Poll: Was It Wrong To Drop The Atomic Bombs In Japan?

Cgull

Behind You
Oct 31, 2009
339
0
0
Frozenfeet2 said:
Cgull said:
It's equivalent to saying that all German nationals during WW2 were Nazis, which is just a painfully wrong assumption made far too often.
agreed. Plus I don't think the Americans were bombing to help the Chinese. Nevertheless hardliners were in control and would have fought to the end, so it is a difficult decision, but I believe the bombs are justified for ending the war.
Glad you agree!

Without wanting to go over old ground (which is a precursor to me doing exactly that), what do you define as a hardliner? Churchill (see, I went over old ground, oh the tangled web I weave!) would've kept going to the end so would Hitler have been justified in the A-bomb if things had panned out the way he wanted them to and he'd taken Russia?

After all, it would've saved him a bloody and prolonged campaign to take invade the UK and pretty much ended the war in Europe there and then.

i not sure anything that screws over future generations can be justified either, surely it'll just sow seeds of resentment towards the offending nation which could, well, who knows where it could lead?
 

The DSM

New member
Apr 18, 2009
2,066
0
0
It was wrong in many ways, it should be a war crime.

The only reason it probably isnt classed as one is that the history books are written by the winners and made to make the winning side seem like the heroes.
 

DarkDain

New member
Jul 31, 2007
280
0
0
This thread is too big, it has no reason to be this big, its already appeared on this forum a couple times. Not alot of people are going to read 21 pages of this BEFORE voting. People should read the first 5 pages before voting to get more information on the subject.
 

almostgold

New member
Dec 1, 2009
729
0
0
Why the fuck is everyone sayying they were trying to surrender? They weren't. They rejected the Potsdam Declaration. Thats it. We gave them a chance to surrender, the emperor ignored it.
 

ionpulse2

New member
Mar 13, 2009
125
0
0
Manatee Slayer said:
Here are some of the things I have learned recently:

-The Japanese had virtually no Navy or Air force to speak of.

-The Americans had blockaded Japan, meaning they couldn't get any imported resources, which is nearly everything. lol

-The Japanese were terrified by the thought of the Russians coming, due to the fact they had lost to them before and that they would probably take over the country and install communism.

-Many high ranking officials were against the attack saying it was unnecessary and that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway.

-Winston Churchill in his book ("The World At War") said that the bombs did not play any part in the defeat of Japan.

-The only reason people think that the bombs won the war in the Pacific is due to American Propaganda.
FIX'D


Almost everything in this list is DEAD WRONG.

Allow me to explain:

1) The Japanese had PLENTY of military assets left, Navy, Air Force, and Army. They had enough fight in them to cause quite a bit of damage to US invading forces.

2) Our "blockade" was a joke. We only prevented shipping in the Pacific islands, while Japan got most of it's resources from mainland China.

3) While Japan was quite worried about Russia charging at them, they were much more preoccupied with the threat of the "American Dragon" landing on her shores.

4) Most of the politicians and military officials agreed with Truman on his decision.

5) Quote it. I'm serious, if Churchill said that, you "show me the money".

6) It was partially the US Propaganda that did that, yes. And yes, civilian lives were lost. HOWEVER, it would have been entirely more costly to invade Japan, all things considered.

Perhaps if Japan had won, we would be seeing this differently. And in Japanese. But as they say - History is written by the victors.
 

logiman

New member
Aug 8, 2008
326
0
0
NO
*bombing civilians it never "O.K."

Now to be more explicit..the first bomb was to make Japan surrender and get them out of the war
The second one however, was thrown on Nagasasky to scare the Russians (after the second explosion, the Russian ambasodor went to the White House and told the Americans that they have not been informed about the existace of that bomb too, to which the Americans responded "And we have a third one"..but the 3rd one never existed, it was just a lie to keep the Russians at bay)

Now you know the truth.."In war, everything is permited"
 

Low Key

New member
May 7, 2009
2,503
0
0
Cgull said:
Low Key said:
Cgull said:
Low Key said:
Cgull said:
How are people that drop a-bombs and celebrate any more innocent? A bamboo pole or decapitation kills one person at a time.
Dude, America didn't even want to be in the war in the first place, but they were thanks to the Japanese. If we had the ability to go back in time, I'm sure we'd hear first hand that no one wanted to drop the bombs. It was a means to an end because Japan didn't want to give up even after Germany had surrendered months before.
Setting fire to my garden to make the grass shorter is a means to an end, doesn't mean it's always the way to go. Would be fun though....

