Hiroshima

[Davie]

On the 6th August 1945, the B29 bomber "Enola Gay" dropped an atom bomb nicknamed "Little Boy" on the Japanese city Hiroshima. By the end of 1945, roughly 140000 people had died from the effects of this bomb.

Three days later a second atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Six days after that, Japan surrendered to the Allies, and the Second World War ended.

[berna2vm]

A truly horrible act, but unfortunately somewhat necessary. It is impossible to calculate the number of casualties (on both sides) if an invasion of mainland Japan had been undertaken.

[antarmike]

A truly horrible act, but unfortunately somewhat necessary. It is impossible to calculate the number of casualties (on both sides) if an invasion of mainland Japan had been undertaken.

 

What I find disgusting is these two cities were forbidden to be bombed with conventional bombs, because the USA wanted sites free from previous damage so that they could accurately assess to potency of the A bombs. If either city was genuinely a military target, why were they not targeted earlier with H.E./ incendary bombs, when clearly they could have been, long before the A bombs became available?

 

It seems to me that all was important was finding somewhere with lots of undamaged structures to be used as a test site and it mattered little what the military value of the site actually was.

 

Probably too political and due for deletion but we will see.

Edited August 7, 2010 by antarmike

[fesm_ndt]

Pretty much a different times and different sensibilities as back then targeting civilian populations, or collateral damage was tit for tat.

 

The Germans started bombing London. The English fire bombed several cities from the outside in to maximise civilian casualties. The Japanese had ethnic cleansing happening in China.

 

There was very little knowledge of the radiological after effects so much so that all the rules now on exposure limits are based on those to bombings.

 

I guess at the time it sounded like a good idea to finish the war quickly. Oddly enough all the major powers had huge stockpiles of chemical weapons but all were to scared of retalliation to use them.

 

What I find a crime is they kept making way to many of them, ie. enough to wipe the planet out a few times.

[Tony B]

What is a crime? A Jewish Surgeoun said to me the biggest crime of the Holacust was that the medical experiments were so badly done, nothing useful came out of them. To him, and I agree it meant all those who suffered, suffered pointlesly! There was no benifit to their suffering. Except from Luftwaffe hypothermia experiments, most modern treatment is based on that research. But survivors of the Holaucast benifited from the suffering during Indian Famines, treatments developed there were used to treat camp survivors.

 

One major problem of history, we are judging by OUR social norms.

[berna2vm]

I had no idea that the Luftwaffe had anything to do with the the Holocaust... I had always considered them to be very honourable.

[N.O.S.]

I had no idea that the Americans were running a diversionary Building Construction research project! All this time I've been harbouring the mis-guided belief that this darstadly act was all about shocking the Japanese into an early surrender, in order to avoid prolonged suffering on all sides.

 

But then there's a lot I get wrong :blush:.

[berna2vm]

I had no idea that the Americans were running a diversionary Building Construction research project! All this time I've been harbouring the mis-guided belief that this darstadly act was all about shocking the Japanese into an early surrender, in order to avoid prolonged suffering on all sides.

 

But then there's a lot I get wrong :blush:.

You and me both!!!!:shocked:

[Tony B]

I had no idea that the Luftwaffe had anything to do with the the Holocaust... I had always considered them to be very honourable.

The work on Hypothermia was done speciffically at the request of the Luftwaffe high command. They were losing many pilots after ditching in the sea. The result of the experiments came into the hands of the US forces, and post WW2 became the basis of standard treatment.

The most notable finding being 'You ain't dead till your warm and dead'. For many years the scource of the information was kept, not secret, but not publicised. When it did get into the press there was furorie. There is archive film of the experiments, I've seen some, but was to busy being sick for most of it.

 

As for the US looking for a clean target. The Genie was out of the bottle. They knew the atomic bomb worked. But didn't know how many they would have to drop. So as with any new weapon, you have to able to acesss the effects. It was deliberate exposure to radiation effects post war on soldiers I find questionable. But then I'm judging with the knowledge of hindsight.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Tony B

[antarmike]

I had no idea that the Americans were running a diversionary Building Construction research project! All this time I've been harbouring the mis-guided belief that this darstadly act was all about shocking the Japanese into an early surrender, in order to avoid prolonged suffering on all sides.

 

But then there's a lot I get wrong :blush:.

I don't know whether that is supposed to be humour or just ignorance of what actually happened. The bomb(s) were not dropped to hasten Japanese surrender, Japan was already prepared to surrender, and had been since the turn of the year. It may be that the bomb(s) were dropped to cause an unconditional surrender, because Japan had not yet reached the point where it was ready to do that.

But the choice of target was not based on any military importance, more on being able to quantify the effects of each bomb, and the amount of civilian housing destroyed (and hence civilian casulaties) was to be the indicator. Here is some further reading

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/visit_e/est_e/panel/A2_2/2301.htm

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/visit_e/est_e/panel/A2_2/2301a.htm

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/visit_e/est_e/panel/A2_2/2301b.htm

 

President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it "saved millions of lives" by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."

 

This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."

 

If the atomic bomb was dropped to impress the Japanese leaders with the immense destructive power of a new weapon, this could have been accomplished by deploying it on an isolated military base. It was not necessary to destroy a large city. And whatever the justification for the Hiroshima blast, it is much more difficult to defend the second bombing of Nagasaki.

