"Hiroshima" Topic

Today marks the 69th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. The uranium bomb Little Boy was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Little Boy was never tested. The scientist were so sure of their design that Little Boy would be tested in combat.

It exploded at 8:16:02 Hiroshima time, 43 seconds after it left the Sliverplate B-29 "Enola Gay", 1,900 feet above the courtyard of Shima Hospital, 550 feet southeast of Thomas Ferebee's aiming point, Aioi Bridge with of yield equivalent to 12,500 tons of TNT.

Hopefully we'll never again see the use of an atomic weapon.

I resent that we are made to feel bad about this as Americans. This was a great victory for the American military, unprecedented in the history of mankind. I, for one, am deeply proud of their achievement.

Incinerating civilians is not really a great victory. Victories are usually won against enemy forces.

Jurgen

The first should (and could) have been dropped on a military target visible from population centres. Only if that failed to produce a surrender (and it might have done) should a populous city have been targeted.

It was far from just an American achievement, there were many nationalities involved and most of the basic research was not done by Americans.

While I understand the need to have used that bomb and support that decision,if you visit the bomb museum and see that melted tricycle (the boy was sitting on it at the time), I think you'd be hard pressed to use the word proud. I think necessary evil to save American lives is a better description.

I'm with you Terrence. Not only was it an incredible feat of science, but it saved the lives of millions by bringing the war to a halt.

I shudder to think the number of dead Americans that would have been returning home in body bags if an invasion of the Japanese home islands had been necessary. As for the Japanese with their willingness to die for their country and Emperor, I genuinely believe an invasion would have meant the annihilation of the Japanese race.

Weasel is absolutely right, let's all hope we never again see an atomic weapon used anywhere on this planet, but give thanks to all those who played a role in the decision to save so many lives by using it.

Flecktarn is entitled to his opinion…

I have been to the museum several times, and stood at ground zero below the detonation point. I do hope that there's never another use. And I'll leave it at that.

Hiroshima was the HQ for the Southern Area Army – the centre of the defence for all of Japan south of Tokyo. According to Japanese sources, approximately 20,000 (roughly 25-30%) of those killed were soldiers, who were based and accommodated in the heart of the city.

It's therefore difficult to think of a more militarised target and that was precisely why Hiroshima was selected as the target.

Nagasaki meanwhile, was chosen as it was by far the most important port on the coast facing China. Its port facilities would be essential in the withdrawl of troops from China to defend the Home Islands from invasion. Again, the military considerations for targetting were paramount.

Thank God Heisenberg was on the wrong track and that we had all those brilliant scientists that were not to Hitler's tastes.

Did you know that despite two nukes being dropped Japan still almost did not surrender and there was a coup attempt to prevent the Emperor from surrendering?

The alternative was 500,000+ US casualties, and as many as 5-10 MILLION Japanese casualties. Mass bombing, napalm, gas warfare -- everything was on the table. And the kicker is that a massive typhoon struck the area in October of 1945 -- the exact time that the US invasion fleet would have been engaged in combat. It would have destroyed the invasion and given the Japanese greater heart and less willingness to surrender after a Divine Wind saved them from the Americans as it did against the Mongols centuries before.

Oh, and Japan would have been divided into a Soviet occupied zone and the rest -- they probably would have seized Hokkaido and part of Northern Honshu…what an interesting Cold War element, eh?

As one USMC vet I knew said who expected to be in the invasion, he'd survived Iwo and Okinawa, "Thank God for Harry Truman and the Atom Bomb, it's the only reason I'm alive today."

My father, a combat infantryman that had survived kicking the Japanese off of the island of Luzon in the Phillipines, was on a troop ship headed off to prepare for the invasion. He said, in his opinion, the bombings that forced Japan to surrender saved a LOT of lives on both sides as the US troops were being prepared to kill everything on the Japanese home islands that wasn't a citizen of an Allied nation.

link

I shudder to think the number of dead Americans that would have been returning home in body bags if an invasion of the Japanese home islands had been necessary.

The last Purple Heart medals to be manufactured were in anticipation of the invasion of Japan, the orders totaling roughly 500,000. After 69 years, we have not exhausted that supply.

"Proud" is not the word I would choose, but I don't think we should regret it for a minute. It saved Allied lives and, as Cuchulainn rightly notes, an even greater number of Japanese lives.

