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
10.8K 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!
The Japanese code of Bushido would never have allowed the concept of surrender enter the Japanese mind. They had to be broken completely of this flawed mindset. If the bomb had not been dropped they would still have thought they would have won. Based on previous us invasion of the l Japanese home islands a protracted battle would have occurred. It would have resulted in a protracted ground battle ending only after every single Japanese person Had been wiped out. This would have resulted in a lot more us deaths. The us at this stage in the war was already bankrupt from six years of protracted war and the lend lease agreement with the UK. The atomic bomb broke the will of the Japanese people to continue the fight. In their mind any further fight would have resulted in their extinction. Their survival instinct kicked and as a result of the annihilation of their cities they surrendered. It should be noted the soviets had plans to occupy Japan post war and were only stopped by the Americans
And now in 2018 they are so far in national debt, 200% of GDP, that they will have to sell the country to pay off the debt. They can’t ever pay it off at current birth/immigration rates. The GDP can’t grow fast enough to pay it off. So they will devalue their currency and it will become a third world country.
I can't decide if your bring serious or not. Tbh Your conflating one issue with another. They don't breed enough to replace themselves ergo they have an ever shrinking population ergo an ever shrinking tax base
Hardly a surprise Americans continue to let corporations molest the Democratic process greed and unregulated capitalism is rotting the us from the inside out. the result is a dog eat dog country. It won't change until people change. "People get exactly the governments they deserve"
@jacquesvol There’s a thing called an “election” and the voters can change the laws and pass sewage treatment for Alabama poor people. I think Bernie would have won the election, but the Democratic Party manipulated the state and local caucuses to get Hilary on the ticket. I think it will be Elizabeth Warren next. Although I would at least ver Julian or Joaquin Castro. (Joaquin is a Congressman from San Antonio, Julian was mayor until he was a dept head under Obama).
That's like saying the German army in France had already surrendered so they shouldn't push on into Germany. The Japanese manchurian army was an occupational army which occupied China.
As an addition to that that tactic was tried in WWI with Germany what they were forced to sign an armistice it didn't work then it wouldn't have work now
In World War 1 Germany was not occupied they were forced into an armistice and the result was a research in Germany which ended up invading half of Europe the same thing would have happened had had the Japanese been left alone the whole Islands had to be invaded the country had to be destroyed or they would never have given up
After the German conservatives had appointed Hitler to get fid of lleftist politics Germany continued its expansive policy as if WW1 and Versailles never happened.
As regards Germany collectively Germany felt enboldened at the end of ww1 by the fact they were not occupied and then proceeded to regroup and start ww2
Nothing could be further from the truth. Germany was saddled with a giant debt at the end of WWI. They were basically forced to pay “war reparations” (payments to people hurt by the war). In doing this, it crippled the German economy. In the 1920’s, Germany devalued the mark so that they paid these war reparations back in a worthless currency. By the mid 1920’s, it took millions of marks to even buy a loaf of bread. Hitler came to power as the German economy was devastated and people were suffering. He came to power with a promise to end the misery and inflation. He did, and rose to power, ultimately their supreme leader. Germany became self-sufficient basically saying “f-you” to the rest of Europe and used German pride and built the country back very strong.
@bubbatxman The sum was initially set at 269 billion gold marks, around 96,000 tons of gold, before being reduced to 112 billion gold marks by 1929, payable over a period of 59 years.
Germany suspended annual payments in 1931 during the global financial crisis and Adolf Hitler unsurprisingly declined to resume them when he came to power in 1933.
But in 1953, West Germany agreed at an international conference in London to service its international bond obligations from BEFORE World War II. In the years that followed it repaid the principal on the bonds, which had been issued to private and institutional investors in countries including the United States.
Under the terms of the London accord, Germany was allowed to wait until it unified before paying some €125 million in outstanding interest that had accrued on its foreign debt in the years 1945 to 1952. After the Berlin Wall fell and West and East Germany united in 1990, the country dutifully paid that interest off in annual instalments, the last of which comes due on Oct. 3.
"Germany's pre-war foreign debt was paid back by the start of the 1980s, it mainly consisted of foreign bonds. This also applied to the debt of the German Reich, which largely consisted of bonds issued in connection with German reparations debt from World War I," the German Finance Ministry said in a statement.
abcnews.go.com/.../story?id=11755920 Thus Germany didn't pay much of that mythic Versailles debt. And it 100 100 years to repay it's pre WW1 debts too.
Of course not. The war was practically won. We didn't even have to invade Japan. All they wanted was to keep the title of Emperor for their figurehead.
In an explosion that killed 100,000 people instantly, our President proclaimed,
I've just watched a couple documentaries on this, and it was pretty well documented that it was unnecessary... out of the hundreds of thousands killed by the bombs only a small percentage were military, when the whole justification was to reduce lives lost upon invasion. We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people because we simply could, and really really wanted to show our milital strength and prowess to move into the phase of America running things.
