# On this day in 1945: US drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima ( BBC )



## Gavin Gait

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/6/newsid_3602000/3602189.stm

We should never forget the 879 crew of the USS Indianapolis CA-35 who lost their lives after being torpedoed after delivering the "Fat Man" bomb to the island of Tinian which was later to be dropped 63 years ago today on the city of Hiroshima leading to the the loss of 140,000 lives.

http://www.ussindianapolis.org/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/USS_Indianapolis_at_Mare_Island.jpg

We can only hope and pray that in time all nuclear weapons will be dismantled and that no one , be they a government or terrorist group , has the insanity to use one again.


----------



## KenLin39

Think this out Davie. The Americans having had increased losses in the taking of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, how many lives would have been lost invading the Japanese mainland and how long would it have gone on for if the bombs hadn't been dropped. No doubt all Commonwealth countries would have been called upon to assist and it would have gone on for years. bearing in mind that our 14th Army was in Burma. Ken.


----------



## slick

All,
Horrific though they were the two Atomic Bombs did bring the war to a fairly swift conclusion.
Can anyone tell me or confirm , I believe a Gingko tree survived the initial blast of one of the bombs and is growing to this day.
Yours aye,
Slick


----------



## Gavin Gait

Ken in no way was i criticizing the decision to drop both bombs on Japan. It was the _*only*_ way to bring the war to a halt saving hundreds of thousands of Allied AND Japanese lives more than were lost to both bombs. 

Having seen the effects of the first A-bombs I still hope and pray that we will never see one being used again.


----------



## cboots

It is high time that the "excuse" of it being the only means of speedily ending the war was put to bed. The Japanese were prepared to surrender and were negotiating to do so; my understanding is that the sticking point was the granting of immunity to the emperor. And before I get nuked by the usual mob, can I make it absolutely clear that I have no sympathy for the Japanese at all, and reading their war activities one is sometimes forced to wonder if they did not almost deserve it. However, the decision to drop two atomic bombs was made, from a range of options, at the highest political levels in the US and the UK. It is also interesting to note that as a result of that decision the Japanese have been able to present themselves as victims in the Pacific War rather than the extremely ruthless aggressors that they actually were.
CBoots


----------



## John Cassels

cboots said:


> It is high time that the "excuse" of it being the only means of speedily ending the war was put to bed. The Japanese were prepared to surrender and were negotiating to do so; my understanding is that the sticking point was the granting of immunity to the emperor. And before I get nuked by the usual mob, can I make it absolutely clear that I have no sympathy for the Japanese at all, and reading their war activities one is sometimes forced to wonder if they did not almost deserve it. However, the decision to drop two atomic bombs was made, from a range of options, at the highest political levels in the US and the UK. It is also interesting to note that as a result of that decision the Japanese have been able to present themselves as victims in the Pacific War rather than the extremely ruthless aggressors that they actually were.
> CBoots


Quite agree with you cboots, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both politically
motivated events. Many high rankers ( Curtis LeMay among them) 
advocated that conventinal bombings and a total blockade of Japan would
have had the same outcome without using Fat Man and Little Boy and
without the need to invade the homeland.


----------



## slick

All,
Although the dispute concerning the use of Atomic Bombs will be with us forever, I am always heartened by General Douglas Macarthur's speech at the surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri, does it show the transition of a soldier to a statesman?
"We are gathered here, representatives of the major warring powers, to conclude a solemn agreement whereby peace may be restored. The issues, involving divergent ideals and ideologies, have been determined on the battlefields of the world and hence are not for our discussion or debate. Nor is it for us here to meet, representing as we do a majority of the people of the earth, in a spirit of distrust, malice or hatred. But rather it is for us, both victors and vanquished, to rise to that higher dignity which alone befits the sacred purposes we are about to serve, committing all our people unreservedly to faithful compliance with the understanding they are here formally to assume.
It is my earnest hope, and indeed the hope of all mankind, that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past -- a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance and justice".
Yours aye,
Slick


----------



## Binnacle

Thanks for that quotation Slick. What makes it even more enteresting is the fact that this was the man who later got sacked by Truman for threatening the advancing Chinese army in Korea with the bomb. Truman had previously sanctioned it's use against the Japanese. When McArthur was dismissed the cold war was on, and Truman well knew the consequences of a hostile reaction from Moscow did not bear thinking about.


----------



## John Cassels

And his closing words were " Let us pray that peace be now restored to the
world and that God will preserve it always ".


----------



## LEEJ

John Cassels said:


> And his closing words were " Let us pray that peace be now restored to the
> world and that God will preserve it always ".


Never preserved it before and hasnt preserved it since.

Inshallah.


----------



## Tony D

I suspect that were it not for nuclear weapons most of the people posting here err would not be here,my generation would have been the cannon fodder for the war that would have followed shorty after the end of WW2,We had two nations who hated each other, the USA and the USSR geared up for war like no other nations in history,only the threat of nuclear armagedon stopped that war and stopped it turning from cold to hot,and have kept the peace for the last sixty years, don't knock the nukes we still walk the earth because of them.
As for not using the bomb on Japan,ask the people of the countries they occupied ask the citizens of the likes of Nanking,they would have voted Japan be nuked every day for the next ten years.


----------



## cboots

I am inclined to agree that the possession of nuclear weaponery prevented a major conflict between the the two power blocks but one cannot claim that this was an era of peace. Wars were numerous and bloody, Vietnam being just one of many. The "Cold War" is largely a misnomer; a very cold peace along the borders of the two super powers but numerous wars of proxy were still being fought out elsewhere, many of them in the old colonial states seeking independence and the power struggles that followed independence, with the USSR and the US taking opposing sides.
The problem with MacArthur is that, even by senior general standards, he was possessed of a very large ego. Latterly in Korea this proved to be his undoing when, in disagreement with Washington as to the progress of the war, he displayed the tendency to assume presidential powers. Truman, who was the President and had the powers under the constitution, promptly fired him, and I think most historians agree that the world was a safer place for it.
CBoots


----------



## LEEJ

I should have been more specific gents...I was referring to God in my earlier post. 