Are there many people that ever actually want to be in a war?
If it was a battle to get to your front door because your lawn was out of control, you may very well be justified in setting fire to it. There is a difference between excessive and unnecessary. The bombs may have been excessive, but that doesn't mean they were unnecessary. Just as if it was a struggle to live your life because of your lawn, setting fire to it may be excessive, but perhaps it would be necessary.
I think agreeing to disagree may be wise here :)

Also, that was a very well worded response, which deserves to be commended regardless of whether I agree with it or not *doffs hat*
I think agreeing to disagree is a splendid idea. I'm also glad you liked my response. It makes me feel less ridiculous for typing it.
 

Templar2k7

New member
Apr 28, 2010
60
0
0
Ok the reason that Japan didn't have a navy or an air force was because we destroyed all of it.

Also just remember Pearl harbor people were still angry over that and thought the Japanese needed to pay for that and the Death walks they did with the American P.O.W.s

And Winston Churchill was the prime minister of Britain, I'm not saying that they didn't have anything to do with the war in the Pacific but they were mainly involved in the war in Europe so information might of been misleading when he got it.

Just putting my view out there
 

ionpulse2

New member
Mar 13, 2009
125
0
0
logiman said:
NO
*bombing civilians it never "O.K."

Now to be more explicit..the first bomb was to make Japan surrender and get them out of the war
The second one however, was thrown on Nagasasky to scare the Russians (after the second explosion, the Russian ambasodor went to the White House and told the Americans that they have not been informed about the existace of that bomb too, to which the Americans responded "And we have a third one"..but the 3rd one never existed, it was just a lie to keep the Russians at bay)

Now you know the truth.."In war, everything is permited"
"All's fair in love and war..."

But seriously, enough with the 60-year-old conspiracy theories people. The subject is long dead. The second bomb was dropped with the same intention as the first - surrender. Japan, after seeing the first bomb dropped, did not respond. They believed, at first, that there was only one of the weapons in existence, and that we jut used up our only trump card. They refused to surrender. Then a SECOND bomb was dropped, to prove that we had many more where that came from. Within an hour after the second bomb, Japan agreed to unconditional surrender.

THAT is why it was necessary.
 

FlameUnquenchable

New member
Apr 27, 2010
173
0
0
Cgull said:
Frozenfeet2 said:
Cgull said:
It's equivalent to saying that all German nationals during WW2 were Nazis, which is just a painfully wrong assumption made far too often.
agreed. Plus I don't think the Americans were bombing to help the Chinese. Nevertheless hardliners were in control and would have fought to the end, so it is a difficult decision, but I believe the bombs are justified for ending the war.
Glad you agree!

Without wanting to go over old ground (which is a precursor to me doing exactly that), what do you define as a hardliner? Churchill (see, I went over old ground, oh the tangled web I weave!) would've kept going to the end so would Hitler have been justified in the A-bomb if things had panned out the way he wanted them to and he'd taken Russia?

After all, it would've saved him a bloody and prolonged campaign to take invade the UK and pretty much ended the war in Europe there and then.

i not sure anything that screws over future generations can be justified either, surely it'll just sow seeds of resentment towards the offending nation which could, well, who knows where it could lead?
The thing is if you're talking justification, is the attacker ever justified if the nation it is invading has not provoked it, or is not committing crimes against its own people?

Hilter would not have been justified in using an A-Bomb on Britain to win the war because the cause for trying to rule the world was not justified (my view). I believe on this point we've come down to an argument of was one side more justified than the other for its cause. In the case of WWII, I believe the Allies were more justified in ending the war than the Axis had they just tried to secure a war they had started.

The Germans and Japanese were both sold on the idea that they were better than others, at least the fanatics that started and perpetuated the war were in this camp. Their ideas were racist, and genocidal, which in my view makes them very unjustified in all of their actions.
 

ionpulse2

New member
Mar 13, 2009
125
0
0
Templar2k7 said:
Ok the reason that Japan didn't have a navy or an air force was because we destroyed all of it.

Also just remember Pearl harbor people were still angry over that and thought the Japanese needed to pay for that and the Death walks they did with the American P.O.W.s

And Winston Churchill was the prime minister of Britain, I'm not saying that they didn't have anything to do with the war in the Pacific but they were mainly involved in the war in Europe so information might of been misleading when he got it.

Just putting my view out there
They still had enough of a fighting force to be a threat. We didn't wipe out all of their fleets.

"Pearl harbor people were still angry over that..." NO SHIT THEY WERE ANGRY! Pearl Harbor was like 9/11 is today. It is exactly like that. Are you telling me that you weren't all angry with terrorists after 9/11? Same thing with the Japanese. But that doesn't mean this was done purely for revenge. It was done for the safety and preservation of the entire Free World.
 

myogaman

New member
Dec 11, 2008
213
0
0
Hey, your forum post is far too long but I still wanted to give you my opinion.

