Was the USA right to drop the Bomb on Japan to end WW2?

by stillajwexelder 131 Replies latest members politics

• 

  SixofNine

  I have my opinions on the matter, but this guy was much closer to the situation, and he thought "no":

  ~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER

  "...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

  "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly 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 Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

  - Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

  In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

  "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

  - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
• 

  SixofNine

  The Russians went back on their agreement to invade Japan in a conventual manner from the West while the Americans would go in from the East.

  As I understand it, the Russians had just arrived and were beginning to engage the Japanese. Many people speculate that this was a reason for the US feeling in a hurry to drop the bomb(s), as the Russians would have made short work of the already defeated Japanese..... and then the Russians would have had a say in the surrender and peace negotiations.
• 

  xenawarrior

  Excellent post Dave
• 

  czarofmischief

  Right and wrong are relative... war is pretty sick no matter what - but would I have made the same choice? Without a doubt. If I have a tool to end a war quickly, then yes, I would use it.

  As for the russians making short work of the Japanese... that is just ridiculous. The Japanese had so many fortifications and the Red Army had NO air capacity to remove them - nor did the Red Army have any Navy worth mentioning by the end of the war, either... No way. Never. Not in a million years and a hundred million deaths...

  CZAR
• 

  SixofNine

  Much is made of the Japanese being willing to fight to the death for their Emporer, as that was their religion, their belief, their god.

  What is often missed, is that they did surrender. They did not necessarilly "fight to the death", though indeed they might have on his command. And what is even more overlooked, is the fact that we gave them what they wanted in order to end hostilities, the Emporer was guaranteed his position and safety in the postwar.
• 

  czarofmischief

  the Emporer was guaranteed his position and safety in the postwar.

  No, he was forced to renounce his divinity.

  the Emperor's position was not guaranteed. The Japanese surrender was pretty much unconditional, from what I've read. That was the only surrender the Allies would accept - anything else would be a betrayal...

  CZAR
• 

  chappy

  The dropping of the bombs almost didn't work. As Dave said above the Japanese were fanatical and to the vast majority surrender was unthinkable. The only controlling factor was the word of the emperor. The decision to surrender was totally in his hands. He did finally make this decision (over the intense dismay of the military who wanted to fight to the death) three days after the dropping of the second bomb. Hirohito recorded his address on a phonograph record to be radio broadcast to the entire country the next day. Several military officers were intent on stopping the broadcast at all costs. They captured the emperors compound, attempting to locate and destroy the recording and kill Hirohito. Though coming very close to success, they failed and were caught and killed on the spot by officers loyal to Hirohito. Upon hearing the emperors radio address the military as well as civilians laid down their arms and surrendered. None of the people outside Hirohitos clostest staff and higher government officials had ever heard his voice or even seen him before. Had the coup de' tant succeeded, millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would have died. It's not well known, but the already planned invasion included the use of up to nine more nuclear bombs in support of the invading forces. The ignorance of the US government at the time concerning the effects of radiation would have resulted in the additional deaths of even countless more American soldiers.

  chappy
• 

  SixofNine

  This nobody was there too. He agreed with Eisenhower:

  ~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY

  (Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

  "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

  "The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

  - William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
• 

  SixofNine

  No, he was forced to renounce his divinity.

  the Emperor's position was not guaranteed. The Japanese surrender was pretty much unconditional, from what I've read. That was the only surrender the Allies would accept - anything else would be a betrayal...

  a betrayal of what, pray tell? Your comments don't jive with this:

  ~~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

  MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

  William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

  Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

  Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
• 

  SixofNine

  This guy thought it unnecessary too:

  ~~~HERBERT HOOVER

  On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

  Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.

  On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

  quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.

  "...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

  - quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142

  Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation, he [Hoover] told friends. It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan."

  Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.

  In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

  Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.