Atomic bombings of Japan deemed needless by U.S. historian

"Bombing the second city, Nagasaki, was not necessary. Also, I would argue that even Hiroshima was not necessary,"

Being that humans have the unique ability to communicate, negotiate, and compromise to benefit everyone's best interest, I would argue that pretty much every war ever fought was not necessary.

They should have dropped it in an unpopulated area and given the Japanese a week to survey the damage and understand the potential.

The first one should not have been dropped on women and children.

Really? One historian makes this news? Without a second bomb the probability of Japan speaking Russian today goes up significantly.

BanthuToday  07:02 am JST

They should have dropped it in an unpopulated area and given the Japanese a week to survey the damage and understand the potential.

The first one should not have been dropped on women and children.

of course this was considered. people were not stupid.

it was dismissed because there was no 100% certainty the device would work. the design for the device made after the initial test in new mexico was a different design.

Read "The Rising Sun: The Decline & Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-45" the Pulitzer Prize winner by John Toland. Japan's intention to surrender was know by the US before either bomb was dropped. The people who were atomized were mostly non-combatants, especially the children. Toland depicts quite well what was going on with Japan and the US at the time. As for whether dropping on a sparsely populated area, if the first bomb failed, there was a second one to try. It's nothing to crow about that the US is the only nation to drop a super bomb on another nation.

Absolute and toral revisionist history.

These historians sit in their ivory towers and wax eloquent about what should have been done.

Japan would NEVER have surrendered unconditionally without the atomic bombings. Even with them, it was touch and go.

And without an unconditional surrender, the war would not have ended.

And that would have cost FAR more lives!! Including FAR more American lives.

It was absolutely the right decision!!

zones2surfToday  08:21 am JST

Absolute and toral revisionist history.

These historians sit in their ivory towers and wax eloquent about what should have been done.

Japan would NEVER have surrendered unconditionally without the atomic bombings. Even with them, it was touch and go.

And without an unconditional surrender, the war would not have ended.

And that would have cost FAR more lives!! Including FAR more American lives.

It was absolutely the right decision!!

naw, being more well would dispel those myths.

every 5-star officer at the time, except one, said it was unnecessary. japan was already a beaten nation. everyone knew japan would surrender when russia declared war. which is exactly what happened.

the japanese peace conditions offered before potsdam were the same conditions at the final surrender.

undeniable facts. not opinion.

Gene HennighToday 08:06 am JST

Read "The Rising Sun: The Decline & Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-45" the Pulitzer Prize winner by John Toland. Japan's intention to surrender was know by the US before either bomb was dropped.

The message was delivered through the Soviets so you can guess how well that was transmitted AND would have left Japan in charge of Korea and parts of China.

Peter NeilToday 08:32 am JST

every 5-star officer at the time, except one, said it was unnecessary.

Yeah. Surprise, surprise, military officers didn't like being end-run around and seized a chance to improve their own image.

japan was already a beaten nation. everyone knew japan would surrender when russia declared war. which is exactly what happened.

And how many parts of Japan should have been left to Russia to make that happen?

the japanese peace conditions offered before potsdam were the same conditions at the final surrender.

Absolutely untrue. The territorial concessions at a minimum weren't there and the offer wasn't made to the US.

undeniable facts. not opinion.

Yeah, incorrect facts.

Historians should work on researching facts and not pontificate about what was "necessary" in a complicated military/political situation.

Fact is, the nuclear bombings on one hand killed many but on the other hand also saved many by speeding up the surrender. It is a moral dilemma, about which people can argue endlessly.

TaiwanIsNotChinaToday  08:47 am JST

Gene HennighToday 08:06 am JST

Read "The Rising Sun: The Decline & Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-45" the Pulitzer Prize winner by John Toland. Japan's intention to surrender was know by the US before either bomb was dropped.

“The message was delivered through the Soviets so you can guess how well that was transmitted AND would have left Japan in charge of Korea and parts of China.”

nonsense.

stalin told truman directly at potsdam, where they also set the date for russia to enter the war. read truman’s hand-written diary.

truman refused to have any more devices that were being assembled used on japan after reading the accounts from the first two.

”i didn’t have the stomach to kill more women and children.” - harry truman.

The first one should not have been dropped on women and children.

Chinese would argue that the IJA should have slaughtered children and babies when then occupied China.

The fire bombing of Tokyo actually killed more than the A bombs, estimted 100k dead 1million homeless

Okay, then, don't read Toland's book. Everyone who died on both sides were in a war with each other. Japan committed some of the greatest atrocities in history. The US paid them back with its own atrocity.

