The Bomb - 8 Aug 45

Adolf Hitler died by suicide in April 30 of 1945. Here the Japanese were still fighting three months later. The United States had no interest in dragging the war into 1946 and desired an immediate end by whatever means possible. I don't blame them and think the general Douglas MacArthur did a great job as the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers and effective ruler of Japan from 1945 to 1951.

One thing not mentioned yet is the Japanese philosophy of bushido (武士道), meaning the "way of the warrior." The classical book on this is Bushido, by Japanese educator Nitobe Inazo. He was a Christian and brilliant, but hugely nationalistic, so that he once said, "I love 2 'J's', Japan and Jesus, and I don't know which I love more." The book was based on the samurai warrior class of feudal Japan, and he painted them as kind of gentleman knights. In reality, though, they were vicious and immoral. I could give many examples, but one is enough. During the war between the samurai forces and the Ainu (the indigenous people of Japan) in the 17th century, the Ainu asked for a peace treaty. The Japanese agreed, and then slaughtered all of the Ainu leaders at the peace conference.

So, these were the guys running WW2 on the Japanese side: a warrior mentality that says never surrender, but commit seppuku first (切腹, otherwise known as harakiri) before the dishonor of surrender. If you are judging Japan in WW2 after American Christian values (surrender to save everyone), you simply do not understand the samurai. Japan refused to surrender until the A-bombs were dropped because of the samurai mentality. Even if defeated by Russia in N. China, they would have fought on literally until the last man in China. The A-bomb and it's absolutely huge destruction finally caused the leadership to overrule the samurai factions, but even then many Japanese warriors wanted to keep fighting.

You have to know, I've witnessed to Japanese WW2 soldiers, and even won one to Christ, Unokatsu, the father of a man in my church. He had fought the Russians in N. China as a machine gunner, and had a very dark place in his heart, telling me he had killed 100's of Russians with his machine gun. Add to these things that I have high rank in both Judo and Karate, and have even trained in jujutsu some. So, I know the samurai mentality well. I firmly believe that it took the A-bomb to defeat them.

Frankly, the Japanese were much better at war than the Russians, and it would have taken much for the Russians to win.

John - Very interesting report!
Thanks for the input

I have to backtrack on one thing. It was Uchimura Kanzo, another Japanese Christian leader in the days of WW2, not Nitobe Inazo.

Concerning which factor was stronger in the Japanese surrender, two of my scholarly sources apparently gave both events equal footing in the Japanese decision to surrender: the A-bomb and the entrance of Russia into the war against Japan. Edwin Reischauer was the son of Presbyterian missionaries to Japan, so he knew the culture and language well. He was the US ambassador to Japan from 1961 to 1966. He wrote, "The situation was hopeless, but the Japanese social order remained surprisingly strong, and the military continued in its proud tradition of no surrender. Only after the Americans dropped two atomic bombs...on August 6 and 9, 1945, and the Soviet Union came crashing into Manchuria on August 8 in an eager effort to get in on the kill and the disposition of the Japanese carcass, did an anguished Japanese government bow to the inevitable" (The Japanese, p. 192). Interesting that both the bomb and the Russian attack were within only a day of each other.

About the samurai culture of the Japanese military, I'll never forget stopping to witness to an old man in his garden. I asked him, "Aren't you concerned about sin and death?" He told me that he had fought in WW2 on the Russian front in Manchuria. He was a tanker, and Japanese tanks were notably thin-armored, and one shell could take out a Japanese tank. For some reason his tank stopped suddenly, just in time to avoid a Russian shell, which exploded just in front of his tank. He told me, "I have looked death in the eye, and am not afraid of it. As for sin, I sinned in the war, and did terrible things. My country sinned and did terrible things. But I do not repent." He went back to his gardening, and I went around the corner and wept. Someday God will be glorified before his eyes, and he will bow the knee before Christ before being cast into the lake of fire.

I was just looking at the Dokkodo, "The Way of Walking Alone," by famous samurai "Two Sword Musashi." His Precept 6 is: "Do not regret what you have done." The old man in the garden was living according to this samurai precept.

Salty said:

John - Very interesting report!
Thanks for the input

Click to expand...

It's a great discussion.

