Hiroshima: The Most Rational Decision

Hi Joe, Lowry here. You're argument is very well thought out, however, there's never anything rational about dropping two Atomic bombs on two Virgin sites that had no obvious military value, other than to measure the power of the bomb that would create the political dynamic of Mutually Assured Destruction. These were citizen centres with very little military value, and while they demolralised and ultimately saved the lives of the potential invasion force, I think your argument is really unintentionally an anti-war argument. War had made the United States do the ultimate wrong - kill civilians. Your argument suggests that because the enemy did so, we had to. While I don't disagree, I think you point out the importance of diplomacy and the failure of early 20th century diplomacy to avoid both world wars. You know as well as I do that the reparations France and England placed on Germany led to World War II but Japanese involvement was much more complex and really was a failure of diplomacy. I categorically disagree with you that dropping two A-Bombs on Japan was rational, because I find the breakdown in diplomacy reprehensible. I expect a reply. Hope you are well and the other one and half. Cheers,

John

(I had to break this response down into two halves becuase of a 2,000 character limit)

Well, I want to try to NOT respond to comments in the future because I'd rather just put something out there and if anyone feels that they want to throw in their own opinion, then I want them to feel free to. However, since you "expect a reply", and you are the very first person to have commented on my new blog, then I will give you the honors, ol' friend...
I don't necessarily disagree with you finding the decision unacceptable because I almost do as well, but when I put myself in Truman's shoes back in August of '45, I can understand the decision based on everything leading up to that point, as well as what he was staring at in the immediate future (invasion / postwar world). Two "Virgin" sites were used to demonstrate unmistakably the power of the bombs so that Japan's leadership could not try to rationalize away the bomb's capability by saying that half the site had already been destroyed due to conventional bombing (which, by the way, quite a few of Japan's leaders wanted to fight on anyway).

In reference to killing civilians, it was a cold hard fact that tens of millions of civilians bore the brunt of this war around the world. I do believe that the itentional bombing of Axis cities by the Allies throughout the war were, for the most part, unnecessary. My problem with the anti-Hiroshima / civilians argument is that in looking at the alternatives (i.e. invasion / blockade = starvation / conventional bombing), most likely even more civilians would have been killed over the long run unless Japan surrendered -- and Japan really had not intention of surrendering unconditionally. I was not at all arguing that since the Axis committed horrible attrocities that it was OK for us to as well because this decision was used to END a war in which the Axis had absolutely no concerns for enemy civilians at all. There was hesitation and debate on the part of Truman and his administration, as opposed to the Axis so I can't put this decision on the same level as that of callous decisions made by the Axis.

(Sorry, make that 3 parts)...

As for Germany and Japan and the cause of WWII, yes, I agree that poor diplomacy in the interwar years helped lead to a new war in Europe, but that was not the case for Japan. They saw themselves as a "have-not" nation that needed to increase it's imperial standing in Asia in order strengthen its own security. China was to be their resources and manpower pool and the west, especially FDR's administration, was simply not going to agree to that. Japan picked a war with China that it thought would win quickly, and when the did not and needed more resources, they started to expand their operations in to SE Asia and the South Pacific and they felt that they needed to knock the U.S. out of the way in order to achieve their imperial / economic autarky. The U.S. and Britain did try to negotiate with Japan in the '30s, but without giving into any Japanese demands in China, which of course, was the right stand to take. Japan's military government came looking for these wars...it had nothing to do with lack of diplomacy.