Poll: were the nukes dropped on japan in WW2 really needed to win?

[Agow95]

It wasn't nessicary, the USA were winning the war and practically decided that after only 6 months of fighting in the war, while europe fought for 6 years, that they should speed it up by utterly decimating two cities full of innocent people with Nuclear weapons, untill they surrendered, I mean, just imagine how much further the US would've gone if Japan hadn't surrendered when they did.

 

[Randomologist]

To win? maybe not. To end the war decisively, without a full-scale ground assault and a prolonged bloodbath? Yes.

Lets not forget as well, Hiroshima was chosen because it was a large naval base. It's also quite close to Kobe, another naval city with an industrial heartland, and they hoped to interrupt the supply line of Japanese ships. After Little Boy was dropped, the Japanese kept fighting. Hirohito wouldn't hear of capitulation. Only when Big Boy flattened Nagasaki did they finally give in.

Like the Allies, they took the lesser of two evils and gave up, rather than subjecting the populace to a fight to the death.

I think that Hiroshima was a dubious but passable action. NAGASAKI KILLS ME! (no pun intended). Why would they drop another bomb onto another highly civilian populated are after the Japanese had surrendered...

This explains why, they didn't surrender immediately. They still thought they had a shot at fighting the Allies to a stalemate.

 

[The Last Parade]

everyone here isn't very history savvy, if you read a text book made outside the US you can see that Japan was on it's hands and knees begging for mercy before the bombs were dropped

 

[Boxer.H1x]

The bombs didn't really change much, except for, you know, killing a ton of people.

What most people don't understand was that it had nothing to do with the fact that the Japanese were unwilling to surrender. Their psychopathic military leaders were willing to bring the world crashing down around them to cause damage to the American war machine, and in the end, it was Japan's higher ups that fought it out amongst themselves.

The bombs had more of an effect on the rational side of the Japanese leadership, and sped up the deposing of the crazies.

 

[scott91575]

From what I've heard, Japan had already surrendered, the US just wanted to show who's got more power.

What you heard was wrong.

 

[Bobbity]

The first bomb was potentially justifiable, although dropping it in the middle of a heavily populated civilian area was perhaps not the best action to take, but the second was unnecessary, and totally over the top.

That said, my grandfather was near death at the Changi POW camp, and the odds are good that the only reason I'm alive today is because the war ended when it did, and not a month or two later, so I suppose that it's hypocritical for me to judge. I'm thankful that the war ended as soon as it did, although the massive loss of civilian life required to achieve such still horrifies me. Then again, the sheer number of people, be they combatant or civilian, killed in war should be enough to horrify anyone.

 

[scott91575]

everyone here is a fucking idiot, if you read a text book made outside the US you can see that Japan was on it's hands and knees begging for mercy before the bombs were dropped

Please explain that to the 12,000+ Americans and British that died at the battle of Okinawa that lasted until the end of June. It was one of the bloodiest battles of the war. They didn't appear to be on their hands and knees begging for mercy.

There was no surrender in sight, and that was only a month before the decision to drop the atomic bombs.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

From what I've heard, Japan had already surrendered, the US just wanted to show who's got more power.

What you heard was wrong.

Wow, that was certainly an insubstantial sentence.

 

[Chase Yojimbo]

The allies would have won regardless, but with the generals of Japan controlling the army at the time they would have continued the war for many more years; instead it was brought to a halt when they realized just how much power we had. Though it may not have been needed, the war would have continued and it is unknown which death count would have been higher, and the allies didn't want to take the chance of figuring it out first hand. In a sense they picked the lesser of two evils and I consider it to be the right option even though it is a heart wrenching one.

 

[Lonely Swordsman]

To win the war? No. Japanese records show that they were already preparing to surrender before the bombs fell.
But it was necessary to prevent a nuclear exchange between the USSR and the USA in the decades to come. The whole world needed to see what a nuclear attack could actually do to a country. They needed to be frightened of the power in their hands.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragedies, but in historical terms they were necessary to prevent the rest of the world from going to hell.

 

[scott91575]

From what I've heard, Japan had already surrendered, the US just wanted to show who's got more power.

