Japan WWII soldier who hid in jungle until 1974 dies

[Insult to Rocks]

They made the right decision with the knowledge that they had at the time.

Not to make a huge argument on the thread over this, but why drop two? I think they got the message when 90,000 to 160,000 people died in the first city and it was turned into nothing but a steaming pile of rubble and radiation. And why drop it on a civilian city and not closer to a military base (like Nagasaki)?

The intentional targeting of 200,000 civilians with weapons of mass destruction that cause extreme agony is NEVER the right decision. If it is, then you can argue that Hitler's treatment of the Jews was just "strategic" to scare a potential enemy from ever engaging in the war against him. The Jews were a threat, it was the right decision with the knowledge he had at time to make them "disappear".

War crimes are never acceptable. Just because the United States has never taken responsibility for the fact it has intentionally murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in its time does not mean it's not a crime.

I don't want to start a argument either, so I'll just say this: I don't think they honestly had a choice at that point. They needed to shock the Japanese into submission, and the atomic bombings were they only option they had left. They had to make a decision, and no matter how terrible the bombings were, an invasion would have been a million times worse. As for Nagasaki, the U.S actually did wait and hope that the Japanese would surrender. They didn't, which led to the second bombing.

[Shiranu]

They made the right decision with the knowledge that they had at the time.

Not to make a huge argument on the thread over this, but why drop two? I think they got the message when 90,000 to 160,000 people died in the first city and it was turned into nothing but a steaming pile of rubble and radiation. And why drop it on a civilian city and not closer to a military base (like Nagasaki)?

The intentional targeting of 200,000 civilians with weapons of mass destruction that cause extreme agony is NEVER the right decision. If it is, then you can argue that Hitler's treatment of the Jews was just "strategic" to scare a potential enemy from ever engaging in the war against him. The Jews were a threat, it was the right decision with the knowledge he had at time to make them "disappear".

War crimes are never acceptable. Just because the United States has never taken responsibility for the fact it has intentionally murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in its time does not mean it's not a crime.

I don't want to start a argument either, so I'll just say this: I don't think they honestly had a choice at that point. They needed to shock the Japanese into submission, and the atomic bombings were they only option they had left. They had to make a decision, and no matter how terrible the bombings were, an invasion would have been a million times worse. As for Nagasaki, the U.S actually did wait and hope that the Japanese would surrender. They didn't, which led to the second bombing.

I will say that I think the nukes were necessary as well, I just don't know that dropping them on huge civilian targets was the answer. This is my complaint with the use of them; if they had dropped the first one on a smaller area that would have still been visible and would have had lower casualties or more military-to-civilian casualties and THEN dropped it on more populated areas... I would have to admit that most of the blame would be on the Japanese for not surrendering. The problem is they went with an almost entirely civilian target and then a civilian target with a small garrison.

And to an earlier comment; yeah, both sides were terrible about targeting civilians. The only reason I hold the Allies to a different standard is that they pretend to have been the "good guys" even after winning.

[Insult to Rocks]

As for the Allies targeting civilians, it is distinctly different form what the Axis did. In total war, civilians are employed in munitions making and food growing for the troops. It's an unfortunate necessity of war that in order to cut the enemies supply line, you have to target civilian cities at some point. The Axis killed civilians mainly for racial and religious goals. The only real strategic bombing campaign the Axis pulled off was "The Battle of Britain", and most historians do not consider that battle to be representative of the Axis' cruelty.As for Nagasaki and Hiroshima, there are two real reasons for them being picked: One, the Japanese did not have any real military infrastructure left outside of civilian cities, and Two, the purpose of the bombs was to shock the enemy into submission. The military was too brainwashed with the fantasized Bushido code for the bombs to really have any effect. A civilian target had to be chosen in order to show Japan what the result of continued resistance would lead to.

[stromboli]

Bear in mind also that the total knowledge of what the bomb would do was lacking at the time. After effects, numbers of actual deaths and so forth. Also that intel on the first detonation was only what could be garnered by airborne photo surveillance, not effects on the populace, hospital casualties and so on. Had they better intel, they may not have dropped the 2nd bomb. History will never know.

[Shiranu]

Bear in mind also that the total knowledge of what the bomb would do was lacking at the time. After effects, numbers of actual deaths and so forth. Also that intel on the first detonation was only what could be garnered by airborne photo surveillance, not effects on the populace, hospital casualties and so on. Had they better intel, they may not have dropped the 2nd bomb. History will never know.

Good points by both you and Insult.

I still think it was morally wrong (I would go sofar as to say morally disgusting), but I would say I am a bit more forgiving towards them than before.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As far as I know, Japan never had any workable atomic bomb plans. They were honestly the most unprepared Axis power in terms of economics and industry. That unpreparedness was part of the reason that they went to war, and part of the reason which the leaders of Japan propagated the religious zealotry that caused the Japanese to fight the way they did.  The problem with the atomic bomb "controversy" is that most people who argue about it don't understand historical context. It doesn't matter whether what we know 70 years after the fact, the U.S. at that time had no real reason to believe that Japan would capitulate, and every reason to believe that invasion would be absolutely disastrous. They made the right decision with the knowledge that they had at the time.

The other thing was that, in the aftermath of Yalta and Potsdam, the US and UK understood that the USSR was feeling its oats and angling for control of Europe.

