I'd say "yes" in spite of my Japanese parents suffering horribly during World War 2. Maybe being biracial and half-Japanese and half-American has shaped my views in odd ways, but I've seen the propaganda from both sides.
In Japan maybe most Americans didn't realize this but they were fed propaganda that the Americans would kill everyone and rape their women and kill their children. That's probably why the Japanese were so vicious towards American soldiers and willing to fight to certain death.
From the American side I saw an interview with a pilot who was actually involved in the bombing of Nagasaki, and he talked basically about how he doesn't regret the decision because Japanese would *not surrender* by any conventional means. They would fight to the last soldier standing even if it meant certain death. They tried starving the Japanese people and the Japanese people refused to surrender while going for ages on 800kcal/day. This is like an unstoppable enemy short of killing every single man left alive, so at that point it starts to make sense to target innocent civilians, women and children, because otherwise the only alternative is to wipe out the entire population to win.
As for what would happen if the bomb wasn't dropped, I can't imagine, but Japan would probably still be an Imperialist nation ruled by an warmongering emperor, and probably some backwards third world country instead of a pacifistic and developed nation.
@Trollfather Definitely, though the system that came out of the rubble was so, so much better. I doubt hardly anyone, even those hit badly by WW2, would disagree with that notion. I used to be so torn on this issue though since I lost an aunt in WW2 (possibly malnutrition and shock as a child, they never figured out exactly why she died), while my father almost shared the same fate (he had to survive on things like fish heads). Meanwhile on my American side of the family, my grandfather was a paratrooper who fought on the American side.
I was reading a book about a Japanese solider that was hiding in the jungles for years... I think something crazy like 20 or 30 years maybe... Hiroo Onoda.. he saw messages that the war was over and he could come out but he always though it was a trap
@Trollfather I had it easy. My father managed to bounce back and go to Keio university (one of the top universities in Japan) and do quite well for himself, so I was born into comfort. But it's still weird to be the child of two parents whose opposite sides went to war with each other in such a brutal way. That said, it's remarkable how little hostility there is between even those from the WW2 generation. There's some diehard elderly Japanese who still hate Americans, but they're such a small minority. For most part Japanese love Americans, and Americans really helped to rebuild a good portion of Japan after Japan's unconditional surrender.
The weirdest thing was being taught history in both Japanese schools and later American schools, and seeing how the two sides viewed the situation so differently.
@Trollfather He has some funny habits he has still kept though from WW2, like he even ate the eyeball of a pig roast we had one time at a wedding. He'll eat every part of an animal or fish including eyeballs, heads, internal organs, since he learned to value just about anything that resembles food. :-D
The weirdest thing was being taught history in both Japanese schools and later American schools, and seeing how the two sides viewed the situation so differently.
Not weird at all in my opinion. Both countries defend their national interests. Both will spin the tale to suit their needs.
" He'll eat every part of an animal or fish including eyeballs, heads, internal organs, since he learned to value just about anything that resembles food. "
In Bulgaria it's common to eat innards/offal of the animals. Personally I like sheep brains.
@Trollfather Yeah, always realized that history varies based on who's telling the story, but it's another thing to kind of experience that firsthand and see the reactions from the opposing sides. That felt weird and made me kind of question where I stood on the subject a lot.
@Trollfather Here too in Japan, but not so much when the organs aren't prepared to be eaten, like eating an eyeball off a pork roast on the table when the head was just decoration. :-D He also had such a huge pet peeve about wasting food that if me and my sister didn't finish our food, he'd always finish it and get kinda upset. He still has some funny character traits he picked up from that era.
@Trollfather Yep, realize that. I'm kinda spoiled in that regard myself. But it's still kind of funny being around him eating things on a table not meant to be food in a very public place and then shocking everyone around him. :-D
it's not justified no matter what anyone says because at the end of the day, a lot of innocent lives were lost on all sides. in a war, it is always the citizens who will suffer the most, usually looted, raped, killed, and/or enslaved, it really sucks.
i think it's possible that in a parallel world or different time line, if the bombs weren't dropped on japan then, usa would have successfully invaded, taken over japan, and the japanese would've recalled all the troops back from china for a guerilla warfare. i think at the end, germany and italy would've just abandoned japan and kicked japan out the alliance they made and ultimately japan would have given up, america rules japan, and today there would be a lot of half white half japanese americans people telling people to go back to their country.
