International Hiroshima was NOT a mistake

[Sinister]

One of the silliest takes I’ve ever seen.

Except those were the exact sentiments of Eisenhower AND Admiral Leahy, who was Truman's Chief Military Advisor.

“I was against it on two counts,” Dwight Eisenhower, supreme allied commander, five-star general, and president of the United States, said of dropping nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities. “First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”

Eisenhower told his biographer that he expressed to War Secretary Harry Stimson his “grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’”

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

I mean, I know there's lots of information out there but I'd think those are two perspectives worth putting stock into. I could be crazy, though

 

[Rob Battisti]

Except those were the exact sentiments of Eisenhower AND Admiral Leahy, who was Truman's Chief Military Advisor.

“I was against it on two counts,” Dwight Eisenhower, supreme allied commander, five-star general, and president of the United States, said of dropping nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities. “First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”

Eisenhower told his biographer that he expressed to War Secretary Harry Stimson his “grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’”

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

I mean, I know there's lots of information out there but I'd think those are two perspectives worth putting stock into. I could be crazy, though

You are crazy.

A. Eisenhower was less familiar with the pacific theater.

B. The Japanese literally were fanatical beyond belief. The idea that they would die to the last man for small islands only to surrender BEFORE a mainland invasion is beyond unreasonable.

C. War fatigue was setting in at home. Families were already starting to get fed up with sons dying for some no name piece of land in the Pacific Ocean. Truman wouldn’t have been able to justify having a means of ending the war immediately but not using it.

 

[avenue94]

I mean, I know there's lots of information out there but I'd think those are two perspectives worth putting stock into. I could be crazy, though

The issue with those statements is that they are not contemperaous, and they wouldn't be the first time a public figure's memory of past events were colored by personal bias. Which they may or may not have been, we'll never know since they're dead.

 

[Sinister]

The issue with those statements is that they are not contemperaous, and they wouldn't be the first time a public figure's memory of past events were colored by personal bias. Which they may or may not have been, we'll never know since they're dead.

I dont think the highest Military brass of the day saying what the climate was hints at personal bias. The use of the bomb being a positive has MUCH more vulnerability to bias due to the innate desire to cloak the vaporization of civilians in Nationalism so it feels better. Similar to the active genocide of Natives here. Also Ike was always critical of the MIC. I just dont see them making these very public statements frivolously if they didnt hold those positions being as they also named who exactly they made them to.

 

[Sinister]

You are crazy.

A. Eisenhower was less familiar with the pacific theater.

B. The Japanese literally were fanatical beyond belief. The idea that they would die to the last man for small islands only to surrender BEFORE a mainland invasion is beyond unreasonable.

C. War fatigue was setting in at home. Families were already starting to get fed up with sons dying for some no name piece of land in the Pacific Ocean. Truman wouldn’t have been able to justify having a means of ending the war immediately but not using it.

A) Less familiar with the Pacific Theater than what, than you? Lol Than the Admiral who echoed the exact same sentiment? Nice to see Sherdog isnt above thinking they're more "in-the-know" about WWII than an Allied Commander who was consulted on such decisions.

B) Ahh yes, and those two Ally Commanders were mistaken about the climate of Japanese leadership. They failed to understand the people the fought against.

C) The President was more afraid of having to justify remaining in a War, because Presidents have never had to do that before.

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

I think one of the bombs were legit. The Hiroshima bombing was just a exclamation point for the Japanese to say no way we will fuck with these Americans. They had legitimate military casualties in that bombing as well. So it make sense, although it probably be a war crime nowadays.

As for Nagasaki that was just beyond excessive. Hardly any military in that city, pretty much just all civilians. It was completely unnecessary. The Japanese were about to surrender shortly after Hiroshima. No need to bomb a completely helpless city.

Just imagine all the women and children that died because of these bombings.

The whole thing was brutal, both World Wars.

 

[Wrath of Foamy]

Whether it was evil or not, in my opinion, isn't up for senate.

