Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yep, entire Helsinki was a target. But even though, they missed most of bomb just dropping anywhere outside of city, because of AA artillery.

Let's also not forget that Truman wasn't a dilettante when it came to war. He served in the trenches of France, and saw what war was like on an industrial scale.

On the flip side, he also wanted a send a very clear message to Stalin about what we could do to Soviet cities.

I'm the first to criticise the USA's dubious foreign policy post WW2, but with regard to Japan in WW2, they brought that calamity upon themselves - Pearl Harbour, Bataan death march, China in the 1930s etc etc

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naïve theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

- Sir Arthur 'bomber Harris, chief of RAF bomber command WW2

Swap Nazis for Japanese, and those European cities for Pearl Harbour etc etc and the message is the same.

You mourn for the innocent civilians and children killed, but the Japanese military? Never. Especially after reading what they did in China...

All this said, I'm not happy about all of the civilians that died, but their government lead them down that path. I can sleep peacefully knowing that many times more would have died in a land invasion, including our own and allied servicemen.

We cannot say what would have happened without the bombs. At best we can guess using details that only get fuzzier and fuzzier the further removed are from the events. What we can say is that a lot of people died, suffered, lost their homes and families. That's something that can't be anything but awful. Even if we could somehow know for sure it was the least awful among all terrible outcomes that only serves underscore the gruesomeness of the circumstances, not in any way lessen how terrible the bomb droppings were.

Between this and the other thread gong concurrently we sure are getting a lot of talk in about the bombings, and a fair bit of hindsight generalship as well. One thread probably couldn't contain all the goofiness so it is good we have two going.

 Ahtman wrote:
Between this and the other thread gong concurrently we sure are getting a lot of talk in about the bombings, and a fair bit of hindsight generalship as well. One thread probably couldn't contain all the goofiness so it is good we have two going.

There is a subtle difference. One thread started being about how the Japanese won't admit to being naughty during WWII, so naturally it became the US is the Evil!

This one is clearly just about the US being evil.

I blame people from Chicago.

 Ahtman wrote:
Between this and the other thread gong concurrently we sure are getting a lot of talk in about the bombings, and a fair bit of hindsight generalship as well. One thread probably couldn't contain all the goofiness so it is good we have two going.

I hope your popcorn inventory can handle it!

I blame people from Chicago.

My wife is from Chicago. When I blame her she gets the Stick of Attitude Adjustment out and I quickly discover the error of my ways.

I have visited Hiroshima, seen the dome, and the peace museum.

It's pretty horrific what happened to people, most of whom were civilians. The manga Gen also gives a vivid impression, people should read it.

War is war, though.

On the plus side, most of us are reflecting on what happened and considering the morality of it. We can't change the past but we can think about what we might do in the future.

 Frazzled wrote:

My wife is from Chicago. When I blame her she gets the Stick of Attitude Adjustment out and I quickly discover the error of my ways.

Don't you mean she puts the stick in?

Anyway, it's easy to be armchair generals 70 years later, especially as most of us here play at war with our little toy soldiers. If there is one thing the bombings taught us, it's that we don't want to do it again.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
If there is one thing the bombings taught us, it's that we don't want to do it again.

True.

Leave our holiday islands alone, man.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

My wife is from Chicago. When I blame her she gets the Stick of Attitude Adjustment out and I quickly discover the error of my ways.

Don't you mean she puts the stick in?

Anyway, it's easy to be armchair generals 70 years later, especially as most of us here play at war with our little toy soldiers. If there is one thing the bombings taught us, it's that we don't want to do it again.

True.

So, it's the 70th anniversary of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are we going to mint commemorative coins to celebrate?

I cannot disagree more with those who think that the invasion of the Japanese home islands would have been better than dropping the atomic bombs. It would seem obvious that the use of the atomic bomb would be the supremely ethical and pragmatic solution to any American alive during World War II who was fighting or had a husband, father, or son(s) fighting, and that anything that would prevent or reduce significantly their chances of being killed or wounded during an invasion of the home islands or in any of the other ongoing battles still being waged would be preferable. That failing to use such a weapon when given the alternative would have been considered criminal and reprehensible in the extreme. I believe that given some of your bias against the US, that had this date been X Day, you would be speaking of the absolute moral failure of the US to protect its own citizens, and by consequence the citizens of any other nation still fighting, by using any means at its disposal to hasten an end of the way with the fewest casualties possible.

“I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb ... It is an awful responsibility which has come to us ... We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes.”
—President Harry S. Truman, August 9, 1945

Ultimately I am thankful that Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan were not able to complete and use atomic weapons (and I have no doubt they would have as would have the UK and the USSR) and that the war ended in such a way that the US, its allies, along with her former enemies could end that terrible war and move on to an age that has brought about the greatest amount of prosperity in human history (and as a consequence given us all the opportunity to discuss it on DakkaDakka). That for 70 years, the memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has stood as the unequivocal warning to the human race that in any similar scale conflict we would not be fighting for the victory of any ideology or the supremacy of one nation over the other, but instead face the real possibility of the human extinction.

