an unconditional surrender except for positive conditions? In which case it wouldn’t be an unconditional surrender.

There are plenty of offers Japan would have been willing to accept but even after both nukes and the invasion of Manchuria their government was split 50/50 over accepting unconditional surrender. Any peace prior to that would be conditional and at the very least require no occupation, disarmament, trials or regime change. Based on the July offers it would also require keeping almost all of the pre war Empire.

 

[Imgran]

That's actually the best alternative to dropping, at least the first one, on cities that I've heard yet. That's definately worth considering. Thanks for adding it to the mix.

The problem with a practice demonstration is twofold

1: it expends a very scarce resource with no actual damage done to the enemy

2: The descructive potential of the bomb is actually only about half the story of why it could induce a hardline nation like Japan into surrendering.

The problem with a simple demonstration is that it lacks everything about the nuclear attacks on the two Japanese cities other than the sheer destructive potential of the weapon itself. Japan has seen big bombs before. Japan was already having the daylights bombed out of it. Bombs were something they already thought they understood.

If the only take home is "OK, the US has an even bigger bomb to throw on us," that's not going to throw overwhelming weight in the direction of surrender, because the Japanese military will still believe that they can shoot down the bomber, or else evacuate the people, or else just take the damage of a few really powerful bombs. THey would see it only as an incremental worsening of their situation.

Only a live event, where Japan had every chance to realize that they couldn't even reliably spot the bomber, much less scramble their air defense or even get the people to safety before the bomb dropped, and only when they realized that the US was capable of reducing their population centers to city-sized glowing craters one by one with little if anything they could do about it, would the pressure to surrender overwhelm the stubborn pride of all but the most insane Japanese soldiers.

And sadly that meant the weapon had to be deployed. Not just once, but a second time to prove that this was not a fluke event.

I also maintain that the bombings were a net saving of Japanese lives, in that in the wake of the Japanese surrender it finally became possible to rebuild Japanese infrastructure and lessen the deprivations of Japanese civilians.

Even with all the help the US could muster in the wake of the Japanese surrender, thousands died to famine. Japan's food infrastructure had been annihilated by US bombing and their harvest was the worst in recent history. Without US intervention to prevent a famine, that death could would have risen to tens or hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions.

Japan had been almost literally bombed into the stone age. Nearly their entire infrastructure had been obliterated -- supplies of food, medicine, fuel, and even building materials had to be provided by their former enemies to begin to put the Japanese nation back on its feet. It could never have happened while on a wartime footing, and disease outbreaks medicine shortages and societal breakdown were all widely reported in those last few months, and all tend to leave substantial body counts.

That's not why the bombs were dropped, but it goes to show the horrible nature of that war. Ending WWII was in everyone's best interest, even the enemy's, and even if they chose an absolutely horrible way to do it, the other ways were pretty much as horrible anyway.

 

[Rich Oliver]

Area bombing other than fire bombing was stupid. On the other hand the V1 and V2 were truly wonder weapons. Wonders of stupidity. Ineffective area bombing on steroids. Bomber Command were totally inspired by Coventry. They realised the possibilities. The key to efficient firebombing is to realise that the results are not linear. Successful firebombing depends on target flammability, weather, luck and intensity of bombing. It is only the last factor that you really have some control over. In the Blitz the Luftwaffe came close on a few occasions but aside form Coventry, never concentrated sufficiently to pull off a full fire storm. A fire storm can never be guaranteed, its all about maximising the odds.

Why did Bomber Command fall in love with firebombing. First their studies revealed that Coventry suffered from long term loss of production due to disorganisation. Power lines can be restored, rails repaired, machines replaced, but successful firebombing delivers such a shock to the economic organisation that it takes a long time to recover. Secondly firebombing is truly a tactic of extermination. The fire storm sucks in oxygen allowing you to kill the people in the shelters. So if you imagine a typical small working family home, it would be relatively easy for the man, woman and children to clear their home of incendiaries, so what you do is mix in identical looking explosives with the incendiaries. The key is to get the civilians (mostly women and children of course, because large numbers of the men have been mobilised) to retreat to the shelters. If you are lucky sufficient individual fires will coagulate to create a heat mass sufficient for a fire storm and then even those in the shelters will be killed.