Also if you advocate nuclear weapons maintain peace then you will agree that Iran should have them.


----------



## Pompeyfan

Tony D said:


> I suspect that were it not for nuclear weapons most of the people posting here err would not be here,my generation would have been the cannon fodder for the war that would have followed shorty after the end of WW2,We had two nations who hated each other, the USA and the USSR geared up for war like no other nations in history,only the threat of nuclear armagedon stopped that war and stopped it turning from cold to hot,and have kept the peace for the last sixty years, don't knock the nukes we still walk the earth because of them.
> As for not using the bomb on Japan,ask the people of the countries they occupied ask the citizens of the likes of Nanking,they would have voted Japan be nuked every day for the next ten years.


Good post Tony, and very true. We can all be wise in hindsight as to what should or shouldn't have happened, always looking for a person to blame, but oh so wise ourselves before *or *after the events. Life is not so clear cut unfortunately. Somebody has to make the decisions, and live by them rightly or wrongly.

I have been to Nagasaki, and it certainly opens your eyes, the carnage was beyond belief. As in all wars it is the innocent who get hurt and killed because of the actions of their leaders. I have a very good friend who was Japanese. He was appalled at the way his people tortured our prisoners, and understood why America did what it did despite the carnage the bombs caused to his people. Just read the history or talk to people connected with loved ones tortured out there. Torture techniques employed by the Japanese were cruel beyond belief, totally inhuman including having their testicles and private parts cut off, then placed in their mouths, and their mouths sewn up. They would then send the prisoner back to the Allied Battle lines to strike fear into them. 

I have also seen first hand evidence with people who survived dying of natural causes, but I saw the scars of the torture they endured.

Whether dropping the atom bomb to end the war was right or wrong will always be debated, but Tony is spot on that dropping those bombs has kept peace because in all honesty they are a powder puff to the power and destruction to nuclear bombs now available. A nuclear war between America and its allies and Russia for example could not only destroy our country and America but could destroy life on earth.

I think however that any nuclear war will not be between countries, but fanatics who don't care if they destroy themselves as well as the rest of humanity. However super powers taking sides could get drawn into it which could get out of control resulting in a deadly encounter that could destroy the planet. 

Lets hope that lessons learned from the Japanese atom bombs will ensure that these bombs and indeed far more powerful ones are never let off again even between countries who still hate each other. Why people of all countries cannot get on together in the 21st century is beyond me. How many more needless wars before we wake up?. 

David


----------



## ROBERT HENDERSON

The topic of whether it was right or not to use the bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki will debated for many years to come. As for it actually saving lives is an argument that politicians use to condone its use. Think of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as Goebels said during the Nazi regime; ''Truth is the enemy of the state.''
Pompeyfan asks how many wars before we wake up. 
Wars are not caused by people or military men, but, by politicians. Bush ran scared during the Vietnam war and managed to dodge the draft.
None of our present government has fought in a war or lived through a war.
None of them have loved ones in Iraq or Afghanistan. Unless the rules were changed so that those that declare war fight on the front line there will never be peace in the world, that will never happen that is one thing for sure.
None of the Bush administration or the UK goverment have attended funerals of those bought home in coffins, they have not even had the good grace to visit the wounded in hospital.

ROBERT


----------



## Pompeyfan

Robert

You are correct, it is politicians who cause war, or should I say leaders, because many leaders are self made, not elected. Others are, so therefore it is WE because it is us who put them there so we have to share some of the blame if we elect the wrong part or President etc. Unless of course it is a dictatorship or terrorist group that has taken over a country by force, then of course it is a different matter. Whatever people think of Bush he was elected by his people in true democratic style just as Labour in this country. So if we don't like the leaders, don't blame them, blame those who put them there. At least we have the chance to vote them out, others countries do not have that luxury. 

We in all countries will only wake up when we elect the right leaders, and hope that one day all countries will be free to elect whoever they like so that we can all live in peace. But that will not happen in my lifetime, and possibly not my great grandsons either. 

David


----------



## wigger

Hi David, I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories etc, but was Bush elected by his people? I think a great many people (even in the USA itself) would disagree with that, not that his opposition would have much different I expect. The best democracy money can buy.

Kind regards
Craig


----------



## Pompeyfan

Hi Craig

I don't think America has become like Zimbabwe yet. The Americans are free thinking people and I think it unfair to suggest their President bought their votes. 

David


----------



## wigger

Hi David, 

Thats a fair comment, but working with a large group of Americans each day, some based in the UK but most in the USA, its what I hear from many of them. Whether its true or not is irrelevant, but the mere suspicion that voters are ignored leads to a large percentage of them saying they will not be voting in this years election, which does lead back to your comment about it being the voters fault I guess. 

PS, sorry folks, I don't want to hijack this thread so back to the main discussion.

Craig.


----------



## quiet waters

*hiroshima*

for such an important date in history its best to get the facts right, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima on the 6th of August 1945 was called "little boy" 
Paul W. Tibbets Jr. will be remembered for piloting the Enola Gay, a B-29 superfortress that dropped the first atomic bomb, he lived to the ripe old age of 92.
"Fat Man" was the name of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki on this day sixty three years ago, 9th of August 1945 by a B-29 called Bockscar, unlike the earlier device "Little Boy", the ingredients for the "Fat Man" bomb were delivered to Tinian Island by a C-45 transport plane. the two planes were i believe part of the same unit and Bockscar was named after her skipper, fred Bock, i think there was something about the second plane,originally the plane that had accompanied the Enola Gay was meant to drop the second bomb on another site, kakuri or kokura? on the 11th but a bad forecast forced the flight to take place two days earlier, hence Bock and his crew flew the support plane Great Artiste with the photographic equipment etc which they hadn't had time to move to the Bockscar, while the Bockscar carried "Fat Man" under the command of the Great Artiste's flight crew, captained by Charles Sweeney. The only reason Nagasaki was bombed was due to low cloud as the bomb had to be dropped by sight and several passes over the planned site had failed to give a proper view.
If my memory serves me correctly the captain of the Indiannapolis met a sorry end too as he was courtmartialed for the loss of the ship, Charles Butler McVey was blamed for following orders and committed suicide some years later in 1967 or 68, it was only in recent years that he was exonerated, i read a fascinating book about the whole scenario called "In Harms Way" written by some guy called Stanton or Staunton, the Indie was actually sunk about a week before the Enola Gay dropped the bomb, hope i've remembered it correctly, i started out just remembering the names of the bombs but having read the book twice and another i can't recall the name of? the product of long nights aboardship with limited reading material, it all came flooding back, i think my facts are almost accurate, these things should never be forgotten, no matter how long ago they happened, i've got the memory of an elephant, i never forget, never, its all up there somewhere, waiting to get used, mostly when not required, hope you don't mind Davie eh?