I remember the day Emperor Hirohito died, or maybe it was the day after. I was headed up into Tokyo from Yokohama to teach at a Bible School. Nothing seemed unusual, but the news that the Emperor had died was out there. I had to transfer trains between stations at the city of Machida when I passed a small demonstration by Christians with signs and what not, protesting the Imperial system! Of course such opposition was miniscule. There was national mourning for Hirohito the war criminal for some time after that.

MacArthur was very gracious to Hirohito in not calling him a war criminal and putting him on trial, but I believe Hirohito was a war criminal and very complicit in the whole war effort. However, putting him on trial would have produced huge protests among the Japanese. After all, until Mac had forced Hirohito to deny his deity on the radio, they had worshipped him as a god. Imagine if your god got on the radio and said, "Nope, don't pray to me any more. The whole thing was a lie. I'm not a god!"

Most Americans don't know the sins of Japan in the war. There was the wholesale murder of non-combatants all through the war in China, the Philippines, etc. There was Unit 731, which did biological and chemical warfare experiments on prisoners. There was the extremely harsh treatment of American prisoners of war. (Remember that the samurai never surrendered, and believed it was extremely shameful to surrender.) There was the Bataan Death March, where weak American prisoners were killed when they could no longer walk. I could go on and on. Yet somehow God gave love for those people to us missionaries. God's love is incredible.

Salty said:

I recd this in an email on 8 Aug 2026 -- Thoughts?
Today marks the 81st anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, carried out in the final days of World War II.

Click to expand...

This is a personal anecdote. I am a Vietnam-era US Marine and hail from a multi-generational military service family.

My father was US Navy and was among the first boots on the ground after the bombing of Hiroshima. There was no radioactivity. There was no mention of anything nuclear. There were NDA's (Non-Disclosure Agreements). My father, and others who accompanied him, experienced zero negative health effects from their experiences at Hiroshima.

Fast forward several years to my birth and upbringing. My father had stashed away many Hiroshima souvenirs in our attic. I discovered among them a cup-and-saucer set that had been fused together - not by anything radiological, but by extreme heat. Hiroshima was not nuked; it was firebombed.

I've since gone on to research the facts, and I eventually discovered that indeed the nuclear claim remains a hoax to this day. But if you're not inclined to do the hard yards, then maybe a vid from rumble will get you there (search for "Hiroshima hoax"). I hold much more documentation about the firebombing and nuclear hoax, but I doubt anyone here is interested in anything but their own firebombing/flaming.

Foxmeister said:

The refusal to surrender

Click to expand...

Bingo.

John of Japan said:

Japan refused to surrender until the A-bombs were dropped because of the samurai mentality.

Click to expand...

Zactly.

sojourner4Christ said:

This is a personal anecdote. I am a Vietnam-era US Marine and hail from a multi-generational military service family.

My father was US Navy and was among the first boots on the ground after the bombing of Hiroshima. There was no radioactivity. There was no mention of anything nuclear. There were NDA's (Non-Disclosure Agreements). My father, and others who accompanied him, experienced zero negative health effects from their experiences at Hiroshima.

Fast forward several years to my birth and upbringing. My father had stashed away many Hiroshima souvenirs in our attic. I discovered among them a cup-and-saucer set that had been fused together - not by anything radiological, but by extreme heat. Hiroshima was not nuked; it was firebombed.

I've since gone on to research the facts, and I eventually discovered that indeed the nuclear claim remains a hoax to this day. But if you're not inclined to do the hard yards, then maybe a vid from rumble will get you there (search for "Hiroshima hoax"). I hold much more documentation about the firebombing and nuclear hoax, but I doubt anyone here is interested in anything but their own firebombing/flaming.

Click to expand...

The first US military personnel entered Hiroshima 33 days after the bomb was dropped. It wasn't until 60 days after the drop that first massive wave of military occupation troops arrived in Hiroshima. Twelve American POWs were held in cells in the center of Hiroshima. Most of them were killed instantly when the bomb exploded above the city. The two who survived the blast had been covered with rubble. They died a few days later from radiation poisoning.

The bomb used on Hiroshima was called "Little Boy." It was a uranium-235 weapon with a blast equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT. It detonated 1,900 feet above the city. At the exact microsecond of detonation, the bomb released a massive, lethal burst of gamma rays and neutrons. Anyone within a mile of the epicenter who survived the initial physical blast received a fatal dose of radiation within seconds, destroying their cells at a microscopic level.

