Was The Atomic Bomb Necessary To End WW2?

Nomenclature

Argument Topic: Myth

No, because it didn't work. The Japanese continued fighting, which is why the Americans dropped the second bomb.

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa spent years researching the facts of the Japanese surrender, and he concluded it happened not because of the American bombs, but because of the impending involvement of Stalin. This narrative about the atomic bombs being necessary to end the war is a myth pushed by American propagandists trying to retroactively justify what was effectively the worst atrocity in history. 

“The Hiroshima bomb did not make the Japanese ruling elite feel as though their backs were to the wall. It inflicted a serious body blow, but it was hardly a knock-out punch.”

So says eminent historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. He and other dissenting voices believe that the real reason Japan surrendered was down to something far less titanic and earth-shattering than the nuclear bombs. One man, it seems, played a far more important part. And that man was Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.

Many people today don’t realise that, while the Soviets had been allied with Britain and the US in the fight against Hitler, they were not actually at war with Japan at the time of the Potsdam Declaration. The Soviet Union and Japan had in fact signed a neutrality pact back in 1941, which served both their interests nicely. The Soviets could focus on taking on the Nazis without worrying about being attacked on the other side by Japan, while the Japanese were free to concentrate on their brutal battles with the US.

Things only changed on 9 August, the very day of the second atomic attack on Nagasaki, when the Soviets suddenly broke the pact, mounting a massive invasion of Japan’s territories that decimated Japanese troops.

https://www.history.co.uk/shows/x-company/articles/why-did-japan-really-surrender-in-ww2

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold

I say no where the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been necessary the use of Atomic bombs particulary was not a necessaty.. once bombing on Japan directly started the destruction of those and other cities like in Germany was imminate. Loss of any and all life both civilian, and military peronel are aways a great tragity during War. The issue is over Japan's use of Militay Draft and salvory of POW's. The idea of loss of human life though had a impact on the dession to is the weapons it is not the best connection to be made with United States Consitutinal established Justice. Note anu testing on the long term effects of radiation had only been set by law of nature and effects created by sun burn.

I understand several days to be sufficient warning to evacuate.

Japanese Women and the Japanese War Effort - Engineering and Technology History Wiki (ethw.org)
The Leaflets Dropped Before the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb (hyperallergic.com)

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: The Bomb Was The Reason Japan Surrendered

Emperor Hirohito's cited the "new and most cruel bomb" in his surrender speech.

Nomenclature

Argument Topic: No, you are simply someone who invents his own reality on a minute-by-minute basis

@JulesKorngold

If deliberately killing civilians is terrorism when other people do it, then it's terrorism when the United States Air Force does it. It isn't one rule for you and another for everybody else, you ridiculous neo-fascist psychopath.

ARGUMENT: An expert's point of view on a current event.

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

Dee

@Nomenclature


If deliberately killing civilians is terrorism when other people do it, then it's terrorism when the United States Air Force does it. It isn't one rule for you and another for everybody else, you ridiculous neo-fascist psychopath.

Proof yet again they're a nation of brainwashed loons 

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Again, The Bomb Was The Reason Japan Surrendered

Emperor Hirohito's cited the "new and most cruel bomb" in his surrender speech.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature
If deliberately killing civilians is terrorism when other people do it, then it's terrorism when the United States Air Force does it. It isn't one rule for you and another for everybody else, you ridiculous neo-fascist psychopath. 

Terrorism is the use of lethal force to spread fear you are arguing the assembly of united states of truth as they are connected to established justice. Which by the way is a united states constitutional right not a human right America only offers democracy and not constitutional republic to the world because congress and others cannot sell constitutional right it is achieved by open and liberal competition.

Can’t tell you precisely how many times I have heard from supposed representation how useless the world feels United States Constitution is…over 10,000 times

Nomenclature

Argument Topic: Again, You Are Inventing Your Own Facts.

@JulesKorngold

Emperor Hirohito's cited the "new and most cruel bomb" in his surrender speech.