----------



## slick

All,
Does a Gingko Tree survive to this day at one of the sites?
Yours aye,
Slick


----------



## Tony D

People forget the original target for the Atom Bomb was Berlin that is what it was built for,use in the European theater to counter any nuclear weapon Hitler was thought to have, fortunately the Germany war was over before the weapon was ready to be deployed.


----------



## cboots

I don't know about Berlin being the original target for the atom bomb, bit close to home for the Allies I would have thought, but the post above regarding the diversion to Nagasaki as a secondary target causes me to recall and interesting snippet I read somewhere or other. The bomb was dropped over an area that included Japan's Roman Catholic cathedral and in which the bulk of Japan's small Roman Catholic population resided. The plane, and by extension, its deadly cargo, was blessed by a Roman Catholic priest prior to take off, thus bearing witness for evermore to the power of prayer!
CBoots


----------



## chadburn

Interesting comment about the Priest blessing the plane's, they also blessed the Italian planes that were involved in the Air War over England!!.


----------



## Chouan

Rather like the queen naming HMS Dreadnought, our first nuclear submarine: "May God bless her and all who sail in her", and her cargo of nuclear missiles one assumes.

It is my understanding that the main reason for actually dropping the 2 bombs was as a statement to the Russians, a kind of "look what we can do". The Red Army was busy sweeping through Manchuria, in fulfillment of their agreement with Roosevelt, and Truman wanted the Russians to be aware of the power of the West ready for the post-war negotiations. 

The Japanese were already in the process of surrendering, and, in any case, as has already been said, the B29 fire raids were causing more civilian casualties than the Atomic Bombs did and had already brought the Japanese to their knees. I'm not in a position to judge them, especially the ordinary Japanese civilians, but the atrocities carried out by the Japanese were appalling, yet the Americans managed to do a pretty effective whitewash on most of the worst cases, especially those in China and Manchuria, especially when they wanted Japan as a secure base.


----------



## John Rogers

Some of you may be too young to remember the V-1 and V-2 rockets that Germany sent over to England,it was only a matter of time before Hitler would have used the A Bomb as they were working on a program to have one.
And as for Politicians not having anyone over in Iraq not so,check the records, a couple of Congressmen have sons over there in the marines and army to include Senator McCain son.

John.


----------



## cboots

It should be pointed out that the war with Germany was already over when the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. We cannot be certain what the true reason for their use at this time actually was, but I am of the view that a demonstration of power to the USSR, whose armies had stormed across much of Europe, and were well placed to do a repeat in China, is probably pretty close to the mark.
As for the offspring of politicians being involved, always a difficult one. After all "Andy did his bit in the Falklands" and there is another royal brat, Harry isn't it, who has been in Afghanistan I believe. Given the US and their allies fondness for invading small countries I guess, statistically, there is bound to be the odd child of the rulers involved. Whether they stick around once the serious resistance sets in, I am not too sure.
CBoots


----------



## Chouan

Their ally in the caucasus seems to have got a bloody nose. Very cynical timing, I thought.


----------



## Pompeyfan

cboots said:


> As for the offspring of politicians being involved, always a difficult one. After all "Andy did his bit in the Falklands" and there is another royal brat, Harry isn't it, who has been in Afghanistan I believe. Given the US and their allies fondness for invading small countries I guess, statistically, there is bound to be the odd child of the rulers involved. Whether they stick around once the serious resistance sets in, I am not too sure.
> CBoots



Firstly, apologies for going off thread in the next paragraph of this post, but I see no choice. 

Very unfair to Prince Harry to label him as a brat. Whatever ones views of Royalty or offspring of political leaders Prince Harry like his bother William like to let their hair down like all youngsters their age. They are just like their mother, wanting to change the stuffy image of the Royal Family. Rebels perhaps, trying to dodge their minders like their mum to live as normal a life as possible while still honouring their Royal duties, but certainly not brats. Harry wanted to go to Afghanistan, and to stay there sticking around when it got serious, but he was not allowed to when word got out he was there. He has recently been in Africa for his charity. Both are again like their mother, trying to help the less well off going where no other famous person goes, not even political leaders. They are a credit to Princess Diana, and a credit to their country for their charity work aboard. As I have said before, they are in a no win situation. If they stay at home scrounging off the state they are criticised, and if they try to do something good Royal haters also criticise them. What a hopeless position to be in?.

Back to the thread, we beat the Germans to enjoy the peace we have today whether it is seen as peace or not. The atom bombs dropped on Japan also stopped that war whatever others may say that it would have ended anyway. 

It is now history and we must learn from it whoever was right or wrong. But I doubt if we ever will because the entire world seems trigger happy. They are all as bad as each other, blaming each other, but just the same. If Bush is not there to criticise, there would be somebody else who would be possibly against us, wanting to blow us all to kingdom come, not those supposedly on our side. Exactly what DO we want when those trying to keep our way of life is criticised?!!.

David


----------



## Chouan

"The atom bombs dropped on Japan also stopped that war whatever others may say that it would have ended anyway. 