The war had been going for six years, eight if you were Chinese, when the Bomb was dropped at Hiroshima. Millions of people had already lost their lives, some of them in hideous ways. Cities in Europe and Japan had been smothered by conventional bombing. 300,000 civilians have been killed at Tokyo, in the most lethal bombing that any city did suffer or has suffered ever, both A-Bombs included. Hundred of thousands of Americans had been killed in action, or in the infamous "death marches" and in the POWs camps scattered in the Pacific and Asia. Nanking had been annihilated; thousand of her citizens had been killed by the Japanese forces, and thousands of women had been raped, and many times killed afterwards. 21-28 million Russians, 7-9 million Germans, almost 3 million Japanese, perhaps as much as 20 million Chinese, half a million French, British and Americans (each), 1,5 million Yugoslavians… 4-6 million European Jews… killed by August, 1945.

The horror brought upon mankind by WWII goes way beyond a melted trycicle that was being ride by a little boy. It distorted how people understood the world. Now, imagine you are an American top-brass. You have in your hands a weapon so powerful that promises to put an end to all that pain, horror and murder; a weapon that might, just might, spare the lives of God-knows-how many Americans that would try to force Japan to surrender by invading the home islands. Would you use it? Would you spare too much thought about the Japanese civilians that would lose their lives? Would you say "hey! Look, it is better to kill them in the usual way, with old-fashion HE and incendiaries and then with bullets and bombs. Yeah, some of our kids, may be as many as one million of them, would be also lost in the invasion of the islands, but, come on! we can't be so soulless to use that nasty Bomb!"?

Decisions taken in the past must be put in their historical context. Otherwise, it is just taking the high moral ground for our own benefit, not to understand what happened and what can we do to stop it from happening again. Hiroshima should be remembered as a cautionary tale.

I once met Leonard Cheshire, the RAF observer for the bombing of Nagasaki, quite a remarkable man who was obviously affected greatly by what he had witnessed.. My personal take is that it is fruitless to try to debate the rights and wrongs, given the cultural and experiential gap between our generation and theirs.

And as WS says, if you do have moral qualms, blame Hitler, it's doubtful the US would have had a working bomb in 1945 without the Nazi instigated brain-drain of Jewish scientists.

A lot of people feeling oddly defensive about actions taking by other men 70 years ago.

Regardless of whether the bomb was justified, nothing changes the simple fact that we should praise ourselves lucky that another nuclear bomb has never been dropped on humans.

If the realization that world governments hold in their hands the most powerful and destructive weapon ever conceived, the only weapon that gave rise to the thought that we could extinguish human life on earth, does not give you pause, I don't know what will.

Well, when ISIS, or the next iteration of Muslim fanaticism obtains a bomb, we will see if rational thought and self-preservation trump hatred and aggression.

I'll say it (and will probably be demonized for it)…

I'm proud we used them….

And I thank God we had them….

And I thank God we used them….

Keep your post modern 20-21st Century moralistic hand-wringing judgmental whinings over "whether it was right", to yourselves. Because I have a pretty damn good idea that if you were a 19 year old boy from Iowa, or Minnesota, or Georgia, or someplace else in the Pacific and was being told "You're life expectancy once you hit the beach is seven minutes", and you are being trained to shoot to kill "EVERYTHING with "slant eyes" that isn't wearing an Allied uniform; and this includes old men, women, and children", then I think you'd probably feel a hell of a lot different about 'whether it was right to use it or not."….

I've yet to meet ONE US WWII Vet that has said "We shouldn't have used the Atom Bombs to end the war"….

We were in a fight against the Axis for our very existence and to keep the scourge of evil from dragging mankind into a hellish new dark age that we should all be thankful never came to be.

Had the "other side" had their way, there's a pretty damn good chance that the majority of us wouldn't be here, and the world would be a much darker place….

Had the bombs not worked…there's a pretty damn good chance that a lot of us wouldn't be here….myself included….

So yes….I said it and I won't back down…

I'm proud we had them and used them, and ended the war, and SAVED UNTOLD MILLIONS OF LIVES…..