The great limitation of the fire storm was that it only worked on wood rich targets. Middle and Upper class people don't usually live in wooden city houses. But the tactic meshed incredibly well with Morgenthau plan type policy. Oh yes many people within the allied and Soviet establishment were seeking to find a Final Solution to what they saw as the German problem - Die Deutschenfrage. If Germany was to be reduced to a set of neo feudal agrarian fiefdoms, there would be a large population surplice. there would be no need for the German urban working class in the post war order. The men could be used for slave labour. And in fact German slave labour was used extensively after the war by Britain, France and the Soviet Union. young German men were just rounded up whole scale, whether in or out of uniform. Once the Germans surrendered the allies had nothing to gain for their own troops by compliance, so the Geneva conventions were flushed down the toilet. But that would still leave all the unwanted urban working class women and children which fire bombing dealt with so well.

Historians have searched all most completely in vain to find explicit references to genocide in the Nazi documents. It should not surprise us then, that if even the Nazis went to such lengths to apply a minimum level of political correctness that there are no explicit references to genocide from allied politicians, generals or officials. Public opinion is a fickle master. At the end of WWI public opinion in the allied countries demanded a harsh peace. That didn't stop them later blaming their politicians for that harsh peace, demanding reconciliation, appeasement and peace at any price. Later they would again blame their politicians for appeasement. During World War II there was wide spread support for genocidal bombing of Germany and Japan. But when the war ended, even prior to VE the mood started changing remarkably quickly. Churchill never a man to put loyalty before his own career sensed the way the wind was blowing. Bomber command quickly became an embarrassment.

I am told that Germans were evil for voting Nazi in 1932 and the German establishment was evil for making a deal with him in 1933. Then what of a man who said this in 1937?

One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.

So winnie, do you have any ideas of who that British messiah, who that British Hitler might have been? Who in Britain could have rallied the forces of militarism, anti- liberalism and radical nationalism.

 

[vengen]

The problem with a practice demonstration...

I agree on all points.

A demonstration detonation was actually suggested by some of the scientists, but after discussing it, all the scientists involved felt that it couldn't be done in an effective way.

In addition to the points you raise:

They discussed a demonstration outside of Japan, so the Japanese couldn't interfere with it; but realized that the Japanese would just dismiss it as a trick, or claim that it wasn't lethal.

They then discussed using it in Japan, but realized that the time, date and location would have to be announced ahead of time. Which would give the Japanese time to mount a special effort to shoot the plane down; which if it didn't succeed, might at least damage the bomb or interfere with its arming procedure resulting in an embarrassing dud. Or they could place POWs at the demonstration site.

The big advantage of a demonstration is that it would spare Japanese civilian casualties, which I think is the biggest issue that people on the thread have with the atomic bombings. But, like you say, Japan had already been bombed to the point of devastation with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, so the threshold of causing civilian casualties had already been crossed.

 

[Geriander]

Area bombing other than fire bombing was stupid. On the other hand the V1 and V2 were truly wonder weapons. Wonders of stupidity. Ineffective area bombing on steroids. Bomber Command were totally inspired by Coventry. They realised the possibilities. The key to efficient firebombing is to realise that the results are not linear. Successful firebombing depends on target flammability, weather, luck and intensity of bombing. It is only the last factor that you really have some control over. In the Blitz the Luftwaffe came close on a few occasions but aside form Coventry, never concentrated sufficiently to pull off a full fire storm. A fire storm can never be guaranteed, its all about maximising the odds.