It is now history and we must learn from it whoever was right or wrong."

But David, it IS history, and we MUST learn from it. But, if we ignore history, or ignore the history that doesn't fit in with what we want our history to have been, then we won't learn from it!
It isn't a question of "whatever others may say say"; the A-Bombs didn't stop the war, Japan WAS already negotiating peace at the time the bombs were dropped. Don't take my word for it, look it up in any modern work on the subject.


----------



## benjidog

Chouan,

Saying that we *must* learn from history is an interesting way of putting your point but I am afraid it is nothing more than a mantra. 

Maybe in principle we *should* learn from history - but that just raises more questions including what should we learn from it, and what aspects of an earlier situation is applicable to a later one? And which (or who's) history should we learn from - there are many variations and interpretations despite attempts at objectivity. Can anyone be truly objective?

History is fascinating and helps us to understand how we got here - but does it really tell us how to move forward? I am not convinced that it does. 

Also, by and large, we seem to be cursed with the need to make our own mistakes and an inability to learn from the mistakes of others. Groundhog Day writ large you might say!


----------



## Pompeyfan

Brian

You are so right about history which is why I said I doubt if we ever will learn because as you say there are many variations and interpretations. Countries or even individuals only see it from their own viewpoint, so although some may learn lessons, others don't which is why there is this inability to learn from others because few like to admit they were wrong. 

I absolute proof of that albeit from a medical point of view. Doctors or Surgeons have come to watch an autopsy to confirm they got it right even though the patient died. We proved beyond doubt that they got it wrong yet they always convinced themselves after lengthy discussions that their treatment or surgical procedure was the right one, too full of their own pee and importance to even consider they were wrong. In fact I could write a book on it, and often been urged to do so. But I am no author. 

I would imagine however that you can put the same principle into life in general, that leaders of all countries, all political persuasions and indeed faiths refuse to admit they were wrong or see the others point of view even when it is as clear as day. That is why I always say I am not anti this or pro that because life is not a one way street, it is both ways and until the population of the earth sing from the same hymn sheet there never will be peace on earth however many atom bombs or H bombs are let off.

It is the same with seaside accidents year in year out. I have seen exactly the same incidents since 1976 when directly involved, but we have learned absolutely nothing.

So in short, do we learn from history?. The answer in general terms must be *no*, but Brian has put it far better than me. 

David


----------



## Chouan

Brian, I was quoting David. 
Of course we *should* learn from history. Those who don't are doomed to repeat it, to paraphrase a famous saying. Unfortunately, too many people either ignore it, or only use "applied history", ie only use the bits that support their own preconceived view. "The past is simply a convenient quarry which provides ammunition to use against enemies in the present" again using a partial quote, but it gets the message across effectively.
Of course there are different, and biased, interpretations of events. But, interpretations can't change facts, they can only change viewpoints. An interpretation of a football match can describe how well the teams played, and a really biased interpretation of the match can grossly distort a report of the game. However, no matter how biased the interpretation, the result will stay the same. 
The same with the dropping of the Atomic Bomb, no matter what the interpretation of the events, the facts remain. Japan *was* already negotiating peace at the time that the bombs were dropped and was only concerned with details about the status of the Emperor. Consequently, the dropping of the Bombs did not, and could not have ended the war against Japan. That is not open to interpretation or opinion; the facts exist. They are not *my* facts, they are simply facts. Interpretation is what one does with them.


----------



## Pompeyfan

Chouan

Quoting me is interpreting what I said or meant. We could go on and on with this play on words?!!.

I made a comparison with my job. The fact is that we proved the doctors wrong at autopsy. But they refused to accept it convincing themselves they were right in the first place.

By the way, I worked with a man who was aboard HMS Rodney when she came across Bismark. His story is slightly different to that of the history books. Yet he was there, saw it all going on and treated survivors including the Chief Gunner of Bismark.

Because of what I saw in my job, and the man who worked aboard HMS Rodney, I often wonder if we can believe anything we are told.

And you are right about football matches. People who watch the same game has different viewpoints. History only gets the score right, the rest is down to each persons interpretation. 

My thoughts on the atom bomb is that it was so horrendous, that only a maniac would use another. If history can teach us that much, then we have learned something even if we disagree on the rest. I have been to Nagasaki right to the area where the bomb was dropped. I have pictures somewhere on slides. I may look them out one day, but it was an eerie experience going there.

David


----------



## Gavin Gait

Japan's WWII PM wanted to keep fighting: report
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080812/twl-japan-history-wwii-tojo-4bdc673.html


AFP said:


> TOKYO (AFP) - Hideki Tojo, Japan's prime minister for much of World War II, wanted to keep fighting after the atomic bombings as he believed surrender was a disgrace, according to journal entries published Tuesday.
> 
> Tojo, an army general, ordered the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II but was forced out as premier in 1944 as the tide of the conflict turned.
> 
> He was hanged as a war criminal in 1948 by orders of an Allied court.
> 
> In the run-up to Friday's anniversary of Japan's surrender, the Nikkei newspaper said it had discovered for the first time Tojo's diaries from the last days of the war.
> 
> "Without fully employing its abilities even at the final moment, the imperial nation is surrendering before the enemies' propaganda," Tojo wrote, as quoted by the newspaper.
> 
> "I never imagined the torpor of the nation's leaders and people," he wrote.
> 
> Tojo said that Japan was surrendering because it was afraid of more atomic bombings and of the Soviet Union entering the Pacific front.
> 
> But Tojo warned Japan "will come off as a complete loser by accepting unconditional surrender, even if it makes a few demands."
> 
> "The purpose of the Greater East Asia War is to achieve a stable East Asia for the survival and defence of the nation," he wrote. "The sacrifice of so many people who died in the war would go unrequited if this purpose remains unfulfilled."
> 
> The United States destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the world's only atomic attacks on August 6 and 9, killing more than 210,000 people.
> 
> Japan afterwards accepted the Potsdam Declaration, in which the United States, Britain and China demanded the country surrender unconditionally or face "prompt and utter destruction."
> 
> Tojo said he kept silent in public so as not to "disturb the holy statement" by Emperor Hirohito, who spoke in public for the first time on August 15, 1945 to announce surrender.
> 
> Tojo tried unsuccessfully to commit suicide before being arrested by US forces.
> 
> Tojo remains a highly controversial figure in Japan. His granddaughter, Yuko Tojo, has unsuccessfully run for parliament in a bid to rehabilitate both the late prime minister's name and Japan's war record.