In light of what Lord of Deeds posted... everyone... please read this essay:
http://crossroads.alexanderpiela.com/files/Fussell_Thank_God_AB.pdf

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Americans still celebrating atomic bombing?

Americans don't celebrate it. At worse, there's a mildly disheartening lack of introspection about the event and its meaning. American culture by and large takes the bombs for granted, simply chalking it up to "Japan started it. You reap what you sow" and what not.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Americans still celebrating atomic bombing?

Americans don't celebrate it. At worse, there's a mildly disheartening lack of introspection about the event and its meaning. American culture by and large takes the bombs for granted, simply chalking it up to "Japan started it. You reap what you sow" and what not.

indeed, if it happened a month ago we've already forgotten it. Quick whats trending on Twitter! YAAAAAA!

 welshhoppo wrote:

But I still feel sorry for the two cities that America wiped off the face of the earth.

Hiroshima in 2015 would like to have a word with you:



As would Nagasaki:




Point is, neither city was actually "wiped from the face of the earth"... this isn't Carthage we're talking of here

 whembly wrote:
In light of what Lord of Deeds posted... everyone... please read this essay:
http://crossroads.alexanderpiela.com/files/Fussell_Thank_God_AB.pdf

Good essay. You can argue about the what if's of a passive blockade of Japan, but the essay (among other sources) puts to rest that there was any other serious plan than to invade the home islands and that all the credible intelligence indicated that the Japanese would put up a ferocious defense. I also think the quote from the Solider on his relief on hearing about the bomb is also telling as to what the emotions and perspective of average US servicemen and civilians was.

But Frazzled FTW. For all the heartfelt opinions and commitment to one side of the debate or the other, how many here will still be posting on this thread after VJ day?

I'm confused - are the Russians in this thread unaware that on the 24th of July during the Potsdam conference, Stalin himself gave Truman a casual go-ahead for a new weapon of 'unusual destructive force' and that he hoped it would prove useful against the Japanese?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm confused - are the Russians in this thread unaware that on the 24th of July during the Potsdam conference, Stalin himself gave Truman a casual go-ahead for a new weapon of 'unusual destructive force' and that he hoped it would prove useful against the Japanese?

If they admit that, then they can't get millage out of accusing the US of bombing Japan just to see what would happen. Stalin was probably very interested in seeing this new weapons potential.

Technically speaking, Stalin already knew everything about the Atomic Bomb. Stalin was happy to sit back and let America and her allies, as well as some enemies, do all the leg work.

The Soviet nuclear program would have eventually been able to develop a nuclear weapon without the aid of espionage. But a basic understanding of the usefulness of an atomic weapon, the sheer resources, and the talent weren't present until much later. The information passed helped the Soviet scientists identify which methods worked and prevented wasting valuable resources on techniques proven ineffective in the development of the American bomb. The speed at which the Soviet nuclear program achieved a working bomb with so few resources was driven by the amount of information acquired through espionage. During the Cold War trials it was touted as one of the most significant intelligence coups in the history of man.[

 LordofHats wrote:
Technically speaking, Stalin already knew everything about the Atomic Bomb. Stalin was happy to sit back and let America and her allies, as well as some enemies, do all the leg work.

The Soviet nuclear program would have eventually been able to develop a nuclear weapon without the aid of espionage. But a basic understanding of the usefulness of an atomic weapon, the sheer resources, and the talent weren't present until much later. The information passed helped the Soviet scientists identify which methods worked and prevented wasting valuable resources on techniques proven ineffective in the development of the American bomb. The speed at which the Soviet nuclear program achieved a working bomb with so few resources was driven by the amount of information acquired through espionage. During the Cold War trials it was touted as one of the most significant intelligence coups in the history of man.[

Oh I know the Manhattan Project had long been compromised. I'd heard most credit went to Klaus Fuchs though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs

 kronk wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Between this and the other thread gong concurrently we sure are getting a lot of talk in about the bombings, and a fair bit of hindsight generalship as well. One thread probably couldn't contain all the goofiness so it is good we have two going.

There is a subtle difference. One thread started being about how the Japanese won't admit to being naughty during WWII, so naturally it became the US is the Evil!

This one is clearly just about the US being evil.

I blame people from Chicago.

I blame Americans. All of you. You Americans are just that evil

 LordofHats wrote:
Technically speaking, Stalin already knew everything about the Atomic Bomb. Stalin was happy to sit back and let America do all the leg work.

Which was quite stupid in hindsight, because otherwise Japan or at least Hokkaido would have made a fine addition to the Soviet empire.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Technically speaking, Stalin already knew everything about the Atomic Bomb. Stalin was happy to sit back and let America do all the leg work.

Which was quite stupid in hindsight, because otherwise Japan or at least Hokkaido would have made a fine addition to the Soviet empire.

Like I said. I think Stalin really wanted to see a field test.