Yes. It was total war and was just a bigger bomb. The USAF decimated cities all over Germany and Japan thst were vital for the war effort this was no different. Let's not forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tiny compared to the 35 million the Japanese killed. Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic bombs killed 129,000 at least while the actual bombing campaign of Japan itself up until that point killed 900,000 maybe more, the invasion of Okinawa killed 110,000 Japanese, the iwa jima invasion killed 18,375, battle of leyte killed 49,000 Japanese, battle Peleliu 10,000 Japanese dead, Battle of Guam killed 18,337 Japanese, Battle of Saipan 24,000 KIA 5,000 suicides7,000 Japanese civilians (many of which were suicides) 22,000 civilians dead, Mariana and Palau Islands campaign killed 67,000+, Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign21,000 dead, Guadalcanal Campaign 19,200, which puts it into perspective. An invasion of Japan itself would have cost the lives of 2-3million Japanese becaise at ever encounter they were fighting to the last man and civilians were committing suicide unmass.
@Trollfather it's revisionist history with a left wing political purpose. Liberal invent the narrative that the Japanese were the victims of America and "white" man's aggression. Then they go on about the few thousand Japenese Americans interned on the west coast in cosy detentiin centres as a "crime against humanity" meanwhile white people all over South East Asia and allied POWs were being rounded up and starved, clubbed, beaten, and bayoneted to death in Japanese concentration camps.
That's a more interesting approach... what lead to the confrontation with Japan, precursor to Pearl Harbor was blockade, which before that was invasion of China... empire thinking. But what lead to that? The earthquake of 1918? Japanese culture? Obviously, they wanted to be a world power, so they decided to do so by force. why?
From Truman’s perspective it was justified. I of course do not agree with murdering people in general. But it was kind of his only way out. here’s why he decided to drop the bombs: 1. The American government had spent millions of dollars on the developing of the atomic bomb, the American people were angry and wanted to know how that money was spent. He wanted to show that the money hadn’t been wasted, it had been used to create the most powerful weapon of the world. 2. He needed to end the war with Japan. War is expensive, and they were so close to victory. Now he had two options: having American soldiers take the Japanese mainland, (remember that the Japanese would fight to death, literally) meaning they would have to kill all Japanese soldiers who were defending it, which would cost thousands, if not more, of American lives. The other option, atomic bombs, would mean no American victims, and a hit so hard that it would force Japan into surrender.
3. The rivalry between Russia and the United States of America was growing, so he wanted to show the power of America to Russia, just in case. So I understand why he did it, and honestly I don’t blame him for it. But I feel like there is always another solution, war shouldn’t exist in the first place.
3.1 The USA would have needed months to develop a landing force for Japan's southern shores in Kyushu and Honshu. The USSR could, at that point, have reached the northern shores of Hokkaido and Honshu in less than a month, after having crushed the Kwantung Army and seized the entirety of Manchuria in 2 days. Soviet-occupied japan could have led to japan being split the same way Germany and Korea were.
he needed to end the war with Japan... and japan had offered surrender twice before the a-bombs were dropped. they offered surrender on terms the USA agreed to after the a-bombs
10.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
nope
japan was ready to surrender and had made it known to the russians they intended to surrender. Truman knew about this and went ahead with bombings simply as a show of force in what he foresaw as a post war conflict between the USSR and the USA.
Japan had made it abundantly clear to all the world leaders that they were ready to surrender. the a-bombs were totally uncalled for
@Stripes99 my argument is not false. but you are right the USA wanted unconditional surrender. Japan wanted their imperial emperor to remain in place. and guess what under the terms of surrender after the A-Bomb Japan kept their imperial emperor
so... uh... yeah... the a-bomb was not at all needed.
ANYONE who thinks the a-bomb was needed in the effort to end the war with Japan should look closely at history
You’re right. We already look close at history. If you listen to stories from vets about the Japanese, you would hear about how Japanese soldiers were willing to act as suicide bombers for the sake of their country. There were Japanese soldiers willing to STILL fight the USA, even after the war had ended. There was only one way to show them how serious we were.
Truman had to make a command decision. What if he didn’t drop the bomb, and it can back to bit him in the ass? Can you inagine the uproar he would’ve experienced as a sitting president, if everyone knew he had the most powerful weapon humans had ever seen, and he didn’t use it against hos adversary?
@Stripes99 we can't base decisions on what ifs. but we do know the imperial emperor was the defining voice of japan at that time. it was on the emperor's command that the government chose to offer surrender. so no soldier was going to defy the emperor's orders.
governments knew full and well that america had the bomb. the USSR was fully aware and developing their own. THAT is why we dropped it. it was death to 225k plus to flex our might to the USSR
Promises have been broken before. You cannot trust your enemy until you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you have them backed into the corner begging. War is not about playing nice. People die, and it sucks, but that’s war.