----------



## chadburn

The problem with History is that there are normally two version's of it, the "Official" and of course the "Unofficial" (usually given by the people who were actually there) as these people gradually cross the bar the "Official" history becomes the accepted version for future generations to read, so it is important to have the older generations who were there and their experiences recorded, the "Official" truth is normally a convenient version as to what happened. Do we learn from History? I think not. My Father was fighting in the North West India area in the early 1920's doing very much the same as the Forces are doing today in and around that area in a "peacekeeping" role


----------



## onestar

It was estimated that it would cost the lives of 1,000,000 allied servicemen to invade and hold Japan. Without the atom bomb, Japan would have fought to a standstill. President Truman took the correct decision to end the war. Ask any allied serviceman who was a PoW of the Japanese. Earl Mountbatten was appalled at what he saw after the surrender, and refused to have any normal dealings with the Japanese thereafter.
Whatever the undoubted merits of goodwill towards all, the Japanese fought a cruel, evil and hard war, and regularly contravened the Geneva Convention.
No amount of maudlin "do-goodism" can get around the facts.
I knew people who were PoW's out there, and also lost family members in action. I can move on, forgive and respect the Japanese people for their other good qualities, but in all honesty cannot forget what actually happened.


----------



## Pompeyfan

Below are pictures processed in November 1971 after Canberra's visit to Nagasaki. Sorry for quality but I only scanned them this evening from slides. Canberra is anchored at Nagasaki. We went on a crew where I took these pictures and many others. 

David


----------



## Gavin Gait

Thanks for those photos David the first one is very stark but I guess the truth should be.


----------



## Pompeyfan

It was very eerie being there Davie. Even though it was 37 years ago when I took those pictures, I still remember it vividly, it was so quiet, and I felt almost nervous getting so close. A weird feeling knowing that so many died, and that we from the west was responsible. Visiting a place like that stays with you for life.

David


----------



## benjidog

Chouan,

I have to challenge your use of the "F" word here:

You say "Consequently, the dropping of the Bombs did not, and could not have ended the war against Japan. That is not open to interpretation or opinion; the facts exist. They are not *my* facts, they are simply facts. Interpretation is what one does with them."

Much of what has been said in this thread is not fact. The only genuine fact about the end of the war is that it ended because the Japanese surrendered. 

What is being argued about here is why they surrendered - and this is open to interpretation. 

I have a few other observations to make about this interesting discussion:

I would argue (rather than state as a fact) that most things have multiple causes rather than one
People forget what happened, misinterpret what happened, make mistakes in remembering what happened (hence the unreliability of witnesses in court) and tell lies if it is in their interest to do so. Everything (including written do***ents) should be weighed with a large measure of scepticism
How soon the Japanese would have surrendered had those bombs not been dropped is not factually known: it is my opinion that more US forces would have been killed if they had carried on advancing on Japan without dropping them.
If I had been in the place of those guys making the decision about dropping the bomb 63 years ago, knowing what had happened to civilians and captured servicemen at the hands of the Japanese, and that more of "our guys" would die without dropping them, I would have been inclined to drop them - and with an element of revenge involved in the decision for good measure. However ignoble we may think that may be now, I can certainly understand a wish for revenge having known a number of ex-servicemen who were beaten, bayoneted and starved in Japanese prison camps quite well and seen for myself the injuries sustained after they had been taken prisoner.


----------



## BobClay

It's interesting reading this thread just how strong a debate still rages on about the only time nuclear weapons were used in anger, all those years ago. And then the discussions on the merits of history, utilising George Santayana's quote about those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

As for facts ? some mathematical equations have facts in them, the rest of knowledge, particularly history, is mostly opinion.

Pandora's box was opened on July 16th 1945 with the first atomic explosion. It's subsequent use on Japan was probably as much a political decision as a military one. At that time no nation outside the USA had that capability, but once the box was opened ? (it could be done), then it was only ever a matter of time before proliferation.

So what was the result ?

The Cold War ! didn't stop war, most nations, regardless of which of the two great armed camps they were in , got involved in wars of one sort or another.

The Cold War ! probably did stop further World Wars for a time, the wonderfully named Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) arguably acted as a deterrent. What was it that computer said in 'Wargames' when commenting on Global Thermonuclear War .... ? "The only winning move, is not to play."

The Cold War ! when it ended (more correctly I think, when it went on hold) we had the peace bonus. Errrrrr.... sorry, no we didn't. Look at the world since. Look at 9/11, Madrid, London, Iraq, Afghanistan and a host of other places. 

Deterrent ? ... do you really think the mindset of those who are prepared to fly loaded passenger jets into buildings would hesitate for one moment at using a nuclear weapon if they had one ? Not a question I'd bet my life on. Those US and Soviet leaders of the Cold War drew back from destruction a few times because at some level they knew death was pretty final. If you don't believe death is pretty final (and you can't know either way) then you'll probably use the thing.

The irony of the atom bomb in world war 2 is that Germany was a long long way from developing a bomb in 1945, and by the time it came along in the USA both Germany and Japan were already the losers of that war, so all that knowledge cost and effort produced a weapon that was to set the world on edge from that time on.

It reminds me of a quote from Albert Einstein. "I'm not sure what weapons will be used for World War 3, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."


