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

[FlameUnquenchable]

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.

Clipped the quotes for space. True, I agree that many times "to the victors go the spoils." I'm loathe to say 100% of the time, but a lot. A lot depends on perspective, and that's why I don't understand the reason threads like this sometimes. Right/Wrong or Moral Black/White, to me there's a lot of grey to work with.

 

[Valkyira]

Was it wrong murdering countless innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the war?

...Yes it was.

 

[duckfi8]

Nope.

 

[Cgull]

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.

Clipped the quotes for space. True, I agree that many times "to the victors go the spoils." I'm loathe to say 100% of the time, but a lot. A lot depends on perspective, and that's why I don't understand the reason threads like this sometimes. Right/Wrong or Moral Black/White, to me there's a lot of grey to work with.

A wise move, any more than 3 quotes tends to just get!

Reason threads have their purpose, it's always interesting to see people's reasoning behind issues, even if you completely disagree with them.

I'm staunchly of the belief that using the bomb was wrong but there will be plenty of other people willing to tell me that it was the only way, 'tis the beauty of debate or, in this case, a mass debate *snigger*.

 

[DazBurger]

The Japanese were already on their way to a truce, and the Americans were more focused on showing off to Soviet to scare them off. To me it just seemed like the Americans were waving their dicks around.

Exactly! Why settle with truce? Truce rarely last long. At least not as long as complete surrender.

Does that justify the number of civilian deaths?

Notthing does. Sure, it was wrong, killing is never right, but sometimes nessecary :/

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

mega snip

Very informative stuff. There is a lot there i didn't know about Japan

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 whilst Churchill is right in everything he said there, i.e the defeat of Japan was assured, it does not detract in any way from the generally accepted theory that to invade the japanese mainland would have cost millions of lives and that the bombs were used to avoid this and shorten the war.

 

[Jean-Michel Pichette]

No situation calls for the use of an atomic bomb on a civilian population... If you think otherwise, your humanity is in jeopardy.

 

[Bobzer77]

What I find far more interesting than the topic itself is the recent shift in attitude towards WW2 on the internet. We've always known the Axis were bad, but over the last couple of years there's been an increasingly vocal group villyfing the Allies as well in some sort of counter culture thing.

For one thing I don't really get the point of it all. WW2 is history now, an all out war from a different era. And it's not like we've been lied to or anything, for real historians all the information is documented to be studied & debated, while the rest of the population learns about it in high school and/or some form of entertainment and generally adopt a 'we did what we had to' attitude and don't question it. But recently there's been many people like this:

I can't believe so many people actually voted no, but theres America for you....

I wouldn't have a problem with what they did if they had targeted something to do with the Japanese military but they dropped both bombs on cities full of civilians. What they did is worse than 9/11. They proved a point so that they wouldn't lose men fighting on land which is admirable but even if they detonated off the coast as a warning Japan would know the game is up.

If I was in charge the bastards would be up for war crimes... but it's just my opinion, now all I have to do is wait for it to get torn up by a rabid horde of Americas patriots.

To which I don't get the point of it all. That last part especially, you do realize tyou'd be digging up corpses to put on trial right? Is this because of some sort of Che Guevara like counter culture thing? Is it because we have a generation growing up whose grand parents weren't involved in WW2 and don't have that same respected reverence for them that my generation does? Or maybe it's a generation that grew up in Europe free from the grips of war after the USSR collapsed, that have become anti-American due to the current shenanigans in Iraq and apply the same lofty "fight soldiers & insurgents only, never harm civilians" standard to the past?

Really I just don't get where this all started from, and consider this far more intesting than the actual discussion it creates. And before anyone like the poster I quoted calls me a patriotic American or something I'm actually Canadian.

Yes I do realise I would be digging up corpses to put on trial I'm not an idiot, forgive me for not using the past tense "If I had been in charge" better?

My grandfather was in fact involved in WW2 and I have immense respect for the people who fought in it but amazingly I don't carry the same respect for the people who made decisions resulting in the deaths of over 100000 civilians.

Why has it suddenly become counter culture to express your disgust at a waste of human life?


And before another person like the poster I quoted says I called them an American patriot read what I wrote again carefully. Did I say "anyone who quotes me is an American patriot" no, I said I anticipate some to tear my post apart.

 

[Numbert]

Personally I say neither were justified but Nagasaki especially. We only waited 1 week between the two. We honestly couldn't have waited a few more days to say 300,000 lives? They got the message with the first mass murder, and were about to surrender. The political system takes longer than a week.

 

[Broken Orange]

I am sorry for the lack of links or if someone pointed this out, but I watched an episode of the History Chanel tv show "WWII in HD." There was a scene where American forces got to an island (sorry, don't remember which) and the Japanese civilians committed suicide because they were told that the Americans would rape, murder, torture, etc. them. That showed the Japanese were willing to kill themselves and possibly attack american forces in mainland Japan.

There is a link I can post. cracked .com article [http://www.cracked.com/article_18510_6-supposedly-ancient-traditions-that-totally-arent_p1.htmls] shows that the Japanese government tricked their citizens to die for their country with the introuction of the Bushido code to keep fighting spirt up. It is the fifth one.

 

[TheScarecrow]

I don't like atomic weapons and personally I think it was wrong drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

Also Einstein didn't like them, and that man was a genius!

 

[Meggiepants]

I'm at a loss as to how A-bombing anyone can be seen as the correct route to take? More so when you consider it was on civilians.

Of course, no matter what I, or anyone, says against/for it, changing the mindset of someone who has already formed their opinion will be nigh on impossible anyway.