Japan was a feudal country until the 1850's when an American navy fleet lead by a man named Perry proved that if Japan didn't modernize, it would easily be crushed by the rest of the world. This broke the 200 year isolation law of sakoku where anyone who tries to leave dies and anyone who tries to enter dies as well. In short, America strong-armed Japan to modernize.

The reason Japan was in a state of sakoku was to preserve its culture and maintain itself as a powerful nation independent from outside help.

After the Meiji Restoration where the military leader of Japan (aka the Shogun) was set down to an adviser and the true Emperor was placed back on the throne, America's treaty that Perry brought over strictly controlled Japan's resources and worldwide influence. The Japanese didn't like this.

After 80 years of rapid modernization, possibly the quickest modernization in history, Japan started conferences without the USA and (after building their own Navy and Military Forces) joined the Axis in World War II.

With the resources still pouring in from the USA and Axis as its allies, Japan started an offensive against Korea, Taiwan, and China. Enslaving the people, murdering all resistance, and destroying their conquered country's cultures and enforcing their own culture, Japan forced Korea, China, and Taiwan to lose their own history and even language during all of World War II.

Seeing Japan's harsh betrayal, America cut off Japan's resources of oil and other materials that couldn't be manufactured in the country. Placing battleships in Pearl Harbor as a "defense" against a Japanese attack, the USA baited a trap for Japan.

Japan took the bait and bombed Pearl Harbor giving the USA an incentive to join the Allies and stop being neutral. This also pulled America out of the Great Depression and mobilized all US citizens to support the war. Lots of propaganda and cartoons against Germany and Japan were made to influence the public before Pearl Harbor was bombed making it seem the USA was preparing for this moment.

Japan's old feudal ways were very strong during this time as well with heartless inhumane experiments being conducted on prisoners including cannibalization. This is why no Japanese prison taken after surrender was left to live.

Meanwhile the USA was in a wild race with Germany and Japan to develop the first nuclear weapon. The USA bombed Tokyo in the guise of a regular attack when in reality it was to destroy Japan's only nuclear reactor producing uranium.

The USA did a similar attack against German forces and eliminated their refining plant. Left with the tools to create bombs but no material, Japan begged Germany for resources. Germany then sent three (or something close to that) U-Boats (aka early submarines) to Japan stocked with pure Uranium.

While on mid-transit to Japan, Germany surrendered and to prevent another economic backlash like World War I, the U-Boats surfaced and were handed over to the US Military.

Japan, without any way to create nuclear arms but determined to fight to the last breath, fought on until the USA threatened to use their newly developed nuclear bomb on them. Thinking it was a bluff but still cautious, Japan mobilized their forces to defend Tokyo against such a bombing while still pressing on against the USA refusing to surrender.

The United States then unleashed their first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Japan recoiled with the horror at this new weapons raw power. The US told Japan to surrender once again, stating they had another bomb. Japan thought this too was a bluff. The second bomb was sent over Nagasaki further devastating Japan. The USA told Japan, again, to surrender or they will bomb again. Japan, believing the USA would turn their entire nation into a nuclear wasteland, surrendered not knowing the USA only had 2 Atomic Bombs.

If the USA hadn't bombed Japan, Japan would have never surrendered and an both North America and Japan would have taken huge losses. Although not ethical, it was a necessary means to stop a long and bloody conflict.

Today the USA is now Japan's military services. Having forced Japan to adopted a Constitution much like their own, Japan's feudal ways were smashed. The Emperor was reduced to a figurehead and a president was elected. Japan is now not a militarily powerful nation but is the quickest technologically growing nation today. Although American influence has been harsh and brutal, Japan was not reduced to another 3rd world country and still has its closely guarded culture.

In short. I believe Japan being bombed was needed although I'm not happy about it.
 

Manatee Slayer

New member
Apr 21, 2010
152
0
0
5) Quote it. I'm serious, if Churchill said that, you "show me the money".
And I quote:

"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell, and was brought about by overwhelming maritime power. This alone had made it possible to seize ocean bases from which to launch he final attack and force her metropolitan Army to capitulate without striking a blow. Her shipping had been destroyed. She had entered the war with over five and a half million tons, later much augmented by captures and new construction, but her convoy system and escorts were inadequate and ill-organized. Over eight and a half million tons of Japanese shipping were sunk, of which five million fell to submarines. We, an island power, equally dependent on the sea, can read the lesson and understand our own fate had we failed to master the U-boats."

He also mentions earlier that by the end of July "The Japanese Navy had virtually ceased to exist".

As I said before this was "The Second World War" by Churchill, volume 6 specifically.

And thanks myogaman, very informative post.
 