----------



## cboots

It is often said that history is 75% fiction, this being due to the requirement to interpret a collection of "facts" that, on their own, tell us little. The interpreters will naturally bring the prejudices of their own time, education, class, etc to their interpretation. What matters in all this is how we value human life. Atrocities are not mutually exclusive, they are ***ulative, and remain atrocities whatever the excuses that are made in an attempt to justify them. Atrocities did not start with the Japanese during the Pacific war, nor did they end with them. Terrorism and the atrocities that accompany it did not commence on September 11th. 2001, whatever President Bush and his staff may try to tell you. The history is invariably, in the first instance at least, written by the victors who also get to run the war crimes trials. That is not to excuse war criminals, it is to recognise that they do not merely exist on one side. If one can bring oneself to move outside your personal comfort zone and question the "official version" of one's own side, then perhaps one might start to understand the world as it really is.
CBoots


----------



## Chouan

chadburn said:


> The problem with History is that there are normally two version's of it, the "Official" and of course the "Unofficial" (usually given by the people who were actually there) as these people gradually cross the bar the "Official" history becomes the accepted version for future generations to read, so it is important to have the older generations who were there and their experiences recorded, the "Official" truth is normally a convenient version as to what happened. Do we learn from History? I think not. My Father was fighting in the North West India area in the early 1920's doing very much the same as the Forces are doing today in and around that area in a "peacekeeping" role


Too simplistic. There isn't an official and an unofficial history, there is an evolving history and personal history. The evolving history often starts off as a kind of "official" history, depending upon what it is the history of. Roskill's history of WW2 at sea was an "Official" history, as it was written for the government using government papers and needed government approval before it was published, by the government. There are many subsequent histories (by which I mean books of history) of aspects of the war at sea, some good, some bad. Together they form a corpus of knowledge which is "History". This is just one example. There is no "official" history of the French Revolution, for example. There are thousands of books on the subject from which you can build up your own knowledge. Most histories are based on do***entary studies. The historian reads do***ents, either primary or secondary, and constructs a synthesis of these to write an account of what happened. 
Personal history is different. This is the experience of an individual, with that individual's own limitations built into it. The limitations of their experience, the limitations of what they actually saw, for example. What could a soldier serving in Afghanistan today tell a historian tomorrow about policy? He could tell about what he saw where he was, but no more. It would also be "coloured" by his own bias. Would he want to say that his unit was hated by the locals or that they got on well with the locals? If he had been guilty of bad behaviour towards local civilians, would he be likely to say so? We would all like people to think well of us, at least most of us would, so perhaps his account may have a certain bias?
On the other hand, most modern histories are based on collections of personal histories. This is often limited by their availability. Again, the historian reads or records these accounts, which are often contradictory to a greater or lesser extent, and constructs a synthesis around them. Clark's recent book on Anzio is an example of both, where he has used do***ents and personal accounts. 

We tend not to learn from history, because we don't read it or take it seriously. One of my favourite quotes at the moment is the one below, which fits in very well with your father's experience.
"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour.(T.E. Lawrence)"

BobClay raised the "O" word - Opinion!

Opinion is what you use in discussion in the pub; its what you think, without evidence, without anything to support it. Historians do not have an opinion, at least not professionally! They have their interpretaion, which is what they think, backed up with evidence. Of course there are facts in history, what you do with them, as I said earlier, is what is open to discussion. 

Of course there are many reason why the Americans dropped the bomb. It is impossible to seperate the political from the military, or to say which is or are the most important; this is where interpretation comes in. Each of us has our own opinion, which we can support with our reasons. None of us will be wrong, which is one of the things that makes history so interesting, and is what can make history so confusing, and can make people think that there are no facts and that it is only opinion.


----------



## BobClay

> Opinion is what you use in discussion in the pub; its what you think, without evidence, without anything to support it.


That is your opinion. Not all of us form opinions without evidence. History is not science. Herodotus was given the title 'Father of History'. He also became known as 'Father of Lies'. Both titles could easily be applied to every historian since.

I can possibly accept the fact that General MacArthur accepted the surrender of the Japanese aboard the Missouri, as I have seen photographs and film of the event. Even then I no longer believe the adage 'the camera doesn't lie', but I give it the benefit of the doubt because there were many witnesses and there wouldn't be much point in distorting the truth of it. But if I want to make a judgement on the conclusion of the Pacific side of World War 2, as many here have done, I'm afraid facts beyond a few numbers are all questionable. New histories are being written all the time.

Short of a time machine to go back and look, all I'm going to see and hear is opinion (interpretation as you call it). And I read a lot of history.

My old man fought in North Africa, Sicily and Italy and I vividly remember one night when we were watching 'The World at War' when he became angry, blatantly disagreeing with what was said about some events in Sicily. He was a mere infantryman. To this day I don't know who was right. 

Time is like glass, the more of it you look through, the more distorted the view becomes.


----------



## Chouan

"Not all of us form opinions without evidence. "

Then, in a technical, historian's, sense it is no longer opinon, but interpretation.


----------



## Pompeyfan

Chouan said:


> Most histories are based on do***entary studies. The historian reads do***ents, either primary or secondary, and constructs a synthesis of these to write an account of what happened.
> Personal history is different. This is the experience of an individual, with that individual's own limitations built into it. The limitations of their experience, the limitations of what they actually saw, for example. What could a soldier serving in Afghanistan today tell a historian tomorrow about policy?
> 
> Sorry to take your post out of context Chouan, but you seem to have a very low opinion of those actually involved in conflict, saying they have limitations built in, limitations of what they actually saw, yet an historian who was not there, reads do***ents, primary or secondary can write an account of what actually happened as if the stories of those there is meaningless. I find that quite extraordinary, but I am sure you did not mean it to come over like that?.
> 
> I have spoken to many people directly involved in World War 2 including Japan, very intelligent people who got to the top or close to the top of their trade from Army Major Generals to lesser ranks, and Admirals to lesser ranks. My uncle fought alongside Monty, my colleague at sea was aboard HMS Rodney, speaking to high ranked officers of Bismark. He spoke to these people, historians did not which is why his account is different to books. My uncle went into Germany, his account different to books. A British Major General in charge of the medical facilities of the entire Pacific area told me stories not in books, a former First Sea Lord told me stories not in books. Are all these people limited in what they saw, not giving a full account but historians can?.
> 
> Hopefully, I have totally misunderstood what you mean Chouan when defending historians. It would not be the first time I have misunderstood people, misinterpreted what they are trying to say?!. But all those people I spoke of were first class people who I would trust with my life, and believe their account of what they did and the men some of them lead. All are dead now, but to say they like all others with personal history have limitations of their experience is an insult if that is what you mean?. All would be very upset if they thought historians were seen as smarter people than them.
> 
> The same people told me of the cruelty of the Japanese to allied prisoners. The Major General in particular, told me horrific stories that he was directly involved with.
> 
> As I said in the post where I posted pictures where the Nagasaki bomb went off I felt eerie. Eerie of knowing how many innocent Japanese people died, but also of the thousands of allied prisoners of war tortured. It was a very humbling experience with my mind in quite turmoil standing there knowing how it was for both sides.
> 
> I would prefer to listen to those who were there rather than those who were not.
> 
> David