Edited August 9, 2010 by antarmike

[N.O.S.]

Oh, undoubtedly more in ignorance than in humour - I'm not that clever. (It wasn't even meant to be funny - sarcastic maybe).

 

There could well be some truth in what you suggest, my post should be seen as merely an observation on the way you put it across. You seem to have quite strong views and theories of why the Americans did what they did. But I fear that if we were to dig too deep then all countries involved in the war would find much of which to be ashamed.

 

Your view that it was not necessary to destroy such a large city is a very difficult one to either support or defend so many years later in 2010 - but I'm afraid I've spent too much time in the company of a former Japanese prisoner of war to be able to argue rationally and without emotion on this subject, so I will not.

 

Speaking of which, there was a TV program on not many months ago where a daughter took her father, a former prisoner, back to one of the death railways and he met the local community. To see that man show such dignity and respect - almost forgiveness and understanding - in the presence of the Japanese people, despite what they did to him and his colleagues and despite what we did to these two Japanese cities, made me feel very small and humble.

[berna2vm]

A similar scenario to the bombing of Dresden perhaps...

[timbo]

A similar scenario to the bombing of Dresden perhaps...

 

Ok possibly going to get political but will TRY to keep it measured..

 

Opinion remains very divided about the bombing of Dresden, but if the argument is that the strategic bombing campaign should have slackened on the basis that a) the war was already won, and b) all the militarily important targets had already been destroyed then this should be applied to both sides - when the nazis knew the war was lost they actually INCREASED the rate of killing in the camps. Indeed the jews of Dresden who had escaped relatively lightly up to that point, were being prepared for deportation even as the bombs fell.

 

If I was in a Sherman in Feb 45 then I'd be happy for any action to be taken that might shorten the war, even if in retrospect it turned out that it didn't.

 

None of the above is in any way intended to lessen the horror of what happened to the civilian population, which was truly horrendous and which has haunted many bomber command veterans ever since.

 

Whole books have been written on this, and lots of them, so we won't get the answer here but just my thoughts.

 

Cheers

Tim (from Coventry originally, now twinned with Dresden)

[antarmike]

Oh, undoubtedly more in ignorance than in humour - I'm not that clever. (It wasn't even meant to be funny - sarcastic maybe).

 

There could well be some truth in what you suggest, my post should be seen as merely an observation on the way you put it across. You seem to have quite strong views and theories of why the Americans did what they did. But I fear that if we were to dig too deep then all countries involved in the war would find much of which to be ashamed.

 

Your view that it was not necessary to destroy such a large city is a very difficult one to either support or defend so many years later in 2010 - but I'm afraid I've spent too much time in the company of a former Japanese prisoner of war to be able to argue rationally and without emotion on this subject, so I will not.

 

Speaking of which, there was a TV program on not many months ago where a daughter took her father, a former prisoner, back to one of the death railways and he met the local community. To see that man show such dignity and respect - almost forgiveness and understanding - in the presence of the Japanese people, despite what they did to him and his colleagues and despite what we did to these two Japanese cities, made me feel very small and humble.

 

My own father was a prisoner for 4 1/2 years in Changi, care of the Japanese. His health (and probably mental health also) was ruined as a result. He was taken prisoner at the fall of Singapore. He hardly ever talked about what he saw, what happened there, and they way prisoners were treated, or the many collegues he knew who didn't survive. I have no love of the Japanese, and I find much of what they did totally un-acceptable and unforgivable, but two wrongs don't make a right.....

Edited August 9, 2010 by antarmike

[trustmeimamechanic]

I may be wrong but... it seems that all of those making judgments and comments on the rights and wrongs of war are ALL doing it with the luxury of hindsight and without the fear and miss-information that was present at the time these actions took place some 65 odd years ago .

I doubt any of those commenting were of an age to comprehend what was going on , if they were even alive , I feel that while we should learn from history ( something as humans we seem sadly unable to do ) , we only damage the memory of the many brave men and women of all sides by questioning the actions of for instance the airmen who flew over Dressden, who fought a war that those of us with vehicles from that period but that were not even a twinkle in our fathers eye will never fully be able to appreciate what happened and the feelings of the time.

 

We can judge Hiroshima from the comfort of the 21st century , what we can't do is forget those things we have learned since ... I'm fairly certain if we could travel back in time and ask any allied soldier , sailor or airman , or their families if the bomb was the right thing to do the answer would be yes without any question , we were at war .

 

My heart go's out to the young lads and lady's who today are fighting a war in Afghan where every round , every action , has to be accounted for in the full view of an at times biased press , yet those very soldiers are fighting a war on a battle field that is just as shrouded in the mist of war as those fields were in Normandy 65 years ago, without the convienance of your enemy wearing a uniform to identify himself.

[berna2vm]

I agree it is a much harder way to conduct warfare.... The SS and the Americans in Vietnam succumbed to the concept of harsh treatment of the civilian population. It is easy to condemn their actions but if you were not there you would not understand. Insurgency is an awful thing to combat... You do not possess the advantage of knowing who your enemy is, until he tries to kill you or your comrades....