Because the bomb exploded high in the air, the radioactive fireball never touched the ground, preventing it from pulling up massive amounts of soil. Instead, the radioactive weapon debris was carried high into the sky by the mushroom cloud. Within a few hours, this highly radioactive ash and soot mixed with atmospheric moisture, falling back to earth as a sticky, toxic "black rain" that contaminated water supplies and soil miles away.

Because the ground was not heavily churned up with radioactive soil, the residual environmental radiation decayed incredibly fast. Roughly 80% of all residual radiation was emitted within the first 24 hours. Within a week, radiation levels at the center dropped to just 1/1,000,000th of their initial strength. Six weeks after the bombing, a severe typhoon struck Hiroshima, causing heavy floods that washed away the radioactive topsoil and flushed it out to sea.

The troops occupying Hiroshima initially were the 24th and 41st Infantry divisions. The Navy transported these troops to a port 12 miles from the city. A British Commonwealth Force occupied the city from 1946-1952.

I had to do some research to find particular details I used in this post. BTW, Little Boy was the first nuclear bomb used in the history of warfare.

sojourner4Christ said:

This is a personal anecdote. I am a Vietnam-era US Marine and hail from a multi-generational military service family.

My father was US Navy and was among the first boots on the ground after the bombing of Hiroshima. There was no radioactivity. There was no mention of anything nuclear. There were NDA's (Non-Disclosure Agreements). My father, and others who accompanied him, experienced zero negative health effects from their experiences at Hiroshima.

Fast forward several years to my birth and upbringing. My father had stashed away many Hiroshima souvenirs in our attic. I discovered among them a cup-and-saucer set that had been fused together - not by anything radiological, but by extreme heat. Hiroshima was not nuked; it was firebombed.

I've since gone on to research the facts, and I eventually discovered that indeed the nuclear claim remains a hoax to this day. But if you're not inclined to do the hard yards, then maybe a vid from rumble will get you there (search for "Hiroshima hoax"). I hold much more documentation about the firebombing and nuclear hoax, but I doubt anyone here is interested in anything but their own firebombing/flaming.

Click to expand...

Have you ever read Hiroshima, by John Hersey, a doctor who was there shortly after the Japanese surrender? The effects of the bombing of Hiroshima were quite different from the Tokyo firebombing.

John of Japan said:

One thing not mentioned yet is the Japanese philosophy of bushido (武士道), meaning the "way of the warrior." The classical book on this is Bushido, by Japanese educator Nitobe Inazo. He was a Christian and brilliant, but hugely nationalistic, so that he once said, "I love 2 'J's', Japan and Jesus, and I don't know which I love more." The book was based on the samurai warrior class of feudal Japan, and he painted them as kind of gentleman knights. In reality, though, they were vicious and immoral. I could give many examples, but one is enough. During the war between the samurai forces and the Ainu (the indigenous people of Japan) in the 17th century, the Ainu asked for a peace treaty. The Japanese agreed, and then slaughtered all of the Ainu leaders at the peace conference.

So, these were the guys running WW2 on the Japanese side: a warrior mentality that says never surrender, but commit seppuku first (切腹, otherwise known as harakiri) before the dishonor of surrender. If you are judging Japan in WW2 after American Christian values (surrender to save everyone), you simply do not understand the samurai. Japan refused to surrender until the A-bombs were dropped because of the samurai mentality. Even if defeated by Russia in N. China, they would have fought on literally until the last man in China. The A-bomb and it's absolutely huge destruction finally caused the leadership to overrule the samurai factions, but even then many Japanese warriors wanted to keep fighting.

You have to know, I've witnessed to Japanese WW2 soldiers, and even won one to Christ, Unokatsu, the father of a man in my church. He had fought the Russians in N. China as a machine gunner, and had a very dark place in his heart, telling me he had killed 100's of Russians with his machine gun. Add to these things that I have high rank in both Judo and Karate, and have even trained in jujutsu some. So, I know the samurai mentality well. I firmly believe that it took the A-bomb to defeat them.

Frankly, the Japanese were much better at war than the Russians, and it would have taken much for the Russians to win.

Click to expand...