There is an awesome docuseries on Netflix that goes into detail about it... I just can't recall the name, but the logo is of an intense looking uncle sam.."America something or other" can't totally recall.
Well, i won't be able to find it with so little information. But rest assured i was watching divorce corp halfway through and was convinced as well that it's a billion dollar business or industry... Practically robbing regular citizens not only their money but also their mental health, their children and more.
So basically its... Bleak. To say the least.
Because as almost always it's about the money. This is capitalism.
Not that many smart women like you are alive nowadays but at least we are slowly getting somewhere. I hope i will find one of these women to spend my life with (unmarried).
One thing poverty teached me is that nothing is free and even marriage and divorce cost like a new, decent car if not even more. For artificializing an otherwise natural human bonding and a piece of paper with legal rules, "confirming" a human relationship and call it marriage.
Really? The next thing we have is another process making money out of us and that may as well be walking to other city districts. They already make money from us by approving of our "intelligence" called education, our "faith" called religion and even more, that i can't think of yet.
At the very least, health has a real use to be spending money on - that is if you don't want to suffer daily. The doctors actually so something for you in return and are the least likely to scam you.
That's the reason I dont want to be married... I dont believe in it regarding the way the legality of it is handled, and the expense that comes with divorce since it is always a possibility... if I wasn't spoken for, I would have already been flirting with you ;-).
I agree, I have the same reasons to abstain from these money syphoning methods. There just isn't enough for average citizens to begin with. And why even risk it.
Oh, you are one clever and sweet lady ☺ I would totally go out with you and date you and get to know you without hesitation my dear (: 👋🤗💕
If the bombs had not been dropped, there would have been a bloody, months long campaign to invade the home islands in which more Japanese and American lives were lost as the Japanese military encouraged every man woman and child to take up arms against the American invasion. Those who do not even consider this a potential reality do not know their history or the Japanese political structure and culture as it existed in the 1940s.
They specifically chose civilian targets over purely military targets I do not believe that to be justified Japan was losing the war already the bombings didn't really achieve any military goals per se Japan was concerned about the Soviets entering the Pacific war and would in all likelihood have surrendered due to that anyway the Japanese military command was ready to continue despite the bombs but a two front war less so
It was a shock and awe campaign. That is what nuclear weapons are for. To convince your enemy to stop and surrender. Every nuclear submarine now carries over 100 warheads of the same power as the first two bombs. There is a reason most countries won’t mess with the USA.
It was not justified. The war was ending and they misunderstood the word Mokusatsu. How would be the world without this traumatism? Did we limit the nuclear weapon? Countries apparently controlled today would have so quiet without international agreement? The sad question is who would have been touched by atomic bombs years later if this kind of bomb was never used at this time.
@ThisDudeHere If the atomic weapons weren't used, then a regular land invasion would be brutal just like how the Normandy Invasion, or D-Day except in the Pacific Theater. It would result in even more casualties, for both military and civilians. The war would be prolonged, thus the allies knew better to just try and force Japan to surrender ASAP. Some times I wondered if they had another 2 atomic bombs on standby and ready to deploy if 2 isn't enough to force Japan to give up their aggression and surrender.
No I do not think that. In fact I believe USA had already gotten Japan's terms of surrender which were virtually identical to the ones in the final peace offer.
That peace basically said "You can do anything but hands off our emperor."
And keep Manchuria And let us prosecute our own war criminals. And generally leave us alone, and don't get involved in our internal politics.
So, Japan's idea of a surrender was very different from what the world expected. It's essentially like the Germans saying "OK, but we keep Hitler, and Poland, and Austria, and you leave us alone, to do whatever we want to". Does that sound fair to you?
@Benedek38 To my knowledge the only stated restriction in the initial terms of surrender was the Emperor. Everything else is probably just the result of the diplomatic back and forth.
I don't think so. The country was at the verge of crumbling. The military was in ruin, the people wouldn't have supported the war for long, since their living condition was terrible, and even the emperor wanted to surrender, and was only stopped by his own generals. Also, dropping the bombs wasn't to stop the war. It was a show off, to show the USSR the new toy USA had. Thousands of people killed so the US could show the USSR who had the biggest dick.
Eh half and half. When Hitler was killed, they should have surrendered. Without Germany the nazi forces were nothing. I think it was more about teaching Japan not to be stubborn when they had clearly lost.
On the other side the bombs did cause massive environmental destruction and harm people even to this day.
Though about a the same amount of people would have died if the allies had to invade Japan so it's not really a question of death more of the impact of the bombs.
Well that sort of leans more into my opinion as I'm slight more in the it was necessary. The only bad part really is the long term effects it had on Japan but they did give us anime so it's not all bad.
Or lose much more trying to invade them to stop them warring? The bombs probably save more lives than killed as invading Japan would have been another entire campaign loosing many allied and axis lives.
They weren't just going to give up it would have been a long fight even with the Russians. A show of force made them surrender