Why did Bomber Command fall in love with firebombing. First their studies revealed that Coventry suffered from long term loss of production due to disorganisation. Power lines can be restored, rails repaired, machines replaced, but successful firebombing delivers such a shock to the economic organisation that it takes a long time to recover. Secondly firebombing is truly a tactic of extermination. The fire storm sucks in oxygen allowing you to kill the people in the shelters. So if you imagine a typical small working family home, it would be relatively easy for the man, woman and children to clear their home of incendiaries, so what you do is mix in identical looking explosives with the incendiaries. The key is to get the civilians (mostly women and children of course, because large numbers of the men have been mobilised) to retreat to the shelters. If you are lucky sufficient individual fires will coagulate to create a heat mass sufficient for a fire storm and then even those in the shelters will be killed.

The great limitation of the fire storm was that it only worked on wood rich targets. Middle and Upper class people don't usually live in wooden city houses. But the tactic meshed incredibly well with Morgenthau plan type policy. Oh yes many people within the allied and Soviet establishment were seeking to find a Final Solution to what they saw as the German problem - Die Deutschenfrage. If Germany was to be reduced to a set of neo feudal agrarian fiefdoms, there would be a large population surplice. there would be no need for the German urban working class in the post war order. The men could be used for slave labour. And in fact German slave labour was used extensively after the war by Britain, France and the Soviet Union. young German men were just rounded up whole scale, whether in or out of uniform. Once the Germans surrendered the allies had nothing to gain for their own troops by compliance, so the Geneva conventions were flushed down the toilet. But that would still leave all the unwanted urban working class women and children which fire bombing dealt with so well.

Historians have searched all most completely in vain to find explicit references to genocide in the Nazi documents. It should not surprise us then, that if even the Nazis went to such lengths to apply a minimum level of political correctness that there are no explicit references to genocide from allied politicians, generals or officials. Public opinion is a fickle master. At the end of WWI public opinion in the allied countries demanded a harsh peace. That didn't stop them later blaming their politicians for that harsh peace, demanding reconciliation, appeasement and peace at any price. Later they would again blame their politicians for appeasement. During World War II there was wide spread support for genocidal bombing of Germany and Japan. But when the war ended, even prior to VE the mood started changing remarkably quickly. Churchill never a man to put loyalty before his own career sensed the way the wind was blowing. Bomber command quickly became an embarrassment.

I am told that Germans were evil for voting Nazi in 1932 and the German establishment was evil for making a deal with him in 1933. Then what of a man who said this in 1937?

So winnie, do you have any ideas of who that British messiah, who that British Hitler might have been? Who in Britain could have rallied the forces of militarism, anti- liberalism and radical nationalism.

Intent to perform a genocide rather than halting the attack of an hostile nation is best observed in how civilians who can no longer contribute to the enemies war effort are treated. If, as you seem to claim, the intent was to genocide the german and japanese peoples, the concentration camps wouldn’t have been shut down but rather refilled with their former owners.

What the Soviets did in parts of Eastern Europe may be termed a form of genocide but neither germans nor japanese under western Allied occupation were killed off with the intent of replacement by another ethnic group. Genocide is the intent to destroy an ethnic group and that was never the intent of any of the Allies.

 

[Imgran]

Intent to perform a genocide rather than halting the attack of an hostile nation is best observed in how civilians who can no longer contribute to the enemies war effort are treated. If, as you seem to claim, the intent was to genocide the german and japanese peoples, the concentration camps wouldn’t have been shut down but rather refilled with their former owners.

What the Soviets did in parts of Eastern Europe may be termed a form of genocide but neither germans nor japanese under western Allied occupation were killed off with the intent of replacement by another ethnic group. Genocide is the intent to destroy an ethnic group and that was never the intent of any of the Allies.

In other words, if the allies had any intent at genocide, they did a very poor job

I think part of the problem is that people misunderstand what a genocide is. There's a minority that believe that it includes any kind of mass killing.

In order to be classified as genocide, mass casualties are a prerequisite, but intent matters too. The killings have to be targeted at an ethnicity. Not a nation, or even an ethnostate, but the people themselves. There's a significant difference between taking out German cities during a war with Germany, and, for example, starting to attack and round up Germans living in Allied countries or remove them from your territory.