It isn't revisionist to say that the US dropped two atomic bombs. As others have commented, there was much disagreement in the military as to whether the bombs were necessary. Either way, it would have been far less of an issue if the US didn't drop the bomb and then got the surrender anyway.

Bombing the second city, Nagasaki, was not necessary. 

No, it was. Right after Hiroshima, Korechika Anami, War Minister, told the Supreme War Council that he strongly suspected that the Hiroshima Bomb was a one-off. News of Nagasaki led most of them to them believe that the US had a stockpile, and that the unconditional surrender question required prompt action.

See Toland's book (mentioned above)

This "historian" might also wonder why 800,000 Japanese troops were deployed to Kyushu and digging in in the summer of 1945 with more on the way while thousands of civilians were given bamboo poles. A peace rally, perhaps? LOL.

Back in Tokyo, the War Council had been ignoring the Potsdam Ultimatum but news of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prompted them back into action, after which they voted and were deadlocked: 3 for continuing the war, the other 3 for surrender.

They handed the decision to Hirohito, who opted for surrender, and later told his grand chamberlain that the aerial bombings of Japanese cities were utmost on his mind when making his decision. He also made clear mention of the a-bombs in his surrender speech to the nation. This is all thoroughly documented, largely by the people directly involved.

Revisionism - the enemy of facts.

The first one should not have been dropped on women and children.

Why not?

i agree, no doubt they were an influence. another front against russia was also a big influence.

i always laugh when people say that japan would have never surrendered... but it did.

everyone was sick and tired of the war. :)

I don't know who this clueless historian is, but the Imperial Japanese military high command absolutely intended to fight until every last men, women, and children of Japan. Heck, there was even a coup attempt once the Emperor gave his order to surrender which was foiled.

Nuking of Japan was 200% necessary to end the war early and save 5 million Japanese lives.

Jpn top brass and the Emperor had known for a while that they had little chance of winning the war, but intentionally prolonged it in order to ship over as much of the gold they had plundered throughout Asia as possible.

What they weren't able to ship over they hid in massive tunnels in the Philippines, which the US took over and used to cement American superiority in the post-war era.

So all the countless citizens and soldiers who died in the fire bombings and nuclear assaults were due to these elite figures in the Jpn hierarchy, who were then ironically restored to power (i.e. founders of LDP) after the war as they agreed to play ball with Uncle Sam in order to maintain their privileged positions.

Peter NeilToday 08:57 am JST

stalin told truman directly at potsdam, where they also set the date for russia to enter the war. read truman’s hand-written diary.

Isn't that funny how they arranged the Soviet entrance to the war in the same meeting where this supposed peace telegram was discussed:

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/japanese-diplomacy-1945

Here we go again.

Expect the same "debate" for the next 100 years.

Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from (Japanese) Emperor asking for peace.

That is the direct quote from the diary. That is like two more levels removed from a direct request.

The US atomic bombings were war crimes.

The Soviet declaration of war on Japan ended the war, not the atomic bombs.

Truman wanted to use the bombs to intimidate the USSR, his supposed "ally". Truman turned on the USSR and began the cold war shortly after.

Truman murdered countless children and civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

The United States dropped an atomic bomb over Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, killing an estimated 140,000 people by the end of that year. Three days later, a second one was detonated over Nagasaki, with an estimated 74,000 people dead there by year's end.

"And there were some advisors of Truman who were arguing that we needed to demonstrate the bomb, and use it in a dramatic fashion. And part of this argument was that it would be good to use the bomb to end the war in Japan in this dramatic fashion because it would also send a message to the Russians," he said.

This basically says let's kill 200,000 Japanese to flex in front of the Soviets. An evil flex that is genocide no matter how you spin it.

The Soviet declaration of war on Japan ended the war, 

No it didn't. The Japanese knew well in advance that the Soviets would be invading. Right after the fall of Germany in May, nearly a million Soviet troops were mobilized to the borders of Japan's Manchukuo, where they sat waiting for a couple of months for the order to attack. The Japanese military and govt were fully aware of this.

So why didn't they surrender then? Rather than waiting for a few days following Nagasaki?

Don't forget the dozens of cities that were firebombed with incendiary bombs that had flamable jelly designed to stick to the wooden residential buildings of those cities...hundrends of thousands burned alive.

Nuking of Japan was 200% necessary to end the war early and save 5 million Japanese lives.

The bombing of Gaza is necessary to eradicate Hamas and save the people of Gaza from being run by terrorists that have no concern whatsoever regarding the safety and lives of the citizens it has calcualated as being fodder for international sympathy.