----------



## D Sutton

Pompeyfan said:


> Below are pictures processed in November 1971 after Canberra's visit to Nagasaki. Sorry for quality but I only scanned them this evening from slides. Canberra is anchored at Nagasaki. We went on a crew where I took these pictures and many others.
> 
> David


I have also visited peace park, wasn't there another statue there called "Holy Joe"?.
Walking around the Hamiya you would often see older people with facial burns and on hands and feet.
Interestingly I had to visit a school there, I was only 14/15 and had time away from school to visit father, so it was arranged with my school back home to visit and sit in some English classes. I was asked what my favourite subject was, the answer was History but the teacher would not discuss modern Japanese history.
It said something about the society when 3 schoolboys from 1 school close to our apartment, whose grades had not been good enough committed suicide for bringing shame on their families the second summer we were there.


----------



## Chouan

Yes David, you have misunderstood what I said. 
Many personal accounts are very limited. A Second Mate's experience of N.Atlantic convoy's would be limited to what it was like to be on a ship in one. He wouldn't have known what Admiralty policy was, what air cover was like, what Naval anti-submarine tactics were. A Second Mate's experience of the Royal Navy's protection Gulf during the Iran Iraq War would be limited to that that he saw, ie. virtually none. He wouldn't know of the political considerations that lay behind that policy. It doesn't mean that their experience is worthless, it means that their experience is limited in terms of history. If one is writing a history of the Iran Iraq war the personal experience of the Second Mate is of limited value. If one is writing a history of the Battle of the Atlantic, the experience of the Second Mate may or may not be of value depending upon what one's purpose is in writing the book.

Did the people you mention make their accounts available to historians? If they didn't, can you blame historians for not making use of them? Historians can only use what they have. In many cases, especially in WW2 other ranks were expressly forbidden from keeping diaries in case they were captured and could be used by the enemy. Consequently many don't have do***entary evidence that can be of direct use beyond stories.

As I said above:
"On the other hand, most modern histories are based on collections of personal histories. This is often limited by their availability. Again, the historian reads or records these accounts, which are often contradictory to a greater or lesser extent, and constructs a synthesis around them. Clark's recent book on Anzio is an example of both, where he has used do***ents and personal accounts."
Or did you miss that bit? 
Historians can only use the evidence that is available. In many cases do***ents have been kept secret until very recently, especially about modern conflicts. Consequently, as more do***ents are released, more information is revealed and views change. Hence what a person who was there may know to be true may not be known to a historian who doesn't have access to the relevant archives and do***ents, but how can the historian contact the people who were there and who "know" when he or she doesn't know who they are?

What you seem to have taken offence to was my suggestion that some people who "were there" are not the most reliable witnesses, either consciously or unconsciously. We've all sailed with people who've tended to embroider their experiences deliberately as well, to make a better story. How does the historian tell the difference between the different "eyewitness" accounts? Between the genuine modest account, and the other?


----------



## Pompeyfan

Chouan

Thanks for explaining that.

Yes, some of those I knew would have indeed spoken to historians, others possibly not. There are sadly many stories not told in public, like my former colleague at sea who spoke directly to the Chief Gunner of Bismark. So I understand fully what you are saying. Historians may have never been told that. However, what he told me in general of that one incident, and the role of HMS Rodney from the time she came over the horizon seeing Bismark to her sinking is slightly different to history books. That is not saying either is wrong based on your explanations. The gist of the story was told of that one incident is that HMS Rodney did not get the praise she should have done, possibly others ships wanting recognition which is certainly in line with your general comments. Bismark was afraid of only two ships, HMS Rodney and Nelson, the only two ships with greater fire power. They knew Nelson was in Pompey, but had no idea where Rodney was. When they saw her coming over the Horizon they knew their time was up. 

I certainly agree that some people enlarge on a story, that is a general failing of man I suppose. None of the people I knew would do that, they were too professional, but I know what you mean. A historians job is indeed a difficult one. Many thanks for explaining.

David


----------



## Chouan

Thanks for your understanding. An example. I was waiting for a train at Liverpool when I was a cadet, mid 70's. A soldier was similarly waiting for a train. He'd obviously "drink taken", and could see from my hair that I was in service of some kind and shared a story of his experience of N.Ireland. Essentially it was a story of the army's officially "non existent" shoot-to-kill policy. He said that if they captured an armed nationalist terrorist/freedom fighter, they took him out of sight and shot him. Now, this was clearly not the official policy. However, was his story true? Was he just trying to impress or shock, or was he reporting the real unofficial, or secretly official policy? Primary sources are like that. 

As far as atrocities and war crimes are concerned, our own army's record in the First World War is nothing to be proud of, I was recently shocked to find out. Official records of Brigade, Divisional, Corps, Regimental, and Battalion orders are full of references to the *not* taking of prisoners, as well as memoirs recording verbal orders to kill those already taken, including encouragement to do so being given by a regimental chaplain! (Niall Ferguson, The War of the World, page 129) taken from an individual's personal history.