Well Fuch's was more influential in the post war period, helping the Soviets piece together much of the development progress of the US and Britain. As far as progress during the war, others were more significant (at that time). Development of the A Bomb was extremely segregated with many of the scientists working on small parts of the bigger whole without a full understanding of how their work fit into the picture (scientists were even given busy work to obscure what they were actually working on). Fuch's greatest contribution was in piecing all the information others had gathered and supplied into a whole picture as in 1946-48 there were maybe a dozen men on the planet who understood the mechanics of fission to such a degree that they could conceive the bomb in full.

Hall, Koval, and Julius Rosenburg were significant for passing along raw information (I linked Koval because he was the first to come to mind lol) at a time when Fuchs had not yet been transferred from the British development project to the Manhattan project.

But yeah. Stalin was probably sitting there snickering at Truman, because the US wouldn't even realize how deep the program had been infiltrated until after the war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Which was quite stupid in hindsight, because otherwise Japan or at least Hokkaido would have made a fine addition to the Soviet empire.

Stalin has never really been given the credit for how incredibly dangerously genre savvy he was. More scary because his genre was the real world

Stalin had been pressured as early as 1939 to begin work on the atomic bomb, but the Soviet Union utterly lacked the infrastructure, scientific personnel, and resources to undertake such a project. The setting up of a spy ring so quickly and so effectively that America and Britain didn't even realize the Soviets had gotten everything was a monumental success story and one that enabled the Soviet Union to develop the bomb. In 1939 the USSR was as much as 10-20 years behind the rest of the world in the fields needed to build the bomb, yet by 1949, the Soviets had built and successfully tested a bomb (nearly identical in design to Fat Man, thanks to schematics given by Theodore Hall), a mere four years after Hiroshima and after spending very little time and resources on development during WWII.

 LordofHats wrote:
But yeah. Stalin was probably sitting there snickering at Truman, because the US wouldn't even realize how deep the program had been infiltrated until after the war.

According to Stephen Walker's 'Shockwave: Countdown to Hiroshima' yes, Stalin might have been snickering a bit

(That book was a good read)

kronk wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Between this and the other thread gong concurrently we sure are getting a lot of talk in about the bombings, and a fair bit of hindsight generalship as well. One thread probably couldn't contain all the goofiness so it is good we have two going.

There is a subtle difference. One thread started being about how the Japanese won't admit to being naughty during WWII, so naturally it became the US is the Evil!

This one is clearly just about the US being evil.

I blame people from Chicago.

No, this thread is about how bomb is evil. Anyone else will do same is same situation (probably). Nazis dreamed to destroy Washington, they used explosives to destroy many cities, Allied bombers did Drezden, soviet artillery did Berlin ruined, Japanese did Pearl Harbour, bombing on China.
It happen because it happen.
But I wonder how people here say "bombing was good thing for Japan". It's evil thing by it's evil destrutive nature.
Maybe Tokyo "traditional" bombing caused same, but still

VorpalBunny74 wrote:I'm confused - are the Russians in this thread unaware that on the 24th of July during the Potsdam conference, Stalin himself gave Truman a casual go-ahead for a new weapon of 'unusual destructive force' and that he hoped it would prove useful against the Japanese?

Probably, it was just "bigger bomb" for Stalin. Real power revealed later.

I think what a lot of people fail to realise is the context in which the order to drop the bomb was given. Military and government leaders were giving orders on a daily basis that could or would result in thousands or tens of thousands of deaths. Of their own men, of the enemy, and of the civilians caught in the middle. We find it easy to seperate the atomic bomb from that because it is now seen as an unconventional weapon, unlike everything else used in the war. But at the time it was not seen as any different to the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo. It was another weapon, deployed to end the war as quickly as possible.

There were hundreds of such brutal decisions made during the war. The decision to indiscriminately sink all Japanese shipping starved millions of Japanese, but it was also probably the key strategic action in ending the war in the Pacific.

Any effort to second any of these decisions has to be done with great humility, and with a keen understanding of the context, and what the commanders on the day had to assume or guess.

 CptJake wrote:
A land invasion would have had LESS casualties?

I'm really not sure how you can say that. A land invasion would have included bombing more cities, destroying even more infrastructure, prolonged the war (which means things like disease and starvation kill more civilians) and so on. And then you have to consider allied losses. The Enola Gay didn't lose any one. An amphibious landing would have been pretty damned bloody.

A land invasion would have been a lot less bloody if it prompted a surrender, or Japanese resistance collapsed in spite of government. People like to theorise and claim those things would never have happened, but they're guessing. We don't know, though it is likely given the political changes in Japan's inner circle following the Soviet advance, that surrender was likely. But Truman likely knew little of that.

Probably the bigger issue was the insistence on unconditional surrender.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
He can say it because he's what we call ignorant.

The Battle of Okinawa resulted in 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds). The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

That's making so many assumptions that it hurts.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
300,000? For an entire invasion? That is nothing. Both Russia and Germany lost that many just in the Battle for Moscow alone.
The bombs may have caused less casualties, but I think it was bad because it was a deliberate murder of civilians.

That was the low end estimate. The Joint Chiefs at the time worked it out to something like 1.7-4 million. They had over 500k Purple hearts made as part of their initial preparations, figuring they would be used up in the first 30 days.,