Did he claim it was the reason for the Japanese surrender?

No he didn't. So stop inventing your own facts.

John_C_87

@Dee

Proof yet again they're a nation of brainwashed loons 

The worlds treatment of both Pi and Time in algebra as whole plus rational numbers while they are natural numbers is a sign of group lunacy and brainwashing, as is the idea of atomic war being an armer of protection a person might wear or the single bases of World War III.

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold

Emperor Hirohito's cited the "new and most cruel bomb" in his surrender speech.

First: Japan the Emperor employd the use of International and American POW's as slaves....

Second: Ample Warning! Was given by pamphlet to a crule and fearce advisary incombat for the people of Japan to leave the cities there was going to be no bombing of Japan which did not end with mass casualties. The false Ideology of Japan was it could not be bombed because of its location in the East and was safe from attack. 

With all due respect to established justice and Japan the issue of whole truth is had the people remained in the cities by choice or by order of the Empire? 

Nomenclature

 @JulesKorngold

the atomic weapons actually saved thousands of American and millions of Japanese lives. 

Ah, the particularly loathsome, "We must kill people to save lives" fallacy. Used by every madman and despot since the dawn of time, alongside its equally well-known cousin, "We must fight for peace."

I'm sure all the people who developed leukemia in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are very grateful to the Americans for giving them cancer in order to save lives.

MayCaesar

Was it necessary to end the war? Certainly not, and it is quite a stretch to suggest that without use of atomic bombs that war would be raging to this day.

Was it an efficient way to end it? Certainly, as Japan's surrender followed shortly, avoiding potential millions of casualties on both sides and allowing the US to occupy Japan without any resistance.

That said, it is important to realize that the US military commandment had very little idea just what weapon exactly they were using, and that gamble could have backfired in many different ways. I am not confident that it was a sound tactical decision, even if it ended up working well. Much like playing a lottery is a poor strategy towards becoming wealthy, even if it has a non-zero probability to succeed.

John_C_87

Much like playing a lottery is a poor strategy towards becoming wealthy, even if it has a non-zero probability to succeed. 

The lottery is all about income equality not actual wealth but that is another debate.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

I'm sure all the people who developed leukemia in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are very grateful to the Americans for giving them cancer in order to save lives.

The people of Japan had been warned and instructed to leave the cities in advance to bombings...........Even, if Japan's own surprise attack on Pearl Harbor is only seen as a business retaliation of the impositions created by destruction of commercial Japanese Peal beds in Hawaii the argument is not valid as Penicillin had been an outcome of World War II. There is a particular issue Nomenclature as there are groups of people in the world who believe and declare a Jihad / Holly War, or such ideas as GOD is only a religion without understanding GOD is also held as a fact, something outside all religion itself. Something you have yet successfully argue against at all only making with Dee false and shallow claim of person limitations to understand by personal constitution. 

Ampersand

Saying that the Japanese would never surrender without the bombs is trite and false; they were already trying to surrender before the bombs were dropped and that is a matter of record.

Now they weren't trying to surrender unconditionally, but the conditions they asked for were basic, acceptable and the key one - agreeing not to take action against the Japanese Royal Family - was something the USA decided against doing anyway.

We must also remember that unconditional surrender wasn't even a must or some deeply held moral desire, it was something Roosevelt spontaneously pulled out of his add in a conference in Casablanca in January 1943 without consulting anyone else or any of the Allies and just got a life of it's own. Many people within the administration and in the military spoke out against it as needlessly prolonging the war. MacArthur's Southwest Pacific Command explained "to dethrone, or hand, the emperor would cause a tremendous and violent reaction from all Japanese. Hanging of the Emperor to them would be comparable to the cruxifiction of Christ to us. All would fight to die like ants."

The Secretary of State and former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew said "Surrender by Japan would be highly unlikely regardless of military defeat, in the absence of public undertaking by the President that unconditional surrender would not mean the elimination of the present dynasty if the Japanese people desire it's retention."