The only recorded genocide sanctioned by a Western government that I'm aware of is the Japanese internment. Genocide is not the targeting of a nation, it is the targeting of a nationality (or a cultureal or religious group). A fine line in European style ethnostates, but a very significant distinction

 

[Geriander]

The only recorded genocide sanctioned by a Western government that I'm aware of is the Japanese internment.

While a despicable act, that wasn’t genocide either. No attempt to actually kill off the Japanese-Americans was made. 7 violent deaths for 110,000 interned individuals during 3 years doesn’t speak of an intent to destroy that ethnic group.

 

[olm]

The only recorded genocide sanctioned by a Western government that I'm aware of is the Japanese internment. Genocide is not the targeting of a nation, it is the targeting of a nationality (or a cultureal or religious group). A fine line in European style ethnostates, but a very significant distinction

"Genocide" requires a significant death toll, which wasn't really the case with Japanese internment. It could be classified as a "crime against humanity" though.

 

[Imgran]

While a despicable act, that wasn’t genocide either. No attempt to actually kill off the Japanese-Americans was made. 7 violent deaths for 110,000 interned individuals during 3 years doesn’t speak of an intent to destroy that ethnic group.

True, no attempt to kill off the Japanese was made, but forced relocation is also one class of genocide.

 

[Geriander]

True, no attempt to kill off the Japanese was made, but forced relocation is also one class of genocide.

If intended to be permanent I would agree. Shipping them all to Japan after the war would have been a form of genocide.

 

[cpreston5]

I thought forced relocation is ethnic cleansing but not genocide? Genocide as far as I understand the term requires a large element of killing as part of the removal of the target group, not just physical relocation.

 

[olm]

Yeah, ethnic cleansing and genocide are separate things, although they can overlap if significant number of affected population dies in process. Some of the Soviet mass deportations could be easily described as genocides.

 

[Geriander]

I thought forced relocation is ethnic cleansing but not genocide? Genocide as far as I understand the term requires a large element of killing as part of the removal of the target group, not just physical relocation.

Literally ”race killing” so you are right. Mass relocations have often killed so many thay often end up in a grey zone. Expelling all Japanese-Americans would then be a form of ethnic cleansing but internment wasn’tthat either.

 

[Yakman]

Yeah, ethnic cleansing and genocide are separate things, although they can overlap if significant number of affected population dies in process. Some of the Soviet mass deportations could be easily described as genocides.

strangely enough, when you abandon tens of thousands of people in a field in kazakhstan in the middle of the winter, without food or shelter, then it doesn't go so well.

 

[Arilou]

It should be noted that part of the reason the definition of genocide is the way it is is because the Soviets were part of writing it.

That said, the Soviet policies by that standard do not amount to genocide. (AFAIK; there are only about half a dozen or so uncontroversial genocides in the 20th century: The Herero, Armenia, The Holocaust, Rwanda)

"Ethnic Cleansing" was a term specifically developed because the crimes during the Yugoslav wars were did not reach to the standard of genocide.

 

[Henry IX]

A final detail about ending the war with Japan that has not been raised:

The American command was seriously worried about a collapse of the Japanese government without an explicit surrender. In a worst case scenario there would be nobody to issue the surrender and so the Americans could be forced to destroy the entire Japanese army (or at least the most hard-core parts) unit by unit across the whole of the Japanese Empire. This is perhaps the worst case scenario in terms of casualties for every party, civilian and military, in every nation involved.

A show of overwhelming force that gets the Japanese government to surrender before it disintegrates was considered essential and was part of the argument against starving Japan into surrender.

From a Cold War perspective, it was also important to end the war quickly before the Red Army finished blitzing its way through all of Korea and occupied China. As such the atomic bomb may have been partly a political action, rather than the fairly weak 'intimidate the Soviets' argument which is usually how the geopolitical aspects of the bombing are framed.