What you heard was wrong.

Wow, that was certainly an insubstantial sentence.

Japan had not surrendered, and in fact rejected the terms from the Allies.

Here is a statement made by their Prime Minister to the terms of the Allies...

"We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war."

No attempt to clarify that was ever made. This was left as their main statement to the Allied terms for their surrender. In no way did Japan surrender at any point prior to the atomic bombing. They made general overtures that were never concrete. Those types of things are done all the time in war, but in no way was the statement "Japan had already surrendered" correct.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Also, there is no justification to killing that many civilians. They did nothing to deserve it. It might be a bit heartless to say that I'd rather have the soldiers die given that they're people too, but the civilians never tried to engage in a battle in the first place, yet the US kills two entire cities worth of those people.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

From what I've heard, Japan had already surrendered, the US just wanted to show who's got more power.

What you heard was wrong.

Wow, that was certainly an insubstantial sentence.

Japan had not surrendered, and in fact rejected the terms from the Allies.

Here is a statement made by their Prime Minister to the terms of the Allies...

"We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war."

No attempt to clarify that was ever made. This was left as their main statement to the Allied terms for their surrender. In no way did Japan surrender at any point prior to the atomic bombing. They made general overtures that were never concrete. Those types of things are done all the time in war, but in no way was the statement "Japan had already surrendered" correct.

You could have said that in your previous post. Still, I don't approve of the way the US handled it. (Read my previous post)

 

[scott91575]

To win the war? No. Japanese records show that they were already preparing to surrender before the bombs fell.
But it was necessary to prevent a nuclear exchange between the USSR and the USA in the decades to come. The whole world needed to see what a nuclear attack could actually do to a country. They needed to be frightened of the power in their hands.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragedies, but in historical terms they were necessary to prevent the rest of the world from going to hell.

That was in no way the reasoning for the bombings. That is hindsight bullcrap. Sorry. Truman was not thinking about the next 50 years. He was thinking about invading Japan, and how to prevent that in order to end the war.

The idea Japan had essentially surrendered seems to be a running theme here, and in no way correct. They in no way conveyed to the Allies they were preparing to surrender, and the Japanese military (which had a strong control over the government at the time) were strongly against surrender in any form. As far as the Allies knew, the Japanese were preparing for full scale warfare on their home island. Any conjecture opposite to that is something the Allies had no knowledge of.

 

[scott91575]

From what I've heard, Japan had already surrendered, the US just wanted to show who's got more power.

What you heard was wrong.

Wow, that was certainly an insubstantial sentence.

Japan had not surrendered, and in fact rejected the terms from the Allies.

Here is a statement made by their Prime Minister to the terms of the Allies...

"We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war."

No attempt to clarify that was ever made. This was left as their main statement to the Allied terms for their surrender. In no way did Japan surrender at any point prior to the atomic bombing. They made general overtures that were never concrete. Those types of things are done all the time in war, but in no way was the statement "Japan had already surrendered" correct.

You could have said that in your previous post. Still, I don't approve of the way the US handled it. (Read my previous post)

See my previous post where you would be fine with hundreds of thousands of Allied draftees and Japanese civilians dying who only were part of the military because they were not really young, really old, or handicapped in some manner. Why do people think members of the WW2 armies were expandable while civilians are not. Most of those armies were pretty much civilians anyway. Why is their death more moral?

 

[WolfThomas]

I always hate this argument, it always assumes two binary options, drop the bomb or invade Japan, when there's all sorts of options potentially better and indeed worse that could have been performed. But also hindsight is of course 20/20, whether it was the right choice now is irrelevant to whether it was the right choice then.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

From what I've heard, Japan had already surrendered, the US just wanted to show who's got more power.

What you heard was wrong.

Wow, that was certainly an insubstantial sentence.

Japan had not surrendered, and in fact rejected the terms from the Allies.

Here is a statement made by their Prime Minister to the terms of the Allies...

"We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war."

No attempt to clarify that was ever made. This was left as their main statement to the Allied terms for their surrender. In no way did Japan surrender at any point prior to the atomic bombing. They made general overtures that were never concrete. Those types of things are done all the time in war, but in no way was the statement "Japan had already surrendered" correct.

