There is actually a website dedicated to the dropping of the Little Boy on Hiroshima and the Captain responsible.

quote:

---

It's filled with lots of propaganda and other euphemisms to hide and obfuscate the fact that America committed mass genocide to end mass genocide.

---

Unbelievable that they would make such a comment.

The "...America committed mass genocide to end mass genocide" comment may not be something that you could back up word for word, but at least it's close enough in the sense that a massive number of people, including civilians, were killed by both sides, and US was the side that ended the whole ugly mess.

That said, I don't think the decision to use atomic weapons was a wise one. Japan had actually made serious overtures to capitulation before hiroshima, and after Hiroshima there were clear messages sent to the allies indicating Japan was willing to surrender and that they needed a couple of days to work it out through their internal political structure. These messages were ignored by the allies, in favour of using their newest toy, which they dropped on Nagasaki. The second bomb was, in my opinion, completely outside of military neccessity. There were no legitimate military targets in the area, nor did it serve to hasten the surrender. Hiroshima is a little less clear. However, the commonly parrotted idea that 1 million American soldiers would have died is completely without merit. This estimate was reached *AFTER* the war, as a means of morally defending the atomic bombings. Second, this mass murder of allied POW's is fraudulent. The supposed order was to be issued by a group of junior officers who made a failed coup attempt in the last days. They didn't want to surrender, and this supposed order to murder allied POW's was to be issued by them in the event of a successful coup. However, by the time of Hiroshima, their coup had long since fizzled. I attempted tday to search some major source archives and books for references to this 'plan' and found it only in one book, a blatantly one sided apologetic for using atomic weapons. Now, I'm not going to pass judgement here, but MacArthur thought this was wrong, all the evidence used to support this decision was fraudulent. There was no military need. Nor was the loss of life even neccessary when Japan was already in the process of surrender.

Myths mask horrible event - Anniversary of first atomic bombing should serve as reminder of abuse of military power

Foreign Affairs Opinion (Published)
Source: Calgary Sun
Published: August 16, 1999 Author: Bill Kaufmann
Posted on 08/16/1999 05:20:30 PDT by Clive
Another August passes, marked by the ever-fading observance of the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

A society largely loathe to question the continued embargo of Iraq or the conduct of NATO's bombing campaign over Yugoslavia is generally content to live with comforting myths masking the events that unfolded 54 years ago this month.

Most citizens of countries which pride themselves as defenders of democracy and liberty are naturally reluctant to believe the nuclear incineration of two cities would have been conducted for anything but the noblest of reasons.

The myth Fatman and Littleboy were dropped to save the lives of a half-million Allied soldiers -- a number that's been routinely inflated to one and two million -- dies hard.

In fact, U.S. President Harry Truman was assured by his joint chiefs of staff that an invasion of Japan would entail casualties of less than 40,000 killed, wounded and missing.

By landing on the Japanese Island of Kyushu, the Allies would be able to avoid the costly frontal attacks so bloodily necessary on Okinawa, Truman was told.

Certainly 40,000 killed and injured would still be a dear price to pay, but many top U.S. military leaders at the time even doubted the need for invading Japan.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported a battered Japan would have surrendered by the end of 1945 without the use of atomic bombs or even the threat or contemplation of an invasion.

So overwhelming was the superiority of the Allied conventional strategic bombing forces and so devastating their results that Japan -- then stripped of its naval and air capabilities -- was already firmly on its knees.

In his highly illuminating book Hiroshima, University of California historian Dr. Ronald Takaki reveals Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower's opposition to nuking Japanese cities.

Japan was "already defeated," Eisenhower wrote U.S. Secretary of War Henry Stimson, adding the bombing "was no longer mandatory in the saving of American lives."

Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who symbolized more than any other leader the crushing of Japanese military might, was horrified at news of the Hiroshima bombing.

Upon hearing of the city's fiery end, MacArthur was reported by his personal pilot to have plunged into a mood of deep depression, then livid anger.

Japan was "already beaten" MacArthur insisted, as did U.S. Chief of Staff Adm. William D. Leahy.

Even an invasion of the home islands, concluded Leahy, was unnecessary in concluding the war against a Japan that had already sustained more than 300,000 civilian deaths from conventional bombing.

The atomic bombings ultimately added about the same number of civilian fatalities to the casualty lists.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated to test, in realistic conditions -- the effects of nuclear weapons.

With such a monumental expense incurred by the Manhattan Project, the rush was on to deploy the weapons before war's end.

Their use was also designed to prove to an increasingly bellicose Soviet Union the power at Washington's disposal.

A project that had begun with the valid intention of deterrence in the face of Nazi Germany's nuclear weapons program ended in the dubious military incineration of thousands.

First of all, as you have stated, the word 'genocide' is used quite liberally and its true meaning has been lost. Fact: there were more Germans killed during the fire bombings of Hamburg than Japanese killed in Hiroshima.