@Stripes99 that's nonsense. we accepted germany and italy's surrender. we accepted the korean peace agreement. you logic suggests that the only way to be certain of surrender is to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
there was NOTHING that suggested the japanese would renege on their offer for surrender. again when the imperial emperor spoke the japanese people obliged without question. this authority was the reason for their voracious attitude towards attack without though of personal loss, the reason why despite the devastation the japanese did not waver. so when the imperial emperor said war was done and that the country should surrender there is no reason to think this wasn't going to happen... and truman knew this
it's pretty well documented that at meetings between the allies concluding in the meeting at potsdam truman was constantly boasting of the USA's near finish of the bomb. and he even pushed back meetings leading up to potsdam til the bomb was finished. meanwhile the russian army was ripping through japan in china weeks if not a few days from being ready to invade the main island.
even if the US had simply continued the carpet bombing of japan it had been doing it would have decimated japan.
the a-bomb was 100% political leverage for post war relations with the USSR
how can you say the citizens of hiroshima and nagasaki were supporting the war effort? aside from being a storage dept (hiroshima) these cities were simply targets chosen due to their size and being largely untouched by carpet bombs so the US could assess the true scope of damage the bombs created.
i'm sorry i just don't agree and i don't think you are going to cause me to agree with you. there is evidence of two conditional surrenders offered by the japanese of which the americans of which the only condition not agreed on was the emperor's status which was left in as a condition after the bomb. there is tangible evidence of this surrender being conveyed to truman at pottsdam. carpet bombing had decimated the most cities and it along with the russian preparations for a mainland invasion left willing to surrender
but according to the history of world war 2 japan refused to surrender in order to force japan to surrender 2 nukes had to be dropped in order to force an end to the war so after the 2 nukes dropped on japan. japan finally gave up and surrendered
the way japan was they would fight to the death and if the 2 nukes weren't dropped japan would still continue to fight and the allies had japan surrounded and there was no way japan would be able to get out and japan kept refusing to surrender and kept fighting but until japan received 2 nukes as the final warning to surrender they finally gave up and surrender
No. Even without the bombs, Japan hours away from surrender. The bombs made things worse.
With the Japanese men dead and/or dying in the battlefields, the women and children were now being trained to fight to the death for their homes and neighborhoods. It was no secret that the samurai mentality being drilled into them —the same ideology adapted to the 神風 ("kami-kaze"; 「divine wind」) suicide-bombing pilots— would not stop the country 's defeat, but would even lead to very extinction of nation, with the death of every man, woman, and child.
With the European war over, Moscow was re-directing its massive Red Army to smaller Japan and Tokyo know its defenses would be overwhelmed by the massive Red swarm. And what the Soviets did to their own royal family terrified the Japanese royals.
That said, a coup was forming and the internal security forces were consistently, systematically, even blatantly failing to stop them. Had Washington just waited for a few days, they would have received an urgent request from the new administration in Tokyo for immediate peace negotiations, since surrender to Moscow as absolutely out of the question.
What was the result? In a time when faith in the state religion elevating the 天皇 ("Ten-no"; 「Emperor」, lit. 「Heavenly Sovereign」) as the literal son of the goddess 天照 ("Amaterasu") plunging, interest in Christianity was rising. Their son of a goddess led to crushing defeat/imminent extinction, while Son of God of the predominantly-Christian Allies (minus the Soviet Union) gave them global victory. (Likewise, news of their military's atrocities finally reached them. Surely, the victors wouldn't be cruel to their fellow brothers & sisters in Christ, right?) They didn't have to re-invent the wheel on how to live as a Christian while also living the Japanese life. Their most Christian-filled city already existed and has for centuries. They could consult their Christian compatriots, who would gladly lead masses of their own people to the Messiah, right? What was this city? 長崎市 ("Nagasaki-shi"; 「Nagasaki City」).
When the bomb drowned the historically Christian city in a sea of flames, evaporated numerous faithful inhabitants, and caused horrific torments of the rest, serious interest in religion plunged. From a Christian perspective, the "Fat Man" damned an entire nation and generations hence forth.
The second bomb may not have forced The Japanese to surrender. AT the same time, It may just tip the balance towards surrender. The second bomb was insignificant or of little significance.
On the August 9th Other than the bombing of Nagasaki something else was happening nearby. In Manchuria, some 1.5m soviet soldiers have been fighting there against 1m Japanese soldiers in a series of battles to gain control of Manchuria for weeks.