Cna't help but feel that if roles had been reversed and Japan had dropped the big one on America then that poll would show very different results.

Ah, you dragged me into this one. I'll blame you if my inbox is flooded with angry quotes!

I'm from the states, first off. Just in case that matters.

Personally, I think it was wrong to do. I am quite positive that's why we have never done it again. I think it became apparent that in this case, the ends did not justify the means.

Too much collateral damage, devastating effects on the environment, the world wide fear that we had created such a weapon... there are so many negative things that came of that action. Nobody wants to see children by the thousands dying of cancer, even if they do want to win a war. Those that don't care about such things are considered monsters.

That being said, I would never in a million years have wanted to be President Truman during that decision. I think it was a horrifically difficult decision for him to make.

 

[RyanBishop]

While it was inherently wrong to kill such an incredible amount of innocent civilians, I think this is what people refer to as "Necessary Evil". Without the events in Japan the first atomic bombs might have been exchanged during the US-Russia confrontation. And I think we all know how it would have ended... So maybe it is not as bad as it could be. Still ghastly though...

 

[NobodyHereButUsTrees]

Was it wrong murdering countless innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the war?

...Yes it was.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Japan as a whole fully committed to the war? You know, the whole Japanese version of Nazi racial supremacy?

 

[Blitzkrieg8]

I am pretty sure the Japaneses killed more civilians than the anomic bombs and and would have killed more if the American had invaded.

 

[spartandude]

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"

that is a common misconception, they actually did have more bombs, they even had more targets on japan to bomb, and not one of them an isolated population centre, all of them were major civilian centres

 

[spartandude]

Was it wrong murdering countless innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the war?

...Yes it was.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Japan as a whole fully committed to the war? You know, the whole Japanese version of Nazi racial supremacy?

and wasnt america doing horrible things to its own black citizens at this time?

but does that mean that america is then fully justified for droping the bombs, and does it mean america isnt as bad as japan?

 

[Cgull]

I'm at a loss as to how A-bombing anyone can be seen as the correct route to take? More so when you consider it was on civilians.

Of course, no matter what I, or anyone, says against/for it, changing the mindset of someone who has already formed their opinion will be nigh on impossible anyway.

Cna't help but feel that if roles had been reversed and Japan had dropped the big one on America then that poll would show very different results.

Ah, you dragged me into this one. I'll blame you if my inbox is flooded with angry quotes!

I'm from the states, first off. Just in case that matters.

Personally, I think it was wrong to do. I am quite positive that's why we have never done it again. I think it became apparent that in this case, the ends did not justify the means.

Too much collateral damage, devastating effects on the environment, the world wide fear that we had created such a weapon... there are so many negative things that came of that action. Nobody wants to see children by the thousands dying of cancer, even if they do want to win a war. Those that don't care about such things are considered monsters.

That being said, I would never in a million years have wanted to be President Truman during that decision. I think it was a horrifically difficult decision for him to make.

Thought you might rise to it

However, you've given me very little to debate with you, which is somewhat disappointing, if you look over last few pages some of it has been quite interesting!

Not sure I can even play devils advocate *sigh*

I have some form of sympathy for Truman, if only because he had to know he was directly responsible for such widespread carnage. Admittedly, it's not that much sympathy as he did order it in the first place.

 

[Commissar Sae]

And before anyone talks about poor old Japan, being picked on by a schoolyard bully, as America was compared to earlier in the thread, take a look at the horrors of Unit 731 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731] I warn you, though, it is not for the queasy stomach.

If you're going to judge an entire Nation on the deeds of its most depraved, then America should have nuked itself too.
Rape in Occupied Japan [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan]
Just to give you an idea, there were 40 reported cases of Rape a day during the American occupation. This numbers rose to 330 rapes a day once prostitution was made ilegal. This just to say that while unit 731 and Shiro Ishii were monsters and butchers, killing civilians in the same way they did is just as reprehensible.

That is interesting. Several of the most damning sentences are followed by the dreaded "[citation needed]", but nonetheless, it does prove a point. Neither side is innocent of wrongdoing. I'm not trying to claim "USA! USA! USA!" like we had a spotless record over there. I'd be an idiot to think that. I guess it kind of incensed me to see America be treated like a schoolyard bully twisting Japan's arm for lunch money, then breaking their glasses out of spite. I may not be blindly patriotic, but I'm still an American.

OK, now that all that "yee-haw America" stuff is out of the way, I want to reiterate a point. Combined, the bombings killed a total of between 150,000 and 246,000 Japanese in the first day. Adjust for radiation, and you might be looking at, at most, 350,000 total. Now, what were the estimates for an invasion? Millions. Oh, that's not millions on both sides, that's just on the Allied side. The Japanese side estimates were in the tens of millions. The numbers are vague, due to a lack of anything actually happening to indicate resistance. But the numbers don't lie. We saved more than 20 times the lives of the Japanese, never mind the cost to our own soldiers.

Again, I state that the most pessimistic original estimation of American deaths in case of invasion was around 456,000. The number kept growing over time as politicians and patriots inflated the numbers to further justify the use of the bombs.

 

[Dick Seamen]

I havent read all the posts but i became sick when i saw that the majority thinks "it was the right thing to do". You should be fucking ashamed! I cant be on a site like this, thats it! Hiroshima and Nagasaki was cities where civilians lived. It wasnt an "army targets" like Pearl Harbor or Normandie.

I´m deleting my account, i will not be a part of a site wich members support this massacre!