----------



## Binnacle

*Tojo*

History

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/26902024.html


----------



## Chouan

I'm not sure what your point is. Tojo was no longer Prime Minister, or even a member of the Japanese government, so how relevant is his opinion?


----------



## markwarner

Chouan said:


> Rather like the queen naming HMS Dreadnought, our first nuclear submarine: "May God bless her and all who sail in her", and her cargo of nuclear missiles one assumes.


What nuclear missiles? she didn't carry any.


----------



## Chouan

Sorry, my mistake.


----------



## Binnacle

Chouan said:


> I'm not sure what your point is. Tojo was no longer Prime Minister, or even a member of the Japanese government, so how relevant is his opinion?


I would of thought that the opinion of a former prime minister, on the subject of surrender, who had been one of the most senior figures in the Japanese miltary structure, and was a major influence in starting the Pacific war, would be of great interest to historians. Obviously you are of a different opinion and prefer a more selective reading of the writings of participants. The editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer considered the article of sufficient interest to publish. Fortunately the members of SN can each make their own decisions on what is and what is not relevant, not you or I.


----------



## Chouan

The relevance is, of course, up to each one of us. I'm not sure what the point is that you are, or were, trying to make. It would be the same as finding a comment by Chamberlain at the time of the Battle of Britain. A comment by a man who is no longer in a position of power may be of interest as a curiosity, but adds nothing to the debate on the dropping of the bomb, or whether or not Japan was negotiating surrender, that I can see. Tojo had already been dismissed by the Emperor for his intransigent views. Your article shows those views.


----------



## dom

*dom*

the two bombs were dropped,no one will ever know what went on in the minds of those who decided to order the dropping,for all we know it could be "lets drop the bloody thing and teach them a lesson and say its to end the war sooner"without reading back through the thread each one of us takes or make our own opinion, just wait for the next one


----------



## Pompeyfan

As I have said before, if we cannot agree on the past, we sure as hell can't agree on the present or the future. The problem in Georgia proves how dangerous the world still is when a country has the audacity to want to become democratic, and seems to be paying the price. And when we *are* democratic, we still can't agree because we have different political or religious opinions, everybody saying theirs is the right one, and the rest a bunch of fools. As long as we have this primitive attitude there will always be wars and disagreements within countries as well as with others. 

Until we can all get on, sing from the same hymn sheet, realize that we all came from the same place and go to the same place there will always be wars and always blaming each other. 

It is all about power and greed and everything in between. Until we get rid of that primitive attitude and speak as one earth which in reality is what we really are, then nothing will change just as it has not done so for thousands of years. It will most likely take another few thousand years before mankind grows up. At the moment we are like squabbling kids each with very dangerous weapons, and mad enough to use them just as we did in the past, and will in the future do doubt be it us or them, and like the atomic bomb in Japan, those 60 years on will still no doubt be arguing who was right and wrong. 

In another thread, a man hanged for treason was said to be stupid. Well, at the moment, the entire world is stark raving mad, and until we can learn to live together without killing each other or disagreeing with each others beliefs there never will be peace. 

David


----------



## BobClay

Amen to that.

And just for fun, I'll give Ambrose Bierce's fine definition of history:

"An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools."


----------



## Chouan

"The problem in Georgia proves how dangerous the world still is when a country has the audacity to want to become democratic, and seems to be paying the price. "

Or, when a country has the audacity to impose its views on another group of people by force, and then pays the price. 
The Georgians wanted independence from the Russians. They got it. The Ossetians wanted independence from Georgia, the Georgians used their army to stop them from getting it. Is this democracy at work? I don't think so!


----------



## D Sutton

BobClay said:


> Amen to that.
> 
> And just for fun, I'll give Ambrose Bierce's fine definition of history:
> 
> "An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools."


Is that the same as "s**t happens"!


----------



## Chouan

Interestingly enough, the last 1,000 bomber raid on Tokyo was on 14/8/1945, causing enormous casualties; Hirohito broadcast the surrender the next day.


----------



## LEEJ

Emperor Hirohito, who was amazingly not guilty of any crimes although the war was fought by the Japanese in his name. Like I said before - the rich and powerful are always innocent.


----------



## muldonaich

*bomb*

i agree with you leej and i would hate to imagine what would have happened if they had not dropped the bombwhere would the world be today rgds kev.


----------



## doyll

Chouan said:


> Interestingly enough, the last 1,000 bomber raid on Tokyo was on 14/8/1945, causing enormous casualties; Hirohito broadcast the surrender the next day.


Good point! There was no need for A bomb to be used except to show US had it operational. These bomber raids with fire bombs were caused extreme civilian casualties. If Allies had lost the war these actions would have been war crimes. But Allies won and were not war crimes.(Jester)


----------



## K urgess

http://www.warbirdforum.com/lastraid.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II
http://www.marketrends.net/WWIIsecret/


----------



## benjidog

Thank you for those links Kris. Disturbing but fascinating.


----------



## jaguar06

BobClay said:


> ...It reminds me of a quote from Albert Einstein. "I'm not sure what weapons will be used for World War 3, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."


And his, "If I'd known, I'd have been a locksmith".

Interesting discussion.


----------



## BobClay

Yep Jag that is good quote. 

I recently heard someone mouthing off in a pub quiz that Albert Einstein was primarily to blame for the atomic bomb. In fact he did not work on the Manhattan Project, but he did the write the famous letter to Roosevelt that many see as the initiator for the project. He clearly feared the idea that Germany might aquire such technology. He was later appalled at the consequences.


Nuclear Fission was discovered by Otto Hahn in Germany in 1939, but ironically since he was a chemist, he didn't really understand what he was seeing. A lady by the name of Lise Meitner worked it out from exile in Sweden (she had left Germany as she was jewish, now these is irony). She also worked out the energy production of fission being directly related to Einsteins most famous equation. When asked to work on the bomb project she utterly rejected the idea. 

She is buried in Bramley, Hampshire. One of the great unsung heroines of science.


----------