Our opinions about dropping the bomb are irrelevant. It happened and nothing will change that. I too knew a number of servicemen on the troop ships heading for Japan when it happened. They unanimously agreed it was the right thing to do. Remember also, in 1945, the American people were still enraged at the Japanese. We were leveling cities, killing hundreds of thousands, and it was considered good. We were preparing an invasion that had a very good probability of exterminating the Japanese race and the American people were supporting it. That hatred and thirst for revenge evaporated when newsreels of the aftermath of the bomb was shown.

Yes, we should be glad another nuke hasn't been used in almost 7 decades. I wonder how much longer we can keep that trend going?

It would probably be a better thing if people were reminded when you declare war on another country you are putting your whole country on the line.

Milites – the thing about rogue actors like that is that our traditional methods of defence won't work.

The US and Soviets kept each other in check because they both had nuclear weapons and could eradicate each other's civilization if war broke out.

A non-national fanatic religious group will have no such limitation and many religious fanatics have strongly apocalyptic beliefs.

Not a great situation though hopefully unlikely to pass outside trashy TV. One can hope, in any event.

"I've yet to meet ONE US WWII Vet that has said "We shouldn't have used the Atom Bombs to end the war"…."

Obviously you havent met Eisenhower. He was against using the bomb. He writes in his memoirs:

"I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act…. I voiced to him [to the secretary of War] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'"

The White House Years, pp. 312-313.

Some of you guys are real classy.

My father, a combat infantryman that had survived kicking the Japanese off of the island of Luzon in the Phillipines, was on a troop ship headed off to prepare for the invasion.

Where they going to invade in the summer of 1945? Both my two uncles who were Marines and had been on 6 island fights each were pulled back to base, one in Miramar at the end of the war. My dad on his Navy ship just had the 20mm AA guns replaced with 40mm AA and was in Stockton. They were preparing for the invasion. But they didn't think it was going to happen in August.

this is all I have to say
YouTube link

Too many opinions … too many polarized … Still a sensitive subject after all this time … we should all say a prayer for all the dead … and include in that prayer … it never happens again …

Japan was ready to surrender to the USSR. The bombs were dropped as a display of force to frighten your allies. Terrorism, as most of the world regards quite a lot of US actions.

I'm not going to go there …

I will:

"Japan was ready to surrender to the USSR. The bombs were dropped as a display of force to frighten your allies. Terrorism, as most of the world regards quite a lot of US actions."

I recommend you buy deeper wellies. You clearly need them.

Sobieski, what an interesting opinion you have there.

I'd also add that the Soviet invasion of Japanese-held territory started on 8th August 1945 – two days AFTER the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

So Sobieski, as Japan had not been attacked by the USSR, why were they 'about to surrender' to them?

Or perhaps that's simply ballhooks, n'est pas?

Obviously you havent met Eisenhower. He was against using the bomb. He writes in his memoirs:

Nope…never met the guy, and after reading what Patton thought of him in his memoirs, and knowing that he would've rather us have an invasion that made his "Overlord" look like a training run, (to include the causalties), plus the fact that it's easy to say that because he was sitting pretty in Europe/Stateside at the time, and didn't have to worry about being one of those 19 year olds on an LCI heading in the first, second, third, or fourth wave…..

"Where they going to invade in the summer of 1945?"

Dad said he didn't know when they planned to land. All he knew is his Division was headed to some island we'd already captured to stage and prep up for it.

They heard about the bombings and the surrender. He was part of the occupying force we put into Japan after they surrendered and was there for a while before rotating to another assignment.

Well, this thread turned out great.

Rallynow – thank you for reminding us. It is something that must never be forgotten.

Unfortunately, otherwise:

Toy soldiers… hmm… I'm sure some were left around here…

Over 100,000 Japanese civilians died in the Okinawa invasion, it would be folly to think an invasion of Japan would bring fewer civilian deaths. Most of those deaths came from mass suicides of civilians afraid to surrender to US troops.

My father always thanked Truman for saving his life by dropping the bomb, and so do I. How badly would we condemn Truman for the millions of civilian lives and Allied lives if he didn't use the bomb?

Here's a few people who were in positions of power at the time, who thought it was not necessary:

doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Whatever the truth, it doesn't change that it happened.

