@fiedler. No, stop being absurd.

"what happened happened, for a good reason."

Did you know that after the war studies were made that proved that bombing of civilian populations resulted in a net loss, a negative military value. The whole sorry mess was pointless. But hey, whatever happened happened for a good reason, right? ;P

I'm not the one being absurd, hard as I may try ;)

In most cases, bombing civilians is counter-productive, yes. But not always.

Look, I'm not saying it was a good deed or anything, but I'm yet to hear anyone suggest a viable alternative.

WWII was ugly as hell, to a large extent due to Germany's and Japan's refusal to surrender when they were already beaten. Both nations had crazy leaders who kept fighting long after it was clear they can't turn it around. It's their fault.

After six years and 50 million dead... it was the only logical conclusion.

And yes, I do believe that all other approaches (land invasion, carpet-bombing the whole country, cutting off supplies and the respective starvation) would have resulted in a much bigger death-toll.

fiedler, you could actually argue your case against me if you don't want to be considered absurd (because what is absurd is having a view but not justifying it)

Well I don't quite understand how the japs go from being nutter-never-surrender-fanatics and then become peaceniks just because a few A-bombs are dropped.

As already stated, the japs had lost the war, previous conventional bombing raids had killed just as many as the A-bombs would, so .... why does the A-bomb make such a difference? Surely if they are crazy fanatics then they would just keep fighting?

Or perhaps the nutter-fanatic theory is just BS. Perhaps the jap leadership wasn't actually composed of escaped lunatics. On the other hand, many did attend Harvard.

There simply is no logical justification for dropping the big one, other than "let's see what our shiny new toy does!"

"Well I don't quite understand how the japs go from being nutter-never-surrender-fanatics and then become peaceniks just because a few A-bombs are dropped. "

Discipline and brainwashing.

"As already stated, the japs had lost the war, previous conventional bombing raids had killed just as many as the A-bombs would, so .... why does the A-bomb make such a difference? Surely if they are crazy fanatics then they would just keep fighting? "

This was like an act of God event. Have you not seen the special effects?

"Or perhaps the nutter-fanatic theory is just BS. Perhaps the jap leadership wasn't actually composed of escaped lunatics. On the other hand, many did attend Harvard. "

I don't know. You tell me. Why were they still fighting at that point? Why were they ready to keep putting their own population to the slaughter?

"There simply is no logical justification for dropping the big one, other than "let's see what our shiny new toy does!" "

Yes, there're many, you're just trying to ignore them with BS reasoning and take the higher moral ground.

... btw, still not alternative suggestion I see... maybe the words 'no better alternative' are too hard for you to understand?

@ivo

alternatives:
1. accept conditional surrender.
2. Wait a little until they surrender unconditionally.
3. Conventionally bomb them until they surrender.
4. Demonstrate the A-bomb to jap officials, without actually murdering 200k+ people.

Quote: "... btw, still not alternative suggestion I see... maybe the words 'no better alternative' are too hard for you to understand? "

- hey! that's a personal attack! As you have demonstrated, you have the understanding of a simpleton, so I won't bother arguing with you anymore. I would if I could see a glimmer of intelligence, but all quiet on da western front ;)

Those who have seen the horrendous pictures of the results of the bombing should look deep into their hearts when making some hypothetical accounting book balancing exercise against future deaths. Let them at least be honest and say that the concern of Truman et al. was most definately not the lives of Japanese women and children, but those of the American military. Plus, of course, the added bonus of getting one up on Uncle Joe?

1. why? they started the fight, why do they get to dictate the terms of their surrender?
2. how long? how many more people have to die until they surrender unconditionally? what if they don't?
3. if other bombing campaigns in WWII are any indicator, a conventional bombing campaign until unconditional surrender almost undoubtedly would have killed more people and taken more time
4. maybe. my understanding is that they have two bombs and only two bombs; you can't afford not to do damage in case the one bomb doesn't get the surrender (as it didn't). though who knows how long it would have taken to build more bombs?

If you say there's no quantitative difference in the number of deaths between fire bombing and A-bombing, then there's no moral difference between using fire bombs and A-bombs. Unless you condemn conventional bombing of Japanese islands as well, there's no logic in your argument.

Conventional air attacks were the single most important factor in swinging Japanese public opinion from pro-war to anti-war, followed by shortage in supplies and military defeats. But the public opinion was of course of no importance for the course of the war other than by absenteeism at work and other kinds of civil disobedience.

If Hirohito was more assertive in regard to his chiefs of staff or ministers, he could have concluded the war much sooner with no real harm to his popularity among civilians. Even after the Potsdam Declaration, his position as a head of state was not disputed, it was a grey area, by the Allies so he had very little to lose. Still, he refused to surrender, despite the fact that the ultimatum stated that Japan would face "prompt and utter destruction" unless the war is ended.

