Were the atomic bombs necessary

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

Who are these Europeans?

That's actually a very good question.

warspite1

Thank-you - and NEWSFLASH - there are plenty of Americans who did/do not agree with the decision to drop the bombs.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Orm

There are examples in history where shots have been fired in advance of the paperwork. But nothing like Pearl Harbor in its ferocity, loss of an entire battle fleet, attacks on civilians, and double-dealing by ambassadors. Nothing even close.

This makes me wonder if the German invasion of USSR 1941 was a picnic. The largest invasion ever.

It began on June 22. The declaration of war was on June 22. There was a difference of a few hours. The USSR had 300 divisions on the border. It was hardly a surprise to them.

warspite1

And when exactly was this "declaration of war"???? Why did Stalin not believe it if they had been formally told of an attack by the Germans?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Orm

There are examples in history where shots have been fired in advance of the paperwork. But nothing like Pearl Harbor in its ferocity, loss of an entire battle fleet, attacks on civilians, and double-dealing by ambassadors. Nothing even close.

This makes me wonder if the German invasion of USSR 1941 was a picnic. The largest invasion ever.

It began on June 22. The declaration of war was on June 22. There was a difference of a few hours. The USSR had 300 divisions on the border. It was hardly a surprise to them.

I do not see the logic here. There was no DOW before the invasion of USSR began. The USSR forces were caught by surprise. Is it the number of troops that was surprised that makes a difference? If so then I would argue that the shock for USSR was greater because the number of troops surprised was greater. Or is it the casualties caused by the surprise attack that counts because then I would argue that the USSR casualties was higher. Or is it just that ships was involved that makes a difference?

I am pretty certain that the German invasion of USSR was, and is, a trauma as great for Russia today as the attack on Pearl Harbour was, and is for USA. Just because USA suffered does not mean others suffered as well.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Orm


This makes me wonder if the German invasion of USSR 1941 was a picnic. The largest invasion ever.

It began on June 22. The declaration of war was on June 22. There was a difference of a few hours. The USSR had 300 divisions on the border. It was hardly a surprise to them.

I do not see the logic here. There was no DOW before the invasion of USSR began. The USSR forces were caught by surprise. Is it the number of troops that was surprised that makes a difference? If so then I would argue that the shock for USSR was greater because the number of troops surprised was greater. Or is it the casualties caused by the surprise attack that counts because then I would argue that the USSR casualties was higher. Or is it just that ships was involved that makes a difference?

I am pretty certain that the German invasion of USSR was, and is, a trauma as great for Russia today as the attack on Pearl Harbour was, and is for USA. Just because USA suffered does not mean others suffered as well.

warspite1

And not forgetting these two actually had a treaty in place at the time..... but as Bullwinkle says "nothing comes close to the attack on the US by Japan for duplicity...." I am surprised he keeps a straight face when typing that garbage.

[Canoerebel]

The criticism of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is well-intentioned, heartfelt, and naive.

It took years to develop the bombs. It took months to plan and conceive the missions to deliver the bombs to Tinian and the missions to drop the bombs. Throughout that time, Japan was putting up fanatical resistance and showed little if any inclination to surrender unconditionally. The United States was understandably anxious to end the war as efficiently and quickly as possible. It is difficult to make last-minute changes to complex plans months or years in the making based upon conjecture or possibilities. There might have been other ways to end the war at less cost to Japan - and possibly to the United States - but those were uncertain and debatable while a clear path to victory seemed obvious.

In hindsight, the use of a weapon of mass destruction fills us with horror. From a position of foresight, this was not the case. These bombs did not differ in kind from what the Allies were already doing - wholesale attacks against both the Japanese military and the civilian population's will to endure and to support the military. Fire bombings were already killing tens of thousands of civilians in individual raids and all but wiping out cities. The bombs would do the same, the only difference being the raids vs. Nagasaki and Hiroshima wre more efficient and less hazardous to the Allies.

The two bombs inflicted less casualties on the Japanese than did a number of conventional bombing raids. So if you wish to oppose death in war, oppose it across the board, but not on the basis that these weapons were "worse" than others. The only difference was that these two missions exposed fewer American troops to danger (only a handful of aircraft involved as opposed to hundreds on conventional raids). These missions were simply more efficient, callous as that may seem.