War is a horrible, nasty thing. If the Japanese did not want to bring it to its' horrible, terrible conclusion, they should have surrendered earlier. But they didn't, and so they reaped the results. It was not the U.S. responsibility to take pity on an enemy who started the war, and showed no pity herself when she had the upper hand.

I for one, am proud that we dropped it and could stop the war, and I know that many of those cynics who sneer at the U.S. decision would not be around today to sneer if Imperial Japan or the Third Reich had developed it first.

That said, George MacDonald Fraser, a screenwriter and author of the "Flashman" and other excellent historical fiction, who had also been an infantryman in WW2, wrote in his excellent memoir that he, and the soldiers he fought with, would have been against dropping the Bomb.

Tusca,

I generally agree with you, but in the edition of 'Quartered Safe Out Here' I've got, George MacDonald Fraser was very much in favour of dropping the Bomb.

Whatever happened to asking questions about painting miniatures?

Sobieski has it in a nutshell.

Oliver Stone's Untold History series has a very good episode on this and other US follies.

Skarper,

The 'nutshell' in question is probably that of the Coco de Mer:

Explain for me then how the Japanese were 'about to surrender to the Soviets' when the Soviets didn't launch their offensive until AFTER the Bomb had been dropped.

"Oliver Stone's Untold History series has a very good episode"

Er no, it doesn't even have a mediocre episode.

The Japanese had made overtures through the Soviets, whom they viewed as a somewhat neutral party, that they were looking to end the war, provided the emperor could be left in place.

This was communicated to Truman as well but either he disbelieved it or didn't want a surrender that was anything but unconditional.

Plenty of people involved at the time disagreed.

After the bomb and the rolling up of Manchuria of course, there was not much left. Some at the time felt that conventional bombing along with the complete isolation of Japan would have achieved the same result in any event.

Eisenhower and MacArthur were two, along with plenty others who objected either on moral grounds or because they felt the world would be a more dangerous place afterwards.

That being said, the government officials at the time were of course not TMP'ers and so probably had no idea what they were talking about, unlike the esteemed historians on this forum.

You'd have thought they would have hurried up and surrendered to the Soviets after that first bomb dropped then.

The sad thing about the whole situation is that the Japanese themselves are aware of the bomb dropping but almost none of the context of the war or their part in it.

"That being said, the government officials at the time were of course not TMP'ers and so probably had no idea what they were talking about, unlike the esteemed historians on this forum."

Clearly. They were wrong about it being a more dangerous place afterwards. Nothing kept the world safe from WWIII like those atomic weapons.

And as far as the government officials go, my guess is that there were some on the side of dropping the bomb too. Maybe even more than were against it since that is what they ended up doing.

If we're going to go with that argument, I'd say the balance of it falls against those arguing that dropping the bomb was a bad thing.

My late father-in-law and a guy I used to work with were both in the US military at the time, one in the Navy and the other a Marine. They both were in favor of dropping the bomb. There was a serious coup attempt even after the bombs were dropped.

Most of those in the US military who said they were opposed to dropping the bomb either did not fight in the Pacific or they believed dropping the bomb was only necessary because we insisted on unconditional surrender and retention of the Emperor.

The Japanese were a formidable enemy and the US had killed vast numbers in bombing raids before. In a society where even children collected scrap, worked in factories, and trained to oppose the invasion with spears, it's hard to have much sympathy for the consequences of the war they started.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Weasel,

It was a rhetorical question; The Japanese absolutely were not about to surrender to the USSR, which is what Sobieski and Skarper (and Oliver Stone, it seems) allege.

Yes, they made half-hearted overtures via the Soviets, but this was on a par with Hess seeking peace with Britain and about as credible or desirable.

Sure, the proponents of dropping it won out after all so they were either more plentiful, more persuasive or more powerful.

That's the point where, if we pretend to want to understand history, we need to look at what motivations were behind each side of the argument.

There are more reasons than military need to drop the bomb and to not drop the bomb. For that matter, people on either sides of that argument may have been wrong.

You guys know what? Forget it. I don't want to waste half of night arguing about this.

You win the internet tonight.

I absolutely agree with you. My comments were directed to the earlier suggestions that Hiroshima was a purely civilian target. It absolutely and profoundly was not and there were very good military reasons for hitting it (and Nagasaki). That does not mean that there weren't also political considerations re targetting.