However, Putin is right in the point that Soviet involvement was more important in forcing Hirohito to surrender than dropping the bombs.

ulytau - I fully agree with you. I'm not looking to take any moral ground here at all.
AFAIC both world wars are an abomination. War is the negation of morality. Legalised murder.

I'm simply arguing that the old story of the A-bomb ending the war is a myth. There was no true and good justification.

fiedler, you're a moron. Piss off.

"Those who have seen the horrendous pictures of the results of the bombing should look deep into their hearts when making some hypothetical accounting book balancing exercise against future deaths. Let them at least be honest and say that the concern of Truman et al. was most definately not the lives of Japanese women and children, but those of the American military. Plus, of course, the added bonus of getting one up on Uncle Joe?"

Yes, Truman et al. were primarily interested in not getting the people they had drafted dead. I don't see the problem.

War is terrible, and cause horrendous suffering to people who had no choice about the matter, but why are those people who suffered from the A-bomb more important than the many more who would have suffered from an invasion?

And do you expect the defensive forces to risk their own lives for the civilians who form a part of their enemy?

@ Ghost. That's a big step forward thank you. If live saving came into the argument at all it was American marines who mattered, not Japanese civilains, let's at least be honest and clear headed about this.

Going back to my Okinawa example. Prior to the landing, the Japanese government spread propaganda to the native populace that the US Marines would kill, rape and even eat them. They did everything they could to demonize the US solider, and the net results was tragic. I noted that a full 1/3 of the native population died in that battle. How did they die? Some by the battle itself, some at the hands of the Japanese, and some by their own hands due to the fear raised by the propaganda.

Mind you, the island is only a little over 460 square miles, and by the numbers I quoted earlier, around one quarter of a million people died in and around this island. For those playing at home, that's 543 people per square mile. Please note, that figure is multi-racial.

Therefore, claiming that the dropping of the bomb was solely for the preservation of American soldiers is wrong. Yes, that was a major component. A million American dead is not a good figure for a political office holder. But no person, no matter what their political views are, cannot for one second claim that the atomic bombing was more cruel than the conventional war or pending invasion that was upcoming. War is cruel. It should not be used or employed willy-nilly. Any death brought about by war is a terrible thing.

As for the actual end to the war, it was the double whammy of 1) the atomic bombings of Aug 6 & 9, coupled with 2) Russian invasion of Manchuria on Aug 9 that help bring down the power base. But if not for an impassioned plea from Hirohito to the military led government of Japan (an exceedingly rare event), the powers in control in Japan were still looking to fight even though the few peace doves were trying to find a way out.... even resorting to assassination attempts.

"dropping the bomb showed that the american government was ready to take extreme steps to put trough its interests. I mean these bombs have been used agaisnt civilians."

Ending the war quickly and with minimal casualties was in everyone's interests, not just America's. The bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because those were two of the very few intact cities after two years of heavy conventional strategic bombing.

@meso. you presumably have some contemparaneous evidence that confirms that the minimising of Japanese civilain casualities was convincingly used to justify the dropping of the atomic bomb(s)?

I did quite an extensive paper on the subject back in my college days on the subject. I looked at the aspect of the atomic bombing from multiple angles. I had my research documented. I do not have that paper in front of me, as it's approaching 20 years since I wrote that. Can I give you the exact reference point of that right here right now, no. Given, Truman was mortified by the loss of life on Okinawa and the projected figures of American casualties. There is no arguing the point that the potential loss of American service men was the main driving force. However, the preservation of the Japanese civilian population was a point that was considered given that the Japanese government used the same propaganda on the home islands as it did in the prefecture.

Indulge em for a moment in a small hypothesis. Suppose, in a last ditch attempt to win the war, Heisenberg, Doernitz and von Braun (noew there is an intersting topic for debate!) got together to produce a nuclear missile to be attached to a sub-launched V2. If it took out London and Manchester would they be tried for war crimes assuming an ultimate Allied victory? I say almost certainly. Supposing it hit LA and New York what then? Perhaps it is best to leave that as an open or rhetorical question.

@Meso
''There is no arguing the point that the potential loss of American service men was the main driving force. ''

Thank you for acknowledging this.

My problem with the whole "Minimize Japanese casualties." Was that the U.S. dropped it on population centers. Why do that? I have seen several times the argument that the U.S. only had two bombs. The fact is the U.S. had half a dozen more a month away from completion. Truman saw the attack as a military decision, but I never understood why the bomb couldn't be dropped on a less populous area. I have read that he chose hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were cities largely spared from bombing and the effects would be clearly visible, but surely the effects on other venues would be clearly visible as well

should mean less than a month that is.

If anyone wants to see tangible proof of Japanese desires to fight on, read about the fleet of kamikaze weapons they were producing. Might they have surrendered, possibly, but it certainly wasn't the plan in the months leading up to August

fulhamish, if you look back at my posts, you will see I acknowledge that point all along. To say otherwise is ludicrous. My point is that it was not the sole reason for the use of the atomic bomb. Will you acknowledge that?