Second of all, the revisioning of history with crude and uninformed remarks belittles the efforts made by our grandfathers who had to shed their blood in order for us to live the life we live now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Morrison:
First of all, 'Genocide' is a word thrown around really haphazardly nowadays. Its become a word like 'paradigm' which many people use but no one knows its actual meaning. Genocide refers to a wholescale attempt to remove a people from the face of the earth (in entirety). So, this case 'genocide' doesn't apply. Here, the clear decision to use atomic weapons was for a) the purposes of using a new 'toy' and b) to force an end to the war. It clearly was not to kill every Japanese person in the world (they'd need a much bigger bomb for that). This wasn't genocide.

---

Actually the dictionary definition of genocide is only systematical killing of people of certain cultural or ethnic origin, but it doesn't require an attempt to kill each and every one of them. In that sense any large-scale, intentional and systematical killing of a nation's civilian population qualifies for genocide. Other than that I'd agree with pretty much everything you wrote.

genocide

"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, religious, political, or ethnic group."

....

In any event, to use this word to refer to the US bombing of Hiroshima is wrong, incorrect in both usage and morality.

>Second of all, the revisioning of history
>with crude and uninformed remarks belittles
>the efforts made by our grandfathers who
>had to shed their blood in order for us to
>live the life we live now.

Our grandfathers fought ostensibly for the cause of 'Truth, Justice, and the American way' (or some variation thereof), we have a duty to dig at the events to understand them better in order to fulfill what they fought for. If we slap nice juicy lies over an event, which is what happened with the Atomic bombs, then we have bismirched the first tenet of what they fought for. If we allow our leaders to get away with acting in a manner which we would have locked up the Germans for, then we have besmirched the second tenet. That leaves the 'American way', and I can tell you, if we overlook history, or gloss it in our favour, then lies and injustice becomes 'the American way'. May it never be so.

As for Hamburg v. Hiroshima, no one really knows how many died in either. Hiroshima had a much smaller population, but it was swollen with refugees. Hamburg had all its records destroyed so few know the total. However, the estimates are entirely in the favour of Hiroshima. Approximately 100 000 people died either in the initial blast or of wounds recieved that day. However, another 100 000 are estimated to have died later. In Hamburg, the estimates are about 40 000 in total, even by the most controversial of accounts.

It was my understanding that Japan was not prepared to surrender. It took to nukes to put them out of the war.

I have read, in Breuer's (?) "Fueding Allies" (which is, what seems, a non-biased account of the allied high-command in ww2) that Japan drastically stemmed the use of Kamikaze planes when an invasion of the Japanese homeland became immenant. They were stockpiling planes, boats and human torpedoes for the battle. I have read, that in a few instances, children were even trained to run under tanks with explosives. I don't agree with ever employing nuclear weapons if it can be avoided, but it is my view that there simply was no real alternative in the case of Japan.

Also, the info you posted contained referals to the allied startegic bombing. As far as I am aware, the Japanese cities were taking huge losses as incendaries burned through their residential areas. Remember that the Japanese houses were made largely out of highly flamible material.

Japan was already defeated before the bombing? I greatly doubt it. This was a country that was ferocious in it's defence - the kamikaze attacks are a testiment to that. A total surrender would have needed an entire Allied occupation of Japan.

However the peace feelers that Japan had sent to the US through Sweden and Switzerland (IIRC) earlier are more indications of US reluctance to end the war without using the by that time almost-finished bomb than Japanese readines to surrender. The US response to Sweden/Switzerland was IIRC something along the lines of we're not interested, don't take any action on this. But the fact that such messages came from Japan doesn't mean that the war was about to end, since they were sent by the Japanese foreign ministry which was in favor of surrender but didn't have the authority to control their policy. The Supreme War Council that was in charge ruled by consensus and was split 3-3 among it's members on whether to surrender or fight to the bitter end, and wasn't close to coming to an agreement yet at the time when the foreign ministry tried to approach the US.

The Hiroshima bomb didn't change anyone's opinions, but the Russian invasion on 8th prompted Hirohito to tell the SWC to end the war immediately. (IMO at this point the eventual surrender was 99% certain.) They still couldn't come up with a decision and on 9th when the Nagasaki bomb was dropped the emperor joined the SWC session. At some point his opinion was asked, and he said he supported the surrender, and that settled the decision. I think Paul made a minor mistake in that the Japanese note to surrender came after Nagasaki, and after the note they were hit by one more massive fire bombing raid into Tokyo before the US reply and the Japanese reply to that had been exchanged, but the nukes had already been used by then. (Or am I missing something else?)

As for whether or not the bombs were needed, personally I'm pretty sure that Hirohito would have eventually found a way to intervene and force the surrender with or without the bombs. It certainly looks like the 2nd bomb was unnecessary and that there wasn't a great deal of effort to avoid having to drop the first bomb. There must have been some motivation to show the bomb to Russians, and probably also to test it on a real, "live" target.

Finally, I still think that if you look at the dictionary definition of genocide, the city bombing campaign with fire bombs and nuclear bombs certainly qualifies for that definition and is defensible. Granted, I probably wouldn't have used that word if I had written the story, but you have to admit it that the goal of the whole strategic bombing offensive against Japanese cities was to kill people and force surrender by that, not to hit point military or war production targets which was found fairly ineffective compared to levelling square kilometers per raid. Sytematical large-scale killing of people of certain nationality -> technically qualifies as genocide and definately as a war crime. Whether it was necessary or morally excusable may be open to question and debate, but not what it was, IMO.