You can find similar sentiments from James Forrestal (Secretary of the Nazy), Henry Stimson (Secretary of War), John McCloy (Assistant Secretary of War) and Admiral Leahy (JCOS).

Truman stuck by his statement for political reasons, it simply wasn't necessary.

Not only that, but dropping the bombs didn't even amount to much. The Allies were already doing comparable damage with conventional bombing campaigns, wiping out entire cities like Toyama and in one bombing campaign (Operation Meetinghouse) inflicting more death and destruction that either atomic bomb.

So why use them and why did Japan surrender? The Soviets is the answer to both questions, although of course as discussed above Japan were already trying to surrender.

Prior to the successful Trinity test, the Allies had been staking it on the Soviets to bring to war to a swift end. It has been recognised by every nation, including Japan itself, that the entry of the Soviets into the war would be a death blow. Japan was being pushed to the limit already and the addition of the Soviets would spell the end.

However with the news of the successful test of a nuke, the dynamic changed. The USA and UK were already eyeing up the Soviet Union as the enemy in the next war. With the bomb was the possibility of freezing out the Soviets and going back on the concessions agreed upon at Yalta. They actually stopped them from signing the Postdam decleration, even though the Soviets had attended on the basis that they would sign it and that doing so would have been a clear signal about Soviet intentions and would have only hastened Japanese surrender.

Now the USSR invaded pretty much as the bombs were dropping and in a matter of a couple of weeks were on there way to completely wiping out Japan's mainland holdings and had inflicted as much damage as the allies had managed after years of war. This was a massive and devastating blow to the Japanese, moreso than the bombs - which after all did nothing that hadn't already been done several times over by conventional firebombing campaigns.

Suzuki, president of Japan, said at the time that they had to surrender or "the Soviet union will take not only Manchuria, Korea, Katafuto, but also Hokkaido. This would destroy the foundation of Japan. We must end the war when we can deal with the United States."

Deputy Chief of Staff General Torashiro Kawabe said: "it was only in a gradual manner that the horrible wreckage which had been made of Hiroshima became known... in comparison, the Soviet entry into the war was a great shock when it actually came. reports reaching Tokyo described Russian forces as 'invading in swarms'. It gave us all the more severe shock and alarm because we had been in constant fear of it with a vivid imagination that 'the vast red Army forces in Europe were now being turned against us'"

Admiral Toyodo said: "I believe the Russian participation in the war against Japan rather than the atom bombs did more to hasten surrender."

Leuitenent General Sumihisa Ikeda, director of Central Planning, said "Upon hearing of the Soviet entry into the war, I felt our chances were gone."

The Army Ministry directly stated "The Soviet participation in the war had the most direct impact on Japan's decision to surrender."

The US War department conducted a post-bombing study in 1946 entitled "Use of Atomic Bombs on Japan" which found "little mention... of the use of the atomic bomb by the United States in the discussions leading up to the decision.... it is almost a certainty that the Japanese would have capitulated upon the entry of Russia into the war." (Emphasis mine)

The point of view was backed up by many senior people.

Truman Chief of staff declared the bombs against "every Christian ethic I have ever heard of" and stated the "Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender... the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima was of no material assistance in our war against Japan."

General Douglas MacArthur consistently stated the war could have been finished months earlier with modified surrender terms.

General Henry Arnolds said "atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse".

General Curtis LeMay said "Even without the atomic bomb, Japan would have surrendered in two weeks."

Admiral ernest Kind, Chester Nimitz and William Halsey made similar comments, calling it unnecessary.

Brigadier General Carter Clarke said "We brought them down to an abject surrender through accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew we didn't need to do it, we used them to experiment for two atomic bombs."

The purpose was to to end the war in the USA's favour rather than the USSR's as well as to sideline Russia in upcoming negotiations and place the USA and the pre-eminent world-power.

It was completely unnecessary for forcing Japan's surrender

John_C_87

@Ampersand
So how was China going to take a Soviet occupied Japan?