As for war crimes, yes that is a rhetorical question. Whom ever wins the war, writes the his-story. But I will give you even a better point to ponder with you war crimes claim: the forcing of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps through-out the country. These were by and large law-abiding American citizens that in the time of war were forcibly placed into concentration camps, losing their possessions, business, homes and freedom. No act of sabotage was recorded during the war by these citizens, though it was greatly feared by the government that they would. Living conditions in these camps were at best substandard, though one does not need to compare Japanese and Nazi camps to them to deem them 'humane'...... though the term leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Is that not in of itself a potential basis for a 'war crime'?

@ fielder

"ulytau - I fully agree with you. I'm not looking to take any moral ground here at all.
AFAIC both world wars are an abomination. War is the negation of morality. Legalised murder. "

Just curious, how should we have responded when the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor??

"Were not going to war with you because in order to defeat you, there will be civilian casualties."

If going to war was justified, then how should we have responded to banzai charges shielded by japanese civilians in the Marianas and Okinawa?

"I'm sorry, guess we shouldn't have invaded those islands. We didn't know your civilians would get in the way of our bullets."

But if those invasions were justified, should we have stopped when it became clear that Japan would not surrender unless occupied?

"Guess we can't change your mind that you are defeated and that you were wrong to start this war, but we don't want to kill your civilians."

If you are fighting an irrational enemy who doesn't admit he's beat, and uses below the belt tactics, and you have a superweapon that might give your enemy pause and make them rethink the logic of continuing to fight a lost cause, at the same time keep your own soldiers alive, what logic says "Don't use it?"

The object of a war is to win, the methods employed focus on making it as unfair as possible to your enemy combatants and give your soldiers every possible advantage you can.
A "fair fight" is out of the question in an effective battle strategy...

As to the question of where to drop the bombs, there were no military targets of value in Japan as they were all destroyed (this should have been a clue to the japanese btw). And how effective is bombing a mountain or the sea to avoid civilian casualties?

"Well, the Americans have a superweapon, but they can't seem to hit their target with it, That last one was 100 miles from the nearest target!"

@ mesocell
As for the actual end to the war, it was the double whammy of 1) the atomic bombings of Aug 6 & 9, coupled with 2) Russian invasion of Manchuria on Aug 9 that help bring down the power base. But if not for an impassioned plea from Hirohito to the military led government of Japan (an exceedingly rare event), the powers in control in Japan were still looking to fight even though the few peace doves were trying to find a way out.... even resorting to assassination attempts.

Excellent point, and let me go further in saying that the russian invasion was enough to make the japanese military leadership second guess continuing the war, or at least give them enough pause to listen to Hirohito's plea, and the A-bombs gave Hirohito a way to save face with his population. Who would fault Hirohito for ending the war in the face of an American superweapon?

Without the A-Bomb attack the status quo would be left unchanged. No one can say that the war wouldn't have ended had another route be chosen, and deaths of any kind in war are terrible, but it is rather absurd to argue that the A-bombs had no effect on the surrender of Japan, or that other methods of ending the war would most certainly resulted in fewer civilian casualties.. It's terrible that civilian casualties were as high as they were, but estimates "at the time" predicted much higher casualty rates for an invasion than for dropping the bombs. I haven't seen evidence of any serious consideration for a blockade in decision making at the time.

By the way, casualty estimates "at the time" are what count in analizing the decision, as estimates conducted after the war were (for some odd reason) not available before the end of the war. Go figure...

Santa, I would have to agree with your assessment as to target location. Hiroshima and Kokura (the intended second city, saved on Aug 9 due to cloud cover) were picked to maximize the effect physically and psychologically. I did argue that perhaps a secondary target, a pure military target, would have been a bit more, for lack of a better term, humane. That still does not affect my opinion that the atomic bomb should have been deployed.

@Meso

''My point is that it was not the sole reason for the use of the atomic bomb.''

Yes I will. Indeed a man I greatly respect who was involved in the Manhattan project reports General Groves, the head of the project, as saying in 1944:
"Of course, the real purpose in making the bomb was to subdue the Soviets"

Joseph Rotblat. Leaving the bomb project. http://books.google.com/books?id=uwYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA16&source=gbs_toc_pages_r&cad=0_1#v=onepage&q&f=false

I wholeheartedly recomend it as a primary source.

@Leif - Ok that was bizzare. Where are all these quotes coming from? Certainly not from me! :/ Please take care not to attribute to me things I did not write.

I think the USA should have responded to Pearl Harbour just as they did. Did I suggest otherwise?

I'll say again the only thing I am arguing is that it was not necessary to drop the bomb to end the war. It sure is a touchy subject. Lot of people seem incredibly desperate to justify the pointless murder of 200k+ people.