We all depore war and death today. Most of us also recognize that, unfortuantely, war is inevitable or the best option under certain circumstances. In war, civilians will be killed. The Allies killed thousands of neutral or friendly French and Dutch and Belgians in conventional bombing raids. They didn't want to, of course. But there was no reasonable alternative that they could see. We can try to minimize civilian casualties, but sometimes even that can be counterproductive by extending an nation's or people's will to fight. William Sherman (and Abraham Lincoln) knew that in 1864.

As others have noted in this thread, the awful potential of atomic power became apparent in August 1945. Those two days transformed the world from "willingness to use atomic power in warfare" foresight to "awareness that we must never go down that path again" hindsight. We agree that war is awful and to be waged only when there is no other option. Since August 1945, the planet has never again endured a world war. Atomic weapons are one reason. Let's hope and struggle to see that it never happens again.

Between 100,000 and 200,000 unfortunate souls perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Far more than that perished in Tokyo and other cities during a few raids that summer, not to mention the millions of others that perished in the Pacific War and globally. Ending the war as efficiently and quickly as possible was a reasonable decision under the known conditions of that time. Every civilian and military death, whether at Pearl Harbor, Stalingrad, Dresden, London, Manila, Tokyo or Hiroshima, is a lamentable. But to those who died it didn't really matter whehter it was by bayonet, grenade, fire bomb or atomic bomb. The latter was not any more or less "evil" than any other method.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Coach Zuck

Those of you who argue the Atomic Bombs were unnecessary I wonder if you have read JAPAN'S LONGEST DAY.
It is the account of an attempted coup by members of the Imperial Japanese Army who attacked the Imperial Palace trying to kidnap the Emperor to
prevent any surrender.

What I think is more important is just how little support the coup generated. Pretty much none of the high-ranking officers were in support for it - they may have liked the idea, but when talk came to action they were not involved.

[Coach Zuck]

What I think is more important is just how little support the coup generated. Pretty much none of the high-ranking officers were in support for it - they may have liked the idea, but when talk came to action they were not involved.

General Anami - Army Minister had consorted with Coup conspirators from the beginning, but committed suicide [seppuku] when the coup began.
It was said that once he knew the Emperor's true feelings {Supreme War Council meeting held in Hirohito's presence} he could not join the coup, but could not live with surrender.

Also remember the conspirators held the palace until the next morning!! The Emperor and his family were hiding.
They almost assassinated the Prime Minister who was also hiding!
If they would have "kidnapped" the Emperor and assassinated PM Suzuki things would have been very different in the morning!

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I do not see the logic here. There was no DOW before the invasion of USSR began. The USSR forces were caught by surprise. Is it the number of troops that was surprised that makes a difference? If so then I would argue that the shock for USSR was greater because the number of troops surprised was greater. Or is it the casualties caused by the surprise attack that counts because then I would argue that the USSR casualties was higher. Or is it just that ships was involved that makes a difference?

I am pretty certain that the German invasion of USSR was, and is, a trauma as great for Russia today as the attack on Pearl Harbour was, and is for USA. Just because USA suffered does not mean others suffered as well.

As I said, the declaration was a couple of hours after the invasion. So yes. OTOH, both sides had been probing across the border for some time before that. Massive armies were gathered and both sides knew that. I have read that Germany underestimated the numbers, but they knew it was at least circa 150 divisions. That the Red Air Force was clocked is as much due to their incompetence than anything else. Warning wouldn't have mattered IMO. The Germans had been fighting for nearly two years in the West. The Russians knew that. Their C&C systems, training, and equipment wasn't going to stand up in the first assault. Perhaps the Russian people were surprised but the leadership shouldn't have been. They got into bed with Hitler over Poland. Why be surprised he turned on them?

I am only talking about the first day, declaration or no declaration. After that it's war and war isn't fair.

Speaking as an American who has studied the subject, been in the US Navy, and lived right at Pearl Harbor twice in my life for a total of four years, I can only say that the totality of the attack did matter and was different in fundamental ways than any that ever happened to the nation. It still is. We still observe Pearl Harbor Day every year, it leads the news, there is widespread understanding of the events in each living generation. Perhaps less than when I was a boy, but that's expected after 70 years. Part of it was the ships, yes. They were showcase ships in the 1930s. Every boy knew them. There were constant newsreels, etc. Part of it was the civilian casualties. That was new for us. The world was simpler then. Our WWI experience had been all Over There, not Here.

Hawaii was US territory. Not a state, but headed that way. Not even close to the same category in the US mind as the PI.