Barnardot

@Nomenclature ;No, because it didn't work. The Japanese continued fighting, which is why the Americans dropped the second bomb.

And that worked. Are you always going to make utter different dum things by editing the truth and making half the story as if that was what happened. Man your grey matter is rotten to the core.

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ;Was it necessary to end the war? Certainly not, and it is quite a stretch to suggest that without use of atomic bombs that war would be raging to this day.

Your quite right and especially when it comes to war we all like to make judgements in hind sight. The unfortunate thing about the a bomb is that you cant uninvent them and even with controls you cant stop them. So there for when things escalate guess where the top level is and at the time thats where the next level was for America. But I reckon that if we are going to learn from history that was a great lesson to learn by.

Kekee

No

The Japanese would have surrended eventually. The atomic bombing was only done to scare the soviets

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Imminent Release of the Film "Oppenheimer"

In light of the release, here is information about the best book on the Manhattan Project.

"The Making of the Atomic Bomb" is a 1986 Pulitzer Prize-winning book by Richard Rhodes that details the history of the Manhattan Project, the U.S. research project that developed the atomic bomb during World War II.

The book begins by tracing the history of nuclear physics from its origins in the late 19th century to the discovery of fission in 1938. Rhodes then describes the efforts of scientists in the United States and Germany to develop an atomic bomb during the early years of World War II.

The bulk of the book focuses on the Manhattan Project itself, which was officially launched in 1942. Rhodes describes the work of the scientists and engineers who worked on the project, the challenges they faced, and the successes they achieved. He also discusses the ethical implications of the project, and the debate over whether or not to use the atomic bomb against Japan.

The Making of the Atomic Bomb is a comprehensive and well-written history of the Manhattan Project. Rhodes does an excellent job of explaining the complex scientific concepts involved in the development of the atomic bomb, and he brings the story to life with vivid descriptions of the people and events involved. The book is essential reading for anyone interested in the history of the atomic bomb or the development of nuclear weapons.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the book:

• The Manhattan Project was a massive undertaking that required the cooperation of thousands of scientists, engineers, and technicians.
• The development of the atomic bomb was a race against time, as the scientists in Germany were also working on a nuclear weapon.
• The decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan was a difficult one, but it was made with the belief that it would shorten the war and save lives.
• The development of the atomic bomb has had a profound impact on the world, and it continues to be a source of controversy today.

John_C_87

Was the Atomic bomb necessity to end World War II? Yes, Germanys key part to end the War for Germany quickly was by bombing both Russia & China due to the proximity of those nations to Germany. As a direct result of the destruction brought on by the atomic bombs this action was believed that the United States would surrender with little or no resistance shortly thereafter.

I have not read the book mentioned in this post though while during an educational period going over this very same information, one question that was puzzling is Germany scientists, any scientist for that matter, must have surely understood that such a weapon the atomic bomb was a Chemical Weapon, and had been made against international laws of the time. It took 50 years plus for American and the USSR to reach the same conclusion after decades of testing and several atomic powerplant accidents made this conclusion obvious to almost everyone. Moving the necessity of atomic missiles from strategic weapons of human conflict between each other to the less obvious necessity a defensive tool in earth’s defense system in celestial events of extinction. It would have been nice to say the missiles and bombs had not been necessary. All then likely with the adaption of the pending 1980 Star Wars program at political bargaining chip that turned out to become part of the worlds largest politically motivated illegal game of chance in human history.

John_C_87

I would just like to point out a couple points about how lucky the earth has not been destroyed by the atomic testing which has taken place already and it is very possible that all climate manipulation will be traced back to the testing that had taken place in the past. Testing not just performed by the United States of America by many Nations. Okay, so some of you have got caught me in a mistake, it is possible Einstein can be described as not being wrong but in no doubt the mathematics he had used was wrong. The issue is still in the use of terms brought to one side of the quadratic equation as Natural number terms have no negative or zero. Oppenheimer is not ever noted for openly quesitoning anyone including his peer's in this rather simple mathematic contradiction of reason.