See how that works?

I'll be looking forward to your next post heralding the IDF as saviours of the Palestinian people. Cheers!

macarthur said many times that the conditions were the same, and also that the terms should have been accepted. retaining the emperor vs. unconditional with no provision for the emperor, when in fact, the emperor was retained to further the success of occupation.

same.

Why is it okay to drop bombs on men, but not women?

Why is it okay to drop bombs on men, but not women?

I guess in their thinking it is because all the men were enlisted in the military.

Japan absolutely was going to surrender to the allies - they were no match for the US fire-power. There was no need in particular for the second bomb.

Everyone who has ever visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki agrees that it was wrong to bomb them. The human tragedy was on a scale hard to fathom.

Fortunately modern Japan and the US are both as close as two nations can be. The modern evil are Russia, China and North Korea.

Nuking hundreds of thousands of civilians save no one. In fact, the nuking was one of the most brutal and cynical atrocities ever committed:

As Brig. Gen. Carter W. Clarke, the officer in charge of preparing MAGIC intercepted cable summaries in 1945, stated:

"….we brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the 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 that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

As the historical record shows, six of the seven US WWII five star officers concluded that the nuking of hundreds of thousands of civilians was unnecessary. As Admiral Chester W. Nimitz stated:

"The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war…."

Truman's own diaries show that he prolonged hostilities until the nukes were ready. We also know that he lied to the US public when he stated that Hiroshima was a "military target".

Prior to nuking Hiroshima, the U.S. military had already obliterated over 60 Japanese cities with napalm and white phosphorous. This conclusively proves that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had little value other than as an opportunity for the US military to conduct nuke testing on human subjects.

In this connection, Paul Tibbets is on record as stating that Hiroshima was set aside as a "virgin" test city. Additionally, the primary targets at Hiroshima were residential in nature with the overwhelming majority of casualties being civilian. In fact, Honkawa Elementary school was mere meters from the epicentre of the Hiroshima nuke strike.

So why didn't they surrender then? Rather than waiting for a few days following Nagasaki?

Japan wanted to surrender to the US, with some conditions but mainly to sustain the Imperial family.... The US was who did't acknowledge this.... Given, may be the Soviet Union was interfering. But according to what this article says, Truman knew about the intentions and conditions for surrendering that Japan was offering even before droping the bomb in Hiroshima.

Nuking of Japan was 200% necessary to end the war early and save 5 million Japanese lives.

You should be an Historian and publish your research first before saying this false propaganda.

Nuking of Japan was 200% necessary to end the war early and save 5 million Japanese lives.

Sure kill 210 thousands (more or less) to save 5 millon... that is very Super villan of you

BellflowerToday 10:30 am JST

The Soviet declaration of war on Japan ended the war, not the atomic bombs.

Boy it would be a shame if the Emperor said nothing about the USSR in his famous speech.

Truman wanted to use the bombs to intimidate the USSR, his supposed "ally". Truman turned on the USSR and began the cold war shortly after.

And he did keep scum out of Japan and South Korea.

Daniel NeagariToday 02:08 pm JST

according to what this article says,

There's your problem...

quercetumToday 10:37 am JST

This basically says let's kill 200,000 Japanese to flex in front of the Soviets. An evil flex that is genocide no matter how you spin it.

Kept them free didn't it? Also interesting to argue about a pre-Geneva convention event when we have invasions going on right now that may end up killing just as many.

Kept them free didn't it?

No...It made them dead

”In a way, it could be said that the atomic bombings and Russia’s sudden attack on Japan (in Manchuria) helped to bring about the end of the war. If those events had not happened, Japan at that stage, probably could not have stopped fighting.”

Marquis Kido, Lord Privy Seal, Japanese Govt., 1945

That Marquis Kido quote is from the horses mouth, on screen, in an interview for ‘The World at War.’

@DanielNeagari

Japan wanted to surrender to the US, with some conditions...

They had the chance to do that, after the Potsdam Ultimatum was issued in late July. The Japanese chose not to. Then came the a-bombings. And that was when Hirohito felt he needed to respond. A few days later, he told his nation that the a-bombings were one of two reasons for his surrender decision.

At any rate, Japan was in no position to issue any "conditions" to the allies. If the US gave in to Japanese conditions at that point, it would have been an international outrage. Same as if the US or Soviets decided to negotiate with Hitler rather than securing unconditional surrender from the Nazis in the spring of 45.

There's your problem...