Manchuria was very significant to the Japanese even though they'd might likely lose it. If they can hold onto it, it will be an unprecedented problem (Japan would cling to the hope that they' can win). Because it was assumed the emperor will be trailed and the allies would annex Japan. The culture of Japan at that time worshiped the emperor as a god. They would fight to the death for him. So as the bombs were dropped, Russia attacked Japan from 3 directions, resulting in 3 battles. Before these battles who knew who the winner was. Russia prevailed as the bomb on Nagasaki was dusted. Japan told their citizens to board up and prepare for a massive invasion. There were also several other bombs done on Japan before the atomic bomb. The Hiroshima one was a bit more devasting, but I don't think Japan was afraid of the atomic bombs.
The credit for ending the war, was the Soviet capturing Manchuria and forcing the 1m Japanese soldiers to surrender.
I think it was justified given what people knew at the time. The long term effects of dropping the bomb were completely unpredictable given what people knew at the time, and there wasn't enough time to learn about them until it was too late. Russia had already begun fighting Japan in the north. If the Americans had delayed forcing Japan to surrender, Japan would have lost significant territory to the Russians, and would have been divided between Communists and capitalist, like Korea and Germany. If the Americans invaded instead of dropping the bomb, it would have been a drawn out guerrilla war (the Japanese would only surrender if their emperor told them too. Otherwise, honour would keep them fighting to the end) and all of Japan would have been destroyed, and divided between the Russians and Americans. If the Americans tried to force the surrender another way, they would have failed, since the Japanese didn't even surrender after the first atom bomb. It's possible that they were planning to, and there was a translation error, and "no surrender" should have been translated to "no comment," but the Americans couldn't have known that, and therefore fully believed that their only option was a second bomb, which did work, forced the surrender, ended the war, and saved millions of lives. If the Americans had foreknowledge of the long term effects of radiation AND knew of the possible translation error, the second bomb at least wouldn't have been justified, but it isn't reasonable to have expected them to know those things.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had large regiments of Japanese soldiers, with both cities having military& industrial installations and were protected by anti-aircraft defense batteries in case if hundreds of B-29s would come in to firebomb their city. It's also the Japanese fault that they placed military /industrial installations in middle of the civilian-populated areas and "innocent" people were working in factories and workshops producing weapons of war. According to the 1907 Hague Convention, civilians working in factories and workshops engaging in production of war supplies are legitimate targets. The U. S. had dropped leaflets on two cities a few days prior to the A-bombings of Hiroshima warning civilians of air raids within a few days and advised them to leave the city immediately. They did not leave so they chose to put their families at risk. If you don't believe me, then Google "America warned Hiroshima".
Japanese planes also shot American civilians at Pearl Harbor, killing directly over 68 of them and was done without a declaration of war and without a warning so it's not acceptable by any means to kill non-war people (soldiers and civilians) out of nowhere, thus placing Japan in violation of peace.
To the American people who lived during that time and were directly affected by the war, either by serving as soldiers in it or as civilians with family members and friends that were actively serving, had already died, or were still eligible to be drafted...
... well, let's just say American people who lived it (and died because of it) will have a much different perspective on justification than American people looking back on it now - people with the luxury of almost eighty years of hindsight, with access to all kinds of declassified information only a handful of people were privy to back then, and have zero frame of reference as to what it was like to have to live (or hope to live) through that (or any, for that matter) level of warfare.
When you're worried if you'll see tomorrow with all your limbs intact, if at all... when you're worried if the next trip to the mailbox has a letter explaining that your son, brother, father or husband has been killed-in-action or your draft orders in it...
It was effective. It reminds me of the tactical teachings of a former violent criminal whose autobiography I read. His strategy in conflict was to do the most violent thing possible as soon as possible, thus taking the fight out of his opponent. That is akin to what happened with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, albeit later in the conflict rather than earlier. Yes, Pearl Harbour was attacked and with devastating effect but nothing even close to the scale of devastation that was returned on Japan later down the line.
I guess you could say that it was strategically and tactically justifiable but not morally justifiable. Then again, where do morals lie in war anyway? The Japanese themselves were guilty of unconscionable attrocities during World War Two. A case in point would be Unit 731.
It doesn't need to be justified. In both world wars the winning strategy seemed to be to target the civil population. The US did nothing unusual other than building a big ass bomb.
Making an argument for it not being justified is a slippery slope - it leads to the criminalisation of physical superiority, and in a sense, not demanding responsibility from the physically weaker. This ALWAYS leads to more problems than otherwise.
I don't see how bombing basically ANY European city with hundreds of thousands of bombs is any different than dropping one big bomb. The destruction is comparable any way I look at it.
