by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

The United Union of
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Overview Factbook Policies People Government Economy Rank Trend Cards

3

Why The Japanese Bombings Was Not Necessary

The Attack on August 1945 on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was an attack that shook the world. It was the first, and only time in human history where a country experienced the powerful, and horrible monstrosity known as nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have the power to eliminate hundreds of millions, if not billions of people on this planet. Some even state it has the power to eliminate the world, and end the human race.

If you are reading the title, you are well aware of the fact that I do not support the bombing in Hiroshima and Nagaski. Other than the fact that hundreds of thousands of people died a needless death in a populated cityvarious historians agree that the war could have been won without the use of military weapons. I acknowledge the fact that Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was quit e im I once read a book that stated that the attack was to show off to the Soviet Union the power of the American military. The attack was not necessary, it was a war crime, one of the greatest war crimes in the history of the world.

Firstly, let me start by stating that various military officials have stated that they did not believe the bombing was necessary. This include General of the Army, Douglas MacArthur, etc. One might think that I am making this up. I am well aware that this is a heated topic, so I am more than willing to provide sources for my pieces of evidence.

"Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[99][100] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet"
-LinkSource

In addition to what I have stated, I want to note that various individuals, many of them having made contribution to human history opposed the nuclear bombing. One of them was Albert Einstein, often credited as being one of the greatest scientists of his time, and perhaps of all time. Another include Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize Winner in Physics.

Secondly, there is a common statement used among those that supported the bombing. They state that it would have been less costlier if we did a land invasion. Let me start of by stating that the decision to end the war was arguably a political one in order to warn the Soviet Union of American military power because the Soviet Union and the Allies didn't have a very good relationship, and we all know that they didn't trust each other, otherwise the Soviet Union wouldn't have been the last country to know about the American nuclear program(when I mean last, I mean last among the countries that were the major Allied powers such as Britain, France, etc.)

According to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, which included Paul Nitze, a high ranking USA government official during the Cold War

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

LinkSource

Now one might think that once the bombing was stopped, and the USA took over Japan, that they might have admitted what they did, and that there was radiation poisoning. Fact of the matter is, they didn't, and actively admitted no radiation poisoning at all. Even American major publications joined in supporting this lie created. by the USA government.

In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb's blast. It was the first big lie. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century.

LinkSource

One might state that the USA media cannot be biased. Even now, the USA media is biased. Recently, the CNN,called a nation(that had previously stated that it would look towards China as development partners) a terror hotbead. That nation was Kenya. Soon, an international retort was stated by the Kenyans on Twitter, and that made CNN change its headline. When that wasn't enough, the United States media attempted to discredit the President of Kenya by stating that Barack Obama(the USA President) had lectured him on gay rights, when he hadn't. I listened to the one hour press conference, and there was no lecture at all. Nothing.

Thirdly, the did you know that the United States government ignored calls for peace with the Japanese. Fact of the matter is, they did. They didn't want peace, they wanted the war to continue. Japan had already been loosing heavily after they declared war on the United States, and the reason why they went to war was because of the USA economic sanctions that were hurting the Japanese economy. The apanese were willing to accept any measures, even if they were incredibly hard, and would hurt them. That was how much they wanted peace. Furthermore, this peace call by the Japanese was given to the USA as early as 1943, two years before the bombing.

The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".

-From same source as second quotation.

Fourthly, it is safe to state that Stalin's invasion of Manchuria, and the increasing pressure of the Soviet Union would be the reason why Japan was considering surrender. The common belief that the bombings 'pressured' Japan into surrender was wrong. I have seen many people state that the bombing put pressure on the Japanese to surrender because "they had their traditions, and their traditions didn't demand surrender". While I certainly agree to the notion that they weren't really going to surrender easily, it wasn't because of the bombings that Japan surrendered. No, it was because of the Soviet Union, and Joseph Stalin himself.

Most of you may not know this but Stalin and Japan had a treaty. The Soviet Union attacked Japan on August 9th, the day that Japan surrendered. Japan and the Soviet Union had a neutrality treaty that would last till 1946, so the Japanese believed that they could convince Stalin to act as a mediator between Japan, and the other Allied powers.

"They had two plans for getting better surrender terms; they had, in other words, two strategic options. The first was diplomatic. Japan had signed a five-year neutrality pact with the Soviets in April of 1941, which would expire in 1946. A group consisting mostly of civilian leaders and led by Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori hoped that Stalin might be convinced to mediate a settlement between the United States and its allies on the one hand, and Japan on the other. Even though this plan was a long shot, it reflected sound strategic thinking. After all, it would be in the Soviet Unionís interest to make sure that the terms of the settlement were not too favorable to the United States: any increase in U.S. influence and power in Asia would mean a decrease in Russian power and influence."

LinkSource

"One way to gauge whether it was the bombing of Hiroshima or the invasion and declaration of war by the Soviet Union that caused Japanís surrender is to compare the way in which these two events affected the strategic situation. After Hiroshima was bombed on August 8, both options were still alive. It would still have been possible to ask Stalin to mediate (and Takagiís diary entries from August 8 show that at least some of Japanís leaders were still thinking about the effort to get Stalin involved). It would also still have been possible to try to fight one last decisive battle and inflict heavy casualties. The destruction of Hiroshima had done nothing to reduce the preparedness of the troops dug in on the beaches of Japanís home islands. There was now one fewer city behind them, but they were still dug in, they still had ammunition, and their military strength had not been diminished in any important way. Bombing Hiroshima did not foreclose either of Japanís strategic options.

The impact of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin Island was quite different, however. Once the Soviet Union had declared war, Stalin could no longer act as a mediator ó he was now a belligerent. So the diplomatic option was wiped out by the Soviet move. The effect on the military situation was equally dramatic. Most of Japanís best troops had been shifted to the southern part of the home islands. Japanís military had correctly guessed that the likely first target of an American invasion would be the southernmost island of Kyushu. The once proud Kwangtung army in Manchuria, for example, was a shell of its former self because its best units had been shifted away to defend Japan itself. When the Russians invaded Manchuria, they sliced through what had once been an elite army and many Russian units only stopped when they ran out of gas. The Soviet 16th Army ó 100,000 strong ó launched an invasion of the southern half of Sakhalin Island. Their orders were to mop up Japanese resistance there, and then ó within 10 to 14 days ó be prepared to invade Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japanís home islands. The Japanese force tasked with defending Hokkaido, the 5th Area Army, was under strength at two divisions and two brigades, and was in fortified positions on the east side of the island. The Soviet plan of attack called for an invasion of Hokkaido from the west."

LinkSource

Last Thoughts


[/HR]

I know this topic is very emotional, and it is still very controversial today. I am well aware that many people will disagree with me about what happened and that is completely fine. Nevertheless, in my opinion, this was a war crime, and it was a waste of innocent Japanese lives. Thanks for reading this. :)

Report