You could have said that in your previous post. Still, I don't approve of the way the US handled it. (Read my previous post)

See my previous post where you would be fine with hundreds of thousands of Allied draftees and Japanese civilians dying who only were part of the military because they were not really young, really old, or handicapped in some manner. Why do people think members of the WW2 armies were expandable while civilians are not. Most of those armies were pretty much civilians anyway. Why is their death more moral?

I say the same, why is one life more important than another? No death from warfare is ever good. But setting aside the "Was it necessary to win the war?", let's for argument's sake that the bombing of Hiroshima won the war, what about Nagasaki? Why did they need to show twice to show the power of the atomic bomb? The bombing of Hiroshima is questionably justified, but there is no excuse for them killing the people in Nagasaki.

 

[scott91575]

I think many people don't understand the makeup of the military, especially the US military, in the 1940's. You have to realize, prior to the 1960's, the US never had an "at all times" ready military. Prior to WW2, the US was a very neutral country and was not really considered a military power. Sure, many smart military men understood the US industrial might (including some high ranking Japanese who saw war with the US as a losing battle). Yet the US military paled in comparison to many of the combatants at the start of WW2.

These were not highly trained forces ready for battle at the drop of a hat like the US military of today. The vast majority were draftees or young men answering the call to an attack on their country. The innocence of the Japanese civilians is not any more significant than the innocence of the men who fought in the military. Most of the Allied forces were not people who planned on war for a profession. Seeing outrage at the loss of Japanese civilians at the expense of Allied soldiers is rather hypocritical in this case.

 

[Aprilgold]

Weren't needed, but if not, it could have been WAY worse. Its just Japanese culture, their very honor bound, joining the army is like joining a large honor bound life note. For what I know, it could have ended with us invading them [no small feat] and killing all of their army [no small feat] then them using civilians to defend [a LARGER feat] before finally surrending. With the bombs, we bomb them and show that we AREN'T afraid to kill, but would rather not invade.

 

[scott91575]

From what I've heard, Japan had already surrendered, the US just wanted to show who's got more power.

What you heard was wrong.

Wow, that was certainly an insubstantial sentence.

Japan had not surrendered, and in fact rejected the terms from the Allies.

Here is a statement made by their Prime Minister to the terms of the Allies...

"We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war."

No attempt to clarify that was ever made. This was left as their main statement to the Allied terms for their surrender. In no way did Japan surrender at any point prior to the atomic bombing. They made general overtures that were never concrete. Those types of things are done all the time in war, but in no way was the statement "Japan had already surrendered" correct.

You could have said that in your previous post. Still, I don't approve of the way the US handled it. (Read my previous post)

See my previous post where you would be fine with hundreds of thousands of Allied draftees and Japanese civilians dying who only were part of the military because they were not really young, really old, or handicapped in some manner. Why do people think members of the WW2 armies were expandable while civilians are not. Most of those armies were pretty much civilians anyway. Why is their death more moral?

I say the same, why is one life more important than another? No death from warfare is ever good. But setting aside the "Was it necessary to win the war?", let's for argument's sake that the bombing of Hiroshima won the war, what about Nagasaki? Why did they need to show twice to show the power of the atomic bomb? The bombing of Hiroshima is questionably justified, but there is no excuse for them killing the people in Nagasaki.

No one was sure Japan would actually surrender in the face of Hiroshima, and it actually took a Soviet declaration of war and the bomb dropped on Nagasaki to actually bring about surrender. The bomb on Nagasaki was ahead of schedule, but much of that was due to weather.

The assumption Japan would have surrendered due to Hiroshima is a fallacy. In fact, there were many high ranking members in the Japanese military that saw it as a one time attack. Don't forget they also had their own atomic development, and they understood the difficulty of creating weapons grade Uranium. The necessity of a second bomb is not as cut and dry as you would like to believe. Japan knew what it was, and still ignored it.

As far as which life is more important, it's a pretty easy one. When you are at war, the life of your countrymen comes first. I know you want to believe all life is sacred, but in war, if you have a choice, you choose your own side.