Declassified photos from Tinian Island as the B-29 “Enola Gay” was being loaded • Hacker News Board

Re: Declassified photos from Tinian Island as the B-29 “Enola Gay” was being loaded

#141

Post by the_rosentotter » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 6:43 PM UTC

aaronem wrote: post #127

mikeash wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's any chance of the war lasting more than a year or so longer than it did absent nuclear bombing. The US was preparing for a full-scale invasion. That invasion would have succeeded, albeit at great cost. No matter how stubborn the Japanese were about not surrendering, there was simply no way they could mount an effective long-term defense. Your counterfactual about North Korea seems rather weak. Y…

Instead of going for the quick win, you'd rather we had risked an invasion with five- to seven-figure casualties to each side, followed by years of necessarily yet insufficiently brutal occupation, followed in its turn by another war against a nation we'd just finished giving every reason in the world to want to wipe us off the face of the earth?

Japan had already offered a complete surrender, conditional only on the protection of the emperor. They were looking for a way to surrender since at least April, according to the post-war inquiries.

Re: Declassified photos from Tinian Island as the B-29 “Enola Gay” was being loaded

#142

Post by 7952 » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 6:52 PM UTC

theoh wrote: post #117

dirktheman wrote: post #31

It always amazes me how seemingly careless they were with these nuclear devices back then. To know that such a devestating bomb was handled by a sultry, shirtless youngster, in a shed on a small island in the Pacific... It reminds me of the Slotin Incident ( http://www.damninteresting.com/bitten-by-the-nuclear-dragon/ ) where dr. Louis Slotin accidently slipped the screwdriver he used to separate two plutonium/uraniu…

It is not clear that dropping the bomb was necessary to end the war. Was it even necessary to develop it? Eisenhower said "it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." At the time Truman said Japan had been "repaid many fold" for Pearl Harbor. In these new images there is a bit of graffiti on the bomb allegedly written by a Rear Admiral: "a second kiss for Hirohito". It seems to me like the mood in the US…

Trying to win by bombing civilians was a common theme in world war two. From British Air Staff papers (1941)[1]...

  The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the 
  morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, 
  we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town
  physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people 
  conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is
  therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and
  (ii) fear of death.

Whilst that strategy may have worked in Japan with the atomic bombs it was hardly successful in Europe. And surely the impact was on the high command and political leadership rather than normal people.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_...

Re: Declassified photos from Tinian Island as the B-29 “Enola Gay” was being loaded

#143

Post by walshemj » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 6:53 PM UTC

theoh wrote: post #117

dirktheman wrote: post #31

It always amazes me how seemingly careless they were with these nuclear devices back then. To know that such a devestating bomb was handled by a sultry, shirtless youngster, in a shed on a small island in the Pacific... It reminds me of the Slotin Incident ( http://www.damninteresting.com/bitten-by-the-nuclear-dragon/ ) where dr. Louis Slotin accidently slipped the screwdriver he used to separate two plutonium/uraniu…

It is not clear that dropping the bomb was necessary to end the war. Was it even necessary to develop it? Eisenhower said "it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." At the time Truman said Japan had been "repaid many fold" for Pearl Harbor. In these new images there is a bit of graffiti on the bomb allegedly written by a Rear Admiral: "a second kiss for Hirohito". It seems to me like the mood in the US…

Considering that the "peace" faction's strategy was to force an invasion and massive casualty's (98% wastage for the first 5 waves) to help a negotiated settlement I think Pres Eisenhower is as naive as Chamberlin was prior to ww2

Re: Declassified photos from Tinian Island as the B-29 “Enola Gay” was being loaded

#144

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 6:54 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #41

shabda wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there are many people who subscribe to your view, there are an equal number who believe that Japan would have surrendered within months/weeks with no ground invasion. The allies had complete air and naval superiority and Russia had joined the the Japanese war theatre. If you have read the ethics of atomic bombings in any detail you are already aware of the details, so I would refrain from linking to wikipedia.…

I'm not aware of the ethical details, so feel free to correct me. It's my understanding that invasion was imminent at the time of the bombings, so America's choice was either to send bombs or soldiers. If that was truly their choice, it seems hard to argue that the bomb was the less ethical. It's fine to say that Japan would have surrendered without invasion, but such a strong assertion needs to be backed by equally…

[deleted]

Re: Declassified photos from Tinian Island as the B-29 “Enola Gay” was being loaded

#145

Post by aaronem » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 6:55 PM UTC

the_rosentotter wrote: post #141

aaronem wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of going for the quick win, you'd rather we had risked an invasion with five- to seven-figure casualties to each side, followed by years of necessarily yet insufficiently brutal occupation, followed in its turn by another war against a nation we'd just finished giving every reason in the world to want to wipe us off the face of the earth?

Japan had already offered a complete surrender, conditional only on the protection of the emperor. They were looking for a way to surrender since at least April, according to the post-war inquiries.

Which inquiries, by whom, of whom, and in what context? Links, please; that doesn't accord with any history of WWII I've ever read, and while I don't assume that makes what you're saying false, I would very much like to evaluate the claim for myself.

Re: Declassified photos from Tinian Island as the B-29 “Enola Gay” was being loaded

#146

Post by the_rosentotter » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 6:56 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #41

shabda wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there are many people who subscribe to your view, there are an equal number who believe that Japan would have surrendered within months/weeks with no ground invasion. The allies had complete air and naval superiority and Russia had joined the the Japanese war theatre. If you have read the ethics of atomic bombings in any detail you are already aware of the details, so I would refrain from linking to wikipedia.…

I'm not aware of the ethical details, so feel free to correct me. It's my understanding that invasion was imminent at the time of the bombings, so America's choice was either to send bombs or soldiers. If that was truly their choice, it seems hard to argue that the bomb was the less ethical. It's fine to say that Japan would have surrendered without invasion, but such a strong assertion needs to be backed by equally…

> It's fine to say that Japan would have surrendered without invasion, but such a strong assertion needs to be backed by equally strong evidence.