Frozenfeet2

New member
Apr 3, 2010
94
0
0
Cgull said:
i not sure anything that screws over future generations can be justified either, surely it'll just sow seeds of resentment towards the offending nation which could, well, who knows where it could lead?
Congratulations on making me have to think!

However, Japan and Germany were not like Britain - their leaders were totally fanatical and indoctrinated their population, and only total dominance would force their defeat. Also there will always be resentment doubtless of the method of victory.

My knowledge of Japan kind of runs out here so I would be unable to speculate on how the future react, but if properly educated, then I guess they would see Japan as the aggressor and not be resentful so much?

Nickolai77 said:
If America had issued a warning and called for a Japanese surrender on the one term of retataning the Emperor, America would have avoided any long term moral contraversy by using the atomic bomb if the Japanse government had refused to surrender on these terms, in effect the blame would have been passed onto the Japanese government.
This is a very good point. A shame it didn't happen.
 

Cgull

Behind You
Oct 31, 2009
339
0
0
FlameUnquenchable said:
Cgull said:
Frozenfeet2 said:
Cgull said:
Snipsville
Snipples
Glad you agree!

Without wanting to go over old ground (which is a precursor to me doing exactly that), what do you define as a hardliner? Churchill (see, I went over old ground, oh the tangled web I weave!) would've kept going to the end so would Hitler have been justified in the A-bomb if things had panned out the way he wanted them to and he'd taken Russia?

After all, it would've saved him a bloody and prolonged campaign to take invade the UK and pretty much ended the war in Europe there and then.

i not sure anything that screws over future generations can be justified either, surely it'll just sow seeds of resentment towards the offending nation which could, well, who knows where it could lead?
The thing is if you're talking justification, is the attacker ever justified if the nation it is invading has not provoked it, or is not committing crimes against its own people?

Hilter would not have been justified in using an A-Bomb on Britain to win the war because the cause for trying to rule the world was not justified (my view). I believe on this point we've come down to an argument of was one side more justified than the other for its cause. In the case of WWII, I believe the Allies were more justified in ending the war than the Axis had they just tried to secure a war they had started.

The Germans and Japanese were both sold on the idea that they were better than others, at least the fanatics that started and perpetuated the war were in this camp. Their ideas were racist, and genocidal, which in my view makes them very unjustified in all of their actions.
Broadly speaking I actually agree with you, though without wanting to completely go off the thread, the reasons for the war and who has a better justification are pretty moot if you think that (again, broadly speaking) whoever wins tends to be widely accepted as having the 'better' viewpoint.

If Hitler had used the A-bomb in Parellelaland on Britain to end the war then history books today would more than likely be telling us that not only was his action justified but his cause was also just. After all, if the fanatics win, they aren't fanatics anymore, everyone else is just a revolutionary.

If that makes no sense (which is likely) another way of putting it - Each side in a war believes they're justfied, it's all a matter of perspective.

If the fanatics win, they aren't fanatics anymore, everyone else is just a revolutionary.
 

Brandon237

New member
Mar 10, 2010
2,959
0
0
myogaman said:
-uber snip-
Clap clap. I'm impressed. this was informative, although slight discrepancy: they weren't both fat boy bombs, the two separate bombs were little boy (Hiroshima) and Fat man (Nagasaki).
 

NIHILHATE

New member
Aug 21, 2009
448
0
0
I'm not gonna go on a huge rant, much as I'd like to, so I'll just say the U.S Army pisses me off.
 

Cgull

Behind You
Oct 31, 2009
339
0
0
Frozenfeet2 said:
Cgull said:
i not sure anything that screws over future generations can be justified either, surely it'll just sow seeds of resentment towards the offending nation which could, well, who knows where it could lead?
Congratulations on making me have to think!

However, Japan and Germany were not like Britain - their leaders were totally fanatical and indoctrinated their population, and only total dominance would force their defeat. Also there will always be resentment doubtless of the method of victory.

My knowledge of Japan kind of runs out here so I would be unable to speculate on how the future react, but if properly educated, then I guess they would see Japan as the aggressor and not be resentful so much?
Thank you, I actually enjoy this sort of discussion/debate, makes me miss the college days!

To continue playing devils advocate (you must have seen this coming?), was Churchill any less fanatical? Not in the same aggressive sense, which should go without saying, but can you, looking at all historical data that is available now, see anything that would've made him throw in the towel and surrender? Certainly there were individuals inside the British government that wanted to negiotiate with the nutty Austrian but I can't help but feel that total dominance would've been required here as well.

I'm not even going to pretend I can guess what might happen in future but I'd hope people can move on one day from the past. I would imagine (guesswork) that Japanese education shows them as aggressors of a form anyway, the issue is whether they agree that the ends justify the means. Considering almost half of the poll up there (^) don't, what do you think the chances of that are?

It's sad that I'm enjoying this.