Atomic Bomb: Justified?

UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pacific War)

WASHINGTON, D.C.
1 JULY 1946

Once again, the military was almost unanimously against dropping the bomb. The politicians were the only ones behind it. As the years went by, this was slowly turned into a "military" decision.
See posts:
http://www.ww2forums.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000353

 

Would you rathter had about a million more soldiers killed defending freedom?!

 

Invading a country is not protecting liberty. It is taking revenge.

 

Invading a country is not protecting liberty. It is taking revenge. But I agree that it should have been dropped if you wanted to save your boys' lives and avoid many, many problems with the Soviets...

 

The atomic bombings have produced a great amount of mythology. The japanese were trying to surrender all throughout the month of July.
All they wanted was an assurance that the Emperor would remain in power and not tried for any war crimes. Truman, however, would only accept an "unconditional surrender." The military people involved in the negotiations knew the Japanese would not concede this one point. Of course, the Americans could care less about the Emperor of Japan. But Truman persisted. He knew also that the Japanese would not give in on this.
Admiral Leahy and Secretary of War Stimson both recommended adding the clause: that while the United States demanded a "peacefully inclined government," they would "not exclude a constitutional monarchy under [Japan's] present dynasty" Truman ignored this advice and omitted the subject of the Emperor in the Potsdam Declaration. Japan's surrender was accepted on 14 August, with the provision that the Emperor would remain. With respect to the surrender of Japan, the bomb accomplished nothing.
This is one more instance of politicians involving themselves in military affairs: abusing a defeated enemy to forward their political goals.

[ 12 October 2002, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Knight Templar ]

 

Is that so surprising? Isn't war "a continuation of politics with other means"?

 

....as von Clausiwitz once said.

 

That's a misreading of von Clausewitz.
He intended something like this:
Our political attempts at stopping Japanese expansion were unsuccessful, so, we went to war with them.
Not this:
With the war won, Truman orders the bombing of Hiroshima in order to appear strong before his political opponents and to justify to the public the billions of dollars spent on the Manhattan Project.

These were not the same political goals which we set out to achieve in 1941.

 

Tst, tst, tst, Knight, this unpatriotic attitude might qualify you for Guantaomo Bay...

It's your damend job to wave the flag like all others!

Cheers,

 

Hello knight rider,
I really do not want to lock horns with anyone here, but you post some unusual opinions.

Again I disagree. The US forces understood all too well of Japan's resolve after Iwo Jima. They knew the battle for the mainland would be a very bloody endeavour. I, like you, disagree with the dropping of the bomb on civilian targets, but a message had to be sent to Japan. The message came from a war weary nation that had not forgotten Pearl Harbor and now the March to Bataan was becoming public information. Since the Japanesse fought to the death at Iwo what was the nation to assume would be the factor at the mainland. The only answer was to drop the bomb.

 

mott:
The military was against dropping the Bomb.
The politicians were FOR dropping the Bomb.
Read the quote from the Strategic Bombing Survey on the 1st page of this thread.
Japan was in the process of surrendering.
The military knew invasion was unnecessary.
The military didn't give a shit who ruled Japan, so long as it wasn't the military and they were peaceful; and the military was not going to have GIs killed just so that we could deny them their emperor.
It was obvious that Truman was delaying the whole surrender process so that he could have the opportunity to use the bomb.
I mean--the Japanese refused to change their surrender terms, and, in the end, we accepted the conditional surrender terms.
Over the years, the politicians have tried to rewrite this piece of history, claiming that
"Japan refused to surrender." This is absolutely untrue.

 

Are you so sure about that? I think Clausewitz may have meant both possibilities. My remark had two sides because I actually agree with you in principle. What else was the Kosovo War if not a war to further Clinton's personal political career?? Even Hitler's or Napoleon's escapades could be construed as to serving only to raise their personal popularity and power.

It's politics.

[ 13 October 2002, 05:07 AM: Message edited by: Andreas Seidel ]

 

Von Clausewitz is talking about the political interests of the state. What you're talking about is simply self agrandizement. His idea of a "political goal" is the unification of the German people or the annexation of Austria-Hungary: not trying to gain points in a popularity poll. Besides, those old-world generals from "civilized" countries, were very apprehensive about going into a vanquished country and massacring large sectors of the civilian population. Pitched battles were fought by professional armies. It was not the "total war" which characterized WW2.
If you want to justify the bombing of Hiroshima, you're going to have to do better than citing von Clausewitz's ideas. Zum Kriege is a little interesting, but, moral philosophy it is not...

 

Shrugging it off as "politics," is really just an excuse, as it begs the question, what, then is a war crime? According to your broad interpretation of von Clausewitz, that's a meaningless term.

 

And, yes, I consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes.
They were America's most shameful moments of WW2.
von Clausewitz's ideas really carry little weight in these times. I can start quoting Hegel or Plato, if you want to get into that sort of thing. I'm trying to support my argument using sources contemporary with the events.
Thoughtfully submitted,
The Knight

 

What would've happened if the emperor was allowed to stay in power???

 

Aaaaaarrrgghhhh.......
.
.
The Emperor WAS allowed to stay in power....

 

My dear Andy, aren't you supossed to do the same here?

 

Exactly. Those who have the power will use it for whatever seems a good idea to them personally. In a democracy politicians want to be incredibly popular, so they do whatever they see fit to attain that goal.

In an old-fashioned monarchy (or so I suppose) the primary goal was to ensure the survival of the state into the next generation. And better still - leave it in a more prosperous state than one found it.