Sorry, but no.... the US knew about Japan wanted to surrender (it is well documented but not well communicated). it was Truman and his aids that decided to drop the bombs.

The USSR also consiously did not inform US (its then ally) about Japan willingness to surrender, because they wanted to invade Japan and took Hokkaido, they partially succeded and until this day, Russia is denying to give back what they took, in the few days between the surrendering of Imperial Japan.

So it was Japan bad judgment to seek help of USSR to mediate and poor communicatioin with US and its allies.

The USSR hiding information to its allies so they can take more land.

The US willingly ignoring information so to show they nuclear might.

Daniel NeagariToday 04:44 pm JST

There's your problem...

Sorry, but no.... the US knew about Japan wanted to surrender (it is well documented but not well communicated). it was Truman and his aids that decided to drop the bombs.

Because the hidden proposal being sent from Tokyo included nothing about relinquishing Korea and China.

Because the hidden proposal being sent from Tokyo included nothing about relinquishing Korea and China.

soooo. basically you are saying, if we are negotiating a contract... even in the initial stages if there is a clause you don't like you will punch me in the gut a couple of times even before sitting on the negotiation table?

To anyone who says the bombings were justified plesse visit Hiroshima or Nagasaki

Then tell me it was justified.

Japan might have been already defeated but they never would have surrendered without the bomb. They would have fought until the last of their soldier without any order of surrender from the Emperor.

What's new about this idea? It has been made many times before. He is just picking the scab off an old wound.

"….we brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the 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 that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

I don’t believe the bombs were necessary as the war was already ending. We’ve all talk to the Japanese from someone who knows someone in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and have read and read. It certainly could have been avoided.

That said, the Japanese used performed experiments on humans in China and other countries. I believe this experiment was karma and retribution for their experiments on humans.

Both are wrong

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. You reap what you sow.

Perform experiments on humans to other countries and countries will perform Atomic bomb human experiments on you.

Renowned historian Kai Bird. Never heard of him. Was he even around in 1945?

they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

These two countries, the US of A and Japan, that disgustingly conducted experiments on humans, both have such a guilty conscience lingering even today that they invariably deny that their experiments on humans ever took place or that it was an experiment of bombs used on civilians.

China sprays water canons and rams boats. It sent some people to the countryside for some hard work and tough love They took care and raised the abandoned babies left behind by the Japanese after the Japanese surrendered. Compared to these two, the Chinese government is a saint.

Oh, well, if HE said so, then it must be RIGHT.

Thanks for that insight….you should have BEEN there to tell them.

we see that American textbooks are just as biased as Japanese textbooks towards their country and its justifications for suffering.

Sure kill 210 thousands (more or less) to save 5 millon... that is very Super villan of you

Guess I'd be a super villan (sic) then, 'cuz I'd kill 210K to save 5M any day.

Nuking women and children was necessary to show that they are powerful, bloodthirsty and unforgiving, to sow fear in everyone else

And they did it one more time to make it absolutely clear.

This "historian" doesn't know his history. Even after the second bomb, literally half of the government officials wanted to continue the war. After the first bomb, the figure was higher. Probably he is just another American hater. That's a well-paid profession these days.

B.S.

Communication by authorized persons of intention to surrender was required and finally accepted. But for people who had no authority to claim that surrender was intended and imminent means nothing.

Only surrender is surrender.

You know what else is needless? War. Even more needless, the war of attrition Japan was waging, forcing its own citizens to form circles and pull grenades, or to jump off cliffs to their deaths. I could go on.

Unconditional surrender NO less, had the imperial Japanese government declared unconditional surrender then Nagasaki may have been spared the devastation.

May have been "spared the devastation" is a "big" if.

I suspect a degree of harsh "punishment" was privately demanded by the US government.

To provide a global display of "pollical influence/military power" to the then Soviet Union dictators.

US has the "atomic bomb", we will not hesitate to deploy if threatened or deemed necessary.

They bombed the wrong cities. Still however, it was a show of retribution and power. But even men needlessly needn't die for this of other corrupt men. Women and children? Pff... as if they're any more innocent. Men are innocent too. However, yes... perhaps the bombs were needless in the ways they were dropped. One bomb was enough, andnthe rest could've been done in a military HQ. Theres no right or wrong, theres just power. We may hate China today, but in light of history, what they've done is light compared to the other three countries.

Daniel NeagariSep. 2 05:14 pm JST

Because the hidden proposal being sent from Tokyo included nothing about relinquishing Korea and China.

soooo. basically you are saying, if we are negotiating a contract... even in the initial stages if there is a clause you don't like you will punch me in the gut a couple of times even before sitting on the negotiation table?