My (unsaved) son has taught English in southern Honshu (Nagoya area) since 2003 and married a Japanese lady in 2010. Her (late) father was born in 1934 and late in the war was undergoing military training along with many many children of that age bracket. They were doing maneuvers "armed" with rifles made entirely of wood, readying to repulse the anticipated invasion of Allied armies. The carnage of that invasion, given the personnel and weapons left to Japan, would've been far worse than that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and 90%+ of casualties would likely have been Japanese.
Demonstrating the A-bomb to the USSR may have been factor, but IMO ending the war without the invasion was the main driver. Another thought: Would the Cold War have stayed cold if the horror of nuclear warfare had not been demonstrated?

OnlyaSinner said:

Would the Cold War have stayed cold if the horror of nuclear warfare had not been demonstrated?

Click to expand...

Good question. If the bombs hand not been invented, then an invasion would be necessary. Then it comes down to Russia invading Manchuria and the other allies invading Japan. We know how Russia succeeded against the Japanese forces there. What would he have done after that?

The first planned invasion on Japan would have occurred at Kyushu. The lowest estimate of US casualties for that operation was 125,000 over 120 days of combat. General Marshall estimated a second invasion near Tokyo would result in 500,000 allied casualties. The US military had 500,000 Purple Heart medals ordered in anticipation the invasion may be necessary.

Let's say the invasions of Japan did occur. The biggest adverse effect on U.S. military strength would have been geopolitical rather than purely numerical. A heavily bloodied U.S. military would have had less leverage and fewer available troops to counter Soviet expansion in places like Korea, China, and post-war Europe, altering the early dynamics of the Cold War. Imagine what the Russian footprint would have been like in Asia.

The US planners had to have looked at this possibility as well in it's decision making. The allied nations definitely had reason to fear Russia.

Foxmeister said:

Good question. If the bombs hand not been invented, then an invasion would be necessary. Then it comes down to Russia invading Manchuria and the other allies invading Japan. We know how Russia succeeded against the Japanese forces there. What would he have done after that?

The first planned invasion on Japan would have occurred at Kyushu. The lowest estimate of US casualties for that operation was 125,000 over 120 days of combat. General Marshall estimated a second invasion near Tokyo would result in 500,000 allied casualties. The US military had 500,000 Purple Heart medals ordered in anticipation the invasion may be necessary.

Let's say the invasions of Japan did occur. The biggest adverse effect on U.S. military strength would have been geopolitical rather than purely numerical. A heavily bloodied U.S. military would have had less leverage and fewer available troops to counter Soviet expansion in places like Korea, China, and post-war Europe, altering the early dynamics of the Cold War. Imagine what the Russian footprint would have been like in Asia.

The US planners had to have looked at this possibility as well in it's decision making. The allied nations definitely had reason to fear Russia.

Click to expand...

It may have been that it was us that were the aggressors, and not the Soviets. Look at how we behaved when there was a Soviet Union around, and look at how we behaved after they were gone. We are a very war like country, especially after the break up of the Soviet Union. We may not be the white hats, but the black hats.

Conan said:

It may have been that it was us that were the aggressors, and not the Soviets. Look at how we behaved when there was a Soviet Union around, and look at how we behaved after they were gone. We are a very war like country, especially after the break up of the Soviet Union. We may not be the white hats, but the black hats.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you on us being the aggressors and not the Soviets. Relations between the US and USSR soured when the Soviets signed the non-aggression agreement with Germany in 1939 that divided Poland between them. The agreement made those two nations allies. I explained in an earlier post how Germany turned on the Soviets and attacked the Soviets. In September of 1941, Britain and Russia agreed to the Land-Lease the US offered. This was a very generous offer by the US because those two countries only had to reimburse the US for the equipment that survived the war. The first shipments arrived in October 1941.

Here's what the US provided:

More than 400,000 American trucks and jeeps carried soldiers and supplies across long front lines.
Nearly 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars helped move goods by railway.
Around 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles were sent to clear roads and pull heavy guns.
14,000 warplanes for the Soviet air force.
13,000 battle tanks and tank destroyers.
2.7 million tons of petroleum products, including high-grade aviation fuel, kept planes and tanks running.
Large amounts of aluminum, copper, steel, and over 300,000 tons of explosives filled gaps in Soviet factories.
The U.S. even shipped an entire Ford tire factory to manufacture tires for Soviet military trucks.
4.5 million tons of nutritious food kept soldiers and workers fed.15 million pairs of army boots.
1.5 million blankets helped troops survive harsh Russian winters.

Now tell me where the aggression was in that? Had it not been for the Land-Lease agreement, it's doubtful the Soviets would have survived the war with Germany. Now look at the expansion of the Soviet's footprint following the end of the war, and it's expansion afterward. Who was the actual aggressor?