With that in mind, the A-bombs were dropped with a mind to impressing the Soviets as much as the Japanese.

As a side note, the Japanese were prepared in terms of equipment and such: they had good airplanes, good ships, the most advanced torpedo in the world, and a military thoroughly indoctrinated with the will to fight, as the OP shows.  What they were unprepared for was a war with the US that lasted longer than a year.  They had drastically misapprehended American psychology, and had no understanding, at first, of why Pearl Harbor was a tactical success of unparalleled completeness, but a strategic defeat. It enabled them to complete the first stage of their war plans, but at the same time mobilized the most powerful industry in the world and lit it afire with an intense desire for revenge.

[stromboli]

In both respects- us retaliating after Pearl Harbor or the Japanese defending their homeland, never underestimate the will of the people.

[Insult to Rocks]

As far as I know, Japan never had any workable atomic bomb plans. They were honestly the most unprepared Axis power in terms of economics and industry. That unpreparedness was part of the reason that they went to war, and part of the reason which the leaders of Japan propagated the religious zealotry that caused the Japanese to fight the way they did.  The problem with the atomic bomb "controversy" is that most people who argue about it don't understand historical context. It doesn't matter whether what we know 70 years after the fact, the U.S. at that time had no real reason to believe that Japan would capitulate, and every reason to believe that invasion would be absolutely disastrous. They made the right decision with the knowledge that they had at the time.

The other thing was that, in the aftermath of Yalta and Potsdam, the US and UK understood that the USSR was feeling its oats and angling for control of Europe.

With that in mind, the A-bombs were dropped with a mind to impressing the Soviets as much as the Japanese.

As a side note, the Japanese were prepared in terms of equipment and such: they had good airplanes, good ships, the most advanced torpedo in the world, and a military thoroughly indoctrinated with the will to fight, as the OP shows.  What they were unprepared for was a war with the US that lasted longer than a year.  They had drastically misapprehended American psychology, and had no understanding, at first, of why Pearl Harbor was a tactical success of unparalleled completeness, but a strategic defeat. It enabled them to complete the first stage of their war plans, but at the same time mobilized the most powerful industry in the world and lit it afire with an intense desire for revenge.

To be fair to the Japanese, they did know that Pearl was not a total victory. The plan hinged on taking out the carriers of the pacific fleet, none of which were actually there at the time. Yamamoto knew full well what war with the U.S meant, and didn't want engage them at all. However, he was overruled, and Pearl was his best plan, which failed mostly due to bad intel.
Sorry about the derail and such. History is kinda my thing. 8-[

[Thumpalumpacus]

As far as I know, Japan never had any workable atomic bomb plans. They were honestly the most unprepared Axis power in terms of economics and industry. That unpreparedness was part of the reason that they went to war, and part of the reason which the leaders of Japan propagated the religious zealotry that caused the Japanese to fight the way they did.  The problem with the atomic bomb "controversy" is that most people who argue about it don't understand historical context. It doesn't matter whether what we know 70 years after the fact, the U.S. at that time had no real reason to believe that Japan would capitulate, and every reason to believe that invasion would be absolutely disastrous. They made the right decision with the knowledge that they had at the time.

The other thing was that, in the aftermath of Yalta and Potsdam, the US and UK understood that the USSR was feeling its oats and angling for control of Europe.

With that in mind, the A-bombs were dropped with a mind to impressing the Soviets as much as the Japanese.

As a side note, the Japanese were prepared in terms of equipment and such: they had good airplanes, good ships, the most advanced torpedo in the world, and a military thoroughly indoctrinated with the will to fight, as the OP shows.  What they were unprepared for was a war with the US that lasted longer than a year.  They had drastically misapprehended American psychology, and had no understanding, at first, of why Pearl Harbor was a tactical success of unparalleled completeness, but a strategic defeat. It enabled them to complete the first stage of their war plans, but at the same time mobilized the most powerful industry in the world and lit it afire with an intense desire for revenge.

To be fair to the Japanese, they did know that Pearl was not a total victory. The plan hinged on taking out the carriers of the pacific fleet, none of which were actually there at the time. Yamamoto knew full well what war with the U.S meant, and didn't want engage them at all. However, he was overruled, and Pearl was his best plan, which failed mostly due to bad intel.
Sorry about the derail and such. History is kinda my thing. 8-[

No apologies needed, bud.  I'm a history buff myself, and you're right, Adm Y knew that the attack was a bad move.

Any time you want to derail into history, I'm you're huckleberry.  :)

[Shiranu]

I'm torn between anthropology and history for my minor (maybe major), so I never mind a history derail :o

[Hakurei Reimu]

I will say that I think the nukes were necessary as well, I just don't know that dropping them on huge civilian targets was the answer. This is my complaint with the use of them; if they had dropped the first one on a smaller area that would have still been visible and would have had lower casualties or more military-to-civilian casualties and THEN dropped it on more populated areas... I would have to admit that most of the blame would be on the Japanese for not surrendering. The problem is they went with an almost entirely civilian target and then a civilian target with a small garrison.

Why was the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki? I think Alex Wellerstein forwards a more interesting question: why did the bombings stop with Nagasaki? After all, at the time the Army viewed the nuke as just another bomb, albeit very much more powerful, and as such would be mass-produced and used in quanity. That is, it would be used as an entire bombing run on many Japanese cities the same way they firebombed them with conventional bombs.