If you have been murdering and stealing, yes, that is generally how it goes.

Itso,the nuclear deterrent is useless unless willing to use,the only reason the Russian got nuke , because of the Rosenberg, Russia had knowledge of a implosion lens,until the Rosenberg smuggles one to them,they had no working bomb,only in theory Google Rosenberg Implosion Lens

quercetumSep. 2 07:01 pm JST

they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

These two countries, the US of A and Japan, that disgustingly conducted experiments on humans, both have such a guilty conscience lingering even today that they invariably deny that their experiments on humans ever took place or that it was an experiment of bombs used on civilians.

Don't forget China's ally Russia, which collected plenty of data on experimentation on Chinese as well while letting the perpetrators off of the hook. The only reason China hasn't bombed something is because they are too busy putting their own people in concentration camps.

China sprays water canons and rams boats. It sent some people to the countryside for some hard work and tough love They took care and raised the abandoned babies left behind by the Japanese after the Japanese surrendered. Compared to these two, the Chinese government is a saint.

Encouraging the North Korean invasion of the South is not saintly material, neither is ramming Philippine boats. Only time will tell if the PLA/PLN remains too cowardly to do anything about Taiwan.

桜川雪Sep. 2 08:03 pm JST

we see that American textbooks are just as biased as Japanese textbooks towards their country and its justifications for suffering.

I'm sure modern US textbooks show the peeling skin photos and include a counterargument. Hopefully the correct main argument that it allowed Japan to continue speaking Japanese is still present.

Revisionism is all well and good but it changes nothing.

What is still evident though are the remnants of atrocities carried out by both sides.

What is apparent presently is the steady impetus to use nuclear bombs once again in the 21st century.

We should all be extremely concerned about that…

the war was already ending. 

Then why were nearly a million Japanese troops being deployed to Kyushu in the summer of 1945?  Another million Japanese troops were in China at the time, and their commanders were in absolutely no mood for surrender. Meanwhile, thousands of people were dying each week in Asia in the summer of 1945 thanks to Japan's little adventure. The was definitely not "ending" in early August 1945.

it was Truman and his aids that decided to drop the bombs.

More accurately, Truman accepted the conclusions of his Interim Committee without amendment. It was a group of scientific, geopolitical and military experts who deliberated on the bombs' use for a couple of weeks, and found in favor of using the bombs to promptly end the war. Guess what: the plan worked.

Toward the end of World War II Japan’s surrender was imminent to anyone's eye  The sky over Japan was in complete control of the U.S. Air Force, whereby it could drop atomic bombs on the two cities with impunity Two Axis countries, Nazi Germany and Italy, had already been defeated, and Japan was fighting the war all by itself. 

The Soviet Union invaded and occupied Manchuria, Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands minus Attu despite the bilateral non-aggression pact.

Fighter planes were left on air strips like sitting ducks due to the lack of oil to fly them. Almost all infrastructure in cities was destroyed by daily air raids by formidable B-29s.

Japan hanged by a thread at the end of WW II.

I'd kill 210K to save 5M any day.

Unless that 210k includes you and your family

voiceofokinawaSep. 3 05:58 pm JST

Controlling the air is not the same as controlling the ground, as we see in Ukraine today. Also the Soviet declaration of war was after Hiroshima.

Geeter Mckluskie

Unless that 210k includes you and your family

Of course. And the families of the other 5 million think differently. It is a moral paradox with no simple answer. Actually, it has a name in philosophy: The trolley problem. Look it up.

@TaiwanIsNotChina

I think you don't understand what war and surrendering condition for war means...

When U.S. President Harry S. Truman confided to Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin during the Yalta Conference that the U.S. had successfully carried out atomic bomb tests in Arizona, Stalin simply nodded and smiled, saying nothing.    

It's often said that dropping of the atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply for the Soviet Union to see. It was a kind of demonstration by the U.S to be sure to achieve hegemony after the war.

The Soviet Union had been very desperate to develop atomic bombs themselves, which they succeeded to achieve in 1949.

voiceofokinawaToday 03:49 pm JST

And can you honestly say portions of what is Japan today would not be under the control of a separate government without the atomic bombings?

Daniel NeagariSep. 5 03:54 pm JST

@TaiwanIsNotChina

I think you don't understand what war and surrendering condition for war means...

Well, in the case of Japan, surrendering to the US meant they didn't lose half the country to a puppet state in perpetuity.