Honestly, if you are fair, you don't need reason to justify it. And if you are a bleeding heart pacifist, or an America basher, you'll find a reason why it wasn't justified, and why the US should have held the other cheek. I'll say this though: it's really easy playing the pacifist as long as it's not your ass on the line.
I think if you were a soldier on the list to be deployed into Japan to take over the islands, you found it justified. Given the fighting prior to this, it was awful on both sides. The Japanese believed their emperor was God, they would have fought to the end.
USA was already fire bombing cities and causing more casualties in total.
If you have today's view, how awful it was, you think it wasn't.
What one can question is where they were dropped. I could see dropping one near the emperor so he saw what was coming.
This is a really terrible thing to say though... because it means... usage can be justified. That means someone else could justify usage... to end a war quicker.
Its the same reason Dday happened. Europe was/is terrified of Russian expansionism. Russia was planning an invasion of Japan that likely would have ended the war anyways so it was mostly to prevent that and to do a demonstration of force.
Watch Dr Oppenheimer, one of the physicists responsible for building it and tell me if he isn't the most haunted man youve ever seen, even 66 years later...
Japan was readying a devastating biological attack to launch against the US. And how do you fight enemies that are willing to kill themselves in exchange for your destruction? I think at the time, all things considered, the bomb was poorly planned and executed, but in the end, there wasn't a lot else that they would have known to do. The important thing now is that we have the knowledge not to try it again, despite everyone point nuclear launchers at each other. We're very much still an infantile, ridiculous species. The bomb killed a LOT of innocent people, but that action knocked some sense into Japan to stop. If they hadn't surrendered, countless millions more people were probably going to die than the people that already had.
My grandfather and his brother were both in the Pacific campaign. The Japanese military government wasn't going to surrender under any conditions.
They were prepared to fight to the end. They even led a palace coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.
The Bomb brought an end to the War sooner with much less loss of life. I might not be here without it.
Most people don't know this, but there was a third bomb. The day the Emperor broadcast the unconditional surrender of Japan, we were ready to launch it against Tokyo.
There is no doubt it was a horrible tragedy. But the fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden caused at least as many deaths. And the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese killed 5 times as many people as Hiroshima did.
No one was or is blameless in that or any war. Without it though, the death toll of Japanese civilians would have been in the millions.
The justification given (from my history class) was that the war in Japan was a giant slugfest where hundreds of thousands of soldiers both US and Japan were killed in each battle. Over a million soldiers on both sides had already been killed. Setting off the atomic bomb was a “wake up call” to Japan that we literally had the power to kill every living person in Japan. It was the ultimate throw down to stop the war. The US government could have chosen to bomb a major city like Tokyo and killed millions, but instead chose Hiroshima for the first bomb. The Emperor did not surrender after the first bomb, so we dropped a second and leaked intel that a third was making it’s way to Tokyo.
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings killed 129,000. Look at the Wikipedia because the actual war had already killed millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of Americans. War is a terrible thing, and should not be started lightly. Every effort should be made to have peace, but when it comes, it is important to defeat the enemy with overwhelming force. You must win. The threat now is that a war will eliminate life on this planet completely.
President Truman was faced with a terrible choice, but he made the only decision any Commander-in-Chief would have made during war time under those circumstances. Our military knew from the island warfare in the Pacific just how fanatical the Japanese were as an enemy. They sent kamikaze pilots to their deaths and regularly performed mass infantry charges that were similarly suicidal. Even after the Japanese had been routed on island after island, those remaining Japanese soldiers who hadn't already been killed or captured would refuse to surrender. The generals told Truman that an invasion of the main Japanese islands to end the war would result in hundreds of thousands of American casualties. The Japanese would have fought to the death to save their homeland. President Truman rightly valued American lives over those of the enemy, as any Commander-in-Chief would do in war time. Japan started the war with the United States by its attack on Pearl Harbor. The United States finished it.
It cannot be justified or be justified. Regardless of which, still people died. Nothing can changed that fact. One side you can think that one bomb killed so many was a dumb thing for humanity to do against themselves. On the other hand if it wasn't dropped in Japan, war would've gone on even longer and potentially more people will die. Clearly, it is "in war, everyone lost." The only thing that SHOULD be done is have no war / conflict in the first place. But then hey we humans love conflict don't we.
It's one thing for the American military to combat Japan's military, but they should NEVER have destroyed the lives of so many innocent civilians. It wasn't the civilians who attacked Pearl Harbor; it was the military! So don't make the innocent people who were not involved pay with their lives! Bomb a military base instead!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Anonymous(25-29)
Most Helpful Opinions