And part of it for sure, given the media at the time which I have studied extensively at university and since, was the racial element. The US public had been sold that Japan was weak, incompetent, nearsighted, and ape-like. This only accelerated after Dec. 7. This piece played into the backstab narrative. Extensive coverage of the negotiations in D.C. were in every paper and in the newsreels. "They attacked while they were negotiating" was in the very first reports after the first basic reports of "air raid Pearl Harbor." This I believe was the source of most of the fury. And it didn't lessen over the course of the PTO campaign. It was still the first response Truman gave at Potsdam when Churchill wanted to waffle.

[warspite1]

Hahahahahaha - got the Chuchill dig in again attaboy. Keep 'em coming.

Tell us ze vun about ze vashboard!

[Bullwinkle58]

I read the criticisms of Gar Alperovitz back in the 1970s and they still form the basis for a lot of the critics of the use of the Bomb. As someone well versed in history you know how dangerous it is to engage in "presentism" and cast motives or conclusions based on present-day ethics or fact sets. I believe the best sources on this are the papers and diaries of those in the middle of the decision at the time, primarily Truman. Nothing I have ever read indicates it was a hard decision for him to make.

[Orm]

What I do not understand is why you think that the Russian people reacted differently than the Americans?

And why is it a excuse that the Soviet leadership should have seen it coming? Should not the US leadership have seen it coming? Should not the US military have seen it coming?

I must say that I do not get it.[:(] Even less so when I consider the enormous losses that USSR suffered during the war.

[wdolson]

Let's be careful about personal attacks here. Derogatory comments about individuals don't help the conversation.

Bill

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I read the criticisms of Gar Alperovitz back in the 1970s and they still form the basis for a lot of the critics of the use of the Bomb. As someone well versed in history you know how dangerous it is to engage in "presentism" and cast motives or conclusions based on present-day ethics or fact sets. I believe the best sources on this are the papers and diaries of those in the middle of the decision at the time, primarily Truman. Nothing I have ever read indicates it was a hard decision for him to make.

warspite1

Yep and none of it has anything to do with thicky "Europeans" not understanding the realities of war and simple, basic human emotions like revenge.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Let's be careful about personal attacks here. Derogatory comments about individuals don't help the conversation.

Bill

Thank you for the reminder, Bill.

I drink some tea for my nerves and then I will return to the sidelines and just cheer instead of participating. [:)]

[Aurelian]

In a nutshell, they were necessary.

Currently reading http://www.usni.org/store/books/audio-books/hell-pay

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Let's be careful about personal attacks here. Derogatory comments about individuals don't help the conversation.

Bill

Thank you for the reminder, Bill.

I drink some tea for my nerves and then I will return to the sidelines and just cheer instead of participating. [:)]

Don't forget to spend some time in the Australian Beauties thread. Very calming....

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

In a nutshell, they were necessary.

Currently reading http://www.usni.org/store/books/audio-books/hell-pay

Warspite1

Looks interesting Aurelian. When you've finished please let us know what you think in the book thread. Interested to know if has detailed OOB'S, maps etc

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Let's be careful about personal attacks here. Derogatory comments about individuals don't help the conversation.

Bill

Thank you for the reminder, Bill.

I drink some tea for my nerves and then I will return to the sidelines and just cheer instead of participating. [:)]

Don't forget to spend some time in the Australian Beauties thread. Very calming....

warspite1

Sound advice [;)]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Orm



Thank you for the reminder, Bill.

I drink some tea for my nerves and then I will return to the sidelines and just cheer instead of participating. [:)]

Don't forget to spend some time in the Australian Beauties thread. Very calming....

warspite1

Sound advice [;)]

Indeed. But I doubt that it is very calming. [:)]

[Hotschi]

I think what makes Pearl Harbor so special in the minds of our fellow American wargamers here is.... that it was also one of the very rare attacks on U.S. territory.

How Stalin reacted - or not - when Germany attacked, and the issue some here might have with declarations of war or no declarations of war, or about "European thinking" and "American thinking", are only sidetracking the A-bomb theme.

Warspite, I am somehow disappointed of you. You are better than that as shown above, and you know it. What others think about Churchill is also irrelevant in regard to the A-Bomb theme. Please don't appear to work on getting this thread locked just because you think someone has insulted Winston Spencer Churchill.

Thanks to you, Bullwinkle, for very informative posts, and thanks to you, Canoerebel, for an excellent summary (post 245).

Happy New Year everyone.