Foxmeister said:

I have to disagree with you on us being the aggressors and not the Soviets. Relations between the US and USSR soured when the Soviets signed the non-aggression agreement with Germany in 1939 that divided Poland between them. The agreement made those two nations allies. I explained in an earlier post how Germany turned on the Soviets and attacked the Soviets. In September of 1941, Britain and Russia agreed to the Land-Lease the US offered. This was a very generous offer by the US because those two countries only had to reimburse the US for the equipment that survived the war. The first shipments arrived in October 1941.

Here's what the US provided:

More than 400,000 American trucks and jeeps carried soldiers and supplies across long front lines.
Nearly 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars helped move goods by railway.
Around 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles were sent to clear roads and pull heavy guns.
14,000 warplanes for the Soviet air force.
13,000 battle tanks and tank destroyers.
2.7 million tons of petroleum products, including high-grade aviation fuel, kept planes and tanks running.
Large amounts of aluminum, copper, steel, and over 300,000 tons of explosives filled gaps in Soviet factories.
The U.S. even shipped an entire Ford tire factory to manufacture tires for Soviet military trucks.
4.5 million tons of nutritious food kept soldiers and workers fed.15 million pairs of army boots.
1.5 million blankets helped troops survive harsh Russian winters.

Now tell me where the aggression was in that? Had it not been for the Land-Lease agreement, it's doubtful the Soviets would have survived the war with Germany. Now look at the expansion of the Soviet's footprint following the end of the war, and it's expansion afterward. Who was the actual aggressor?

Click to expand...

Appreciate your post. But we know why Stalin signed that pact with Hitler. He knew that Hitler was coming for him and he needed time to rebuild his armies to face him. At that time the Wests capitalist were wanting communism to die as well. Stalin tried to make an alliance with the West but the West wasn't having it. Powerful men in the west were not not opposed to fascism as none helped Spain but the Soviets and Western volunteers but not governments. The Soviet Union was on its own verses Germany and the West alike.

There is a reason America gave all that equipment to the Soviets. We were not being generous, we had to be allies with the Soviet Union because of the Great Strength of Germany Japan. We even called Stalin, uncle Joe back then, because we need them. That's the US Government, not me. The Soviets faced annihilation, and if that happened Hitler could turn his full might on the West, when his full might was turned against the East. 80 out of every German soldiers were killed by the Soviets. Operation Bagration the Soviets destroyed Army group Center with Studebaker trucks. So everything we gave the Soviets were to help them survive and destroy Nazi Germany. We were not being generous. We needed the Soviets to survive and defeat the Nazis and they did with our help. We were allies, and American leadership was smart enough to be allied with the Soviets back then, who faced the full might, hate and force of the German Nation, who were trying to exterminate them just as the Jews.

Conan said:

Appreciate your post. But we know why Stalin signed that pact with Hitler. He knew that Hitler was coming for him and he needed time to rebuild his armies to face him. At that time the Wests capitalist were wanting communism to die as well. Stalin tried to make an alliance with the West but the West wasn't having it. Powerful men in the west were not not opposed to fascism as none helped Spain but the Soviets and Western volunteers but not governments. The Soviet Union was on its own verses Germany and the West alike.

There is a reason America gave all that equipment to the Soviets. We were not being generous, we had to be allies with the Soviet Union because of the Great Strength of Germany Japan. We even called Stalin, uncle Joe back then, because we need them. That's the US Government, not me. The Soviets faced annihilation, and if that happened Hitler could turn his full might on the West, when his full might was turned against the East. 80 out of every German soldiers were killed by the Soviets. Operation Bagration the Soviets destroyed Army group Center with Studebaker trucks. So everything we gave the Soviets were to help them survive and destroy Nazi Germany. We were not being generous. We needed the Soviets to survive and defeat the Nazis and they did with our help. We were allies, and American leadership was smart enough to be allied with the Soviets back then, who faced the full might, hate and force of the German Nation, who were trying to exterminate them just as the Jews.

Click to expand...

You keep saying the US was the aggressor in the Cold War, yet you have not posted one single fact that proves that. You come across as loving the USSR and disliking the US with this persistent idea that the US started the Cold War and were the aggressors.

This thread is about the bomb. If you want to continue this pursuit, then start a new thread about it.