Whether it was necessary, is.

What is telling however, is the amount of people who treat it was a joke.

 

[Blayt7hh]

MacArthur claimed that list was submitted when it was requested of him, and that request is also on record, although his denied request for access to weapons does throw doubts on his claim. No reports of him requesting to nuke China though and that list is the basis of the claim he had a plan to nuke 34 Chinese cities. No actual plan, discussion or request to do so is recorded. He denied recommending the use of nukes in Japan as well. Weird that you would place so much stock in the demonstrated lies of Truman and Stimson and take their word over MacArthur's.

I don't think those were the options. I think that's bullshit as shown in the records. I think a military target as demonstration of atomic weapons, as had in fact been proposed, as Truman claimed had happened and as the top ranking generals claimed was more than was necessary, would have sufficed.
Even if there's no way they weren't going to nuke something given the money spent, the desire to use it and the impending threat of more conflicts.
Like I said. False dichotomy.
But yes, I do think there's no moral justification for indiscriminately nuking civilians, even if it saves soldiers lives.
The point with the numbers and how they've grown is to point out how the basic assertions about the decision from Stimson were bullshit. Starting from Truman's initial claim that they had chosen military targets and tried to minimise civilian casualties, all the way through to the exaggerated numbers they claim were given for the estimations for invasion, the assertion that nuking civilians was necessary to force a surrender, the idea that no other options were considered or possible and Groves report that there were almost no deaths from radiation and that if there were any "freak cases", radiation poisoning was a pleasant, peaceful way to die. All bullshit, and they knew it was bullshit. A myth.

So you’re ok with dropping the bomb, just as long as it’s on a military base? Because it didnt really seem like you were fine with that either.

You’re also not being completely honest either. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both major sites supporting the Japanese war machine. It was not indiscriminate. Strategic level targets for a strategic weapon.

 

[avenue94]

I dont think the highest Military brass of the day saying what the climate was hints at personal bias. The use of the bomb being a positive has MUCH more vulnerability to bias due to the innate desire to cloak the vaporization of civilians in Nationalism so it feels better. Similar to the active genocide of Natives here. Also Ike was always critical of the MIC. I just dont see them making these very public statements frivolously if they didnt hold those positions being as they also named who exactly they made them to.

Oh, I'm not speaking to that part. One of the common threads you'll see in memoirs and recollections about the atomic bomb is that people will claim to have been opposed to it at the time, but only 5 or 10 years later. That's what I meant by Eisenhower may have actually been opposed to the bombings in 1945 (he was only briefed in at the last moment), but he also wouldn't be the first to shade their memories and recollections to suit their own personal legacy. Essentially, there is no proof that folks like Eisenhower opposed the bombing at the time, besides their own admissions much later.

That's why diaries are so much more valuable on this stuff then memoirs (both sources have their own strengths and weaknesses).

As for the wisdom of their statements, I posted my stance earlier. Japan surrendering was a matter of when, not if, but it's hard to see Japan surrendering on US terms before an actual invasion. And Japan as at the verge of famine, so another three months or 6 months would very likely have killed as many civilians as the atomic bombings. I think the atomic bombings saved US and likely Japanese lives, but the latter was certainly not the intention of the US.

B) Ahh yes, and those two Ally Commanders were mistaken about the climate of Japanese leadership. They failed to understand the people the fought against.

To be fair, they didn't have access to the Japanese sources that historians have at this point. The US government and military had very good intelligence from Magic, but still not perfect. Case in point: the US was absolutely blindsided by Japan surrendering when they did and essentially caught off guard.

As for Nagasaki that was just beyond excessive. Hardly any military in that city, pretty much just all civilians. It was completely unnecessary. The Japanese were about to surrender shortly after Hiroshima. No need to bomb a completely helpless city.

Nagasaki was effectively the result of a series of mistakes and screw ups. There also were only 3 possible targets for the atomic bomb after Hiroshima, adding new ones would have required new orders.