This was shown by post-war inquiries. Japan had already offered a complete surrender, contingent only on preserving the emperor. They had been trying to surrender since April, according to documents leaked by the president's Chief of Staff, on roughly the same terms that the Americans ultimately accepted.

The rush to drop the bombs was that the Soviet Union had promised to join the war against Japan on August 10, giving the Western allies only a few days to make sure that they would be the ones occupying Japan, not the Soviets.

A cynic might also suspect a bit of enthusiasm among U.S. military to field test the power of their new weapon.

Re: Declassified photos from Tinian Island as the B-29 “Enola Gay” was being loaded

#147

Post by ufmace » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 7:01 PM UTC

shabda wrote: post #37

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the purpose of the bomb was to save many thousands more lives than it ended. An invasion of Japan would've cost an enormous number of lives. It would've also had a catastrophic effect on the civilian population, because they were being told that the American troops were there to enslave them. It has even been said that the propaganda being told to the Japanese civilians included the idea that the troops wou…

While there are many people who subscribe to your view, there are an equal number who believe that Japan would have surrendered within months/weeks with no ground invasion. The allies had complete air and naval superiority and Russia had joined the the Japanese war theatre. If you have read the ethics of atomic bombings in any detail you are already aware of the details, so I would refrain from linking to wikipedia.…

I don't see a whole lot of point to discussing what we think Japan would have done, given the information that we have now. I have seen some of the research suggesting that Japan was more concerned about Russia's declaration of war than the atomic bombings, and might have surrendered based on that alone. But that research is based on a bunch of historians with unlimited access to Japanese records of high-level meetings and conversations, and all the time in the world to research, correlate, and discuss things.

They may well be right, but American Military officers making decisions couldn't possibly know any of that. All they can know is what the Japanese government has said and done, and anything that their intelligence sources can pick up, which may or may not be believable. Everything they would have seen up to that point says that Japan is ruthless and determined to not surrender, and they can only be convinced otherwise if it's clear that they face total destruction otherwise. I can't see how any information available to them points to any other conclusion than that the bomb should be dropped as soon as it's ready to bring an end to the war as quickly as possible.

Re: Declassified photos from Tinian Island as the B-29 “Enola Gay” was being loaded

#148

Post by the_rosentotter » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 7:07 PM UTC

aaronem wrote: post #145

the_rosentotter wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan had already offered a complete surrender, conditional only on the protection of the emperor. They were looking for a way to surrender since at least April, according to the post-war inquiries.

Which inquiries, by whom, of whom, and in what context? Links, please; that doesn't accord with any history of WWII I've ever read, and while I don't assume that makes what you're saying false, I would very much like to evaluate the claim for myself.

The details were in a memo from the president's Chief of Staff, detailing McArthur's accounts of five separate surrender offers. This article gives more details and a lot of sources:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

- Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.

- Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.

- Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.

- Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.

- Release of all prisoners of war and internees.

- Surrender of designated war criminals.

Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

Re: Declassified photos from Tinian Island as the B-29 “Enola Gay” was being loaded

#149

Post by vonmoltke » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 7:08 PM UTC

the_rosentotter wrote: post #139

Tombone5 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The use of the atomic bomb would have to be done with visual targeting, not by use of radar. [...] The targets should be 'large urban areas of not less than 3 miles in diameter existing in the larger populated areas… between the Japanese cities of Tokyo and Nagasaki… [and] should have high strategic value.' A list of possible targets that met this criteria was given [...] Of these, Hiroshima was noted as 'the larges…

He was clearly writing this for posterity. Japan was beaten. They had already offered a complete surrender, conditional only on keeping the emperor, which was rejected by the U.S. Their utter defeat and the hopeless state of their armed forces was well-known by the allies, since their communication encryption had been cracked months earlier. The real issue was likely that the Soviet Union, positioned to become a form…

> Also, there was no uncertainty about the lack of military significance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the contemporary reports state this clearly, they even warn about the presence of American POWs in the area (which was ignored and they were incinerated along with the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians).

Hiroshima was the city that supported the Kure Naval Base and associated anchorage. Nagasaki was a major port that was an adjunct of the Sasebo Naval Base. Those were two of the IJN's four main bases. The impotence of the IJn at this point notwithstanding, I think it is unreasonable to claim they had little military significance.

Whether or not that justified levelling them in what you can argue were just live-fire nuclear tests is a different question.

Re: Declassified photos from Tinian Island as the B-29 “Enola Gay” was being loaded

#150

Post by snogglethorpe » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 7:08 PM UTC

adwf wrote: post #133

theoh wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not clear that dropping the bomb was necessary to end the war. Was it even necessary to develop it? Eisenhower said "it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." At the time Truman said Japan had been "repaid many fold" for Pearl Harbor. In these new images there is a bit of graffiti on the bomb allegedly written by a Rear Admiral: "a second kiss for Hirohito". It seems to me like the mood in the US…

Personally I think that dropping the bomb was much less about winning the war and far more about winning the post-war. They already knew that they could take Japan, it would be nasty, but they could do it. So from that point of view, the bomb was unnecessary. But from a post-war perspective, the West was facing the prospect of a strong aggressive Soviet front. The A-bomb put an instant chill on all post-war aggressio…

Yeah, from what I've read on the subject, it seems that it's pretty well understood now that the Soviet Union was as much (or more) the intended "audience" for the A-bombs as Japan....

Pretty scary stuff considering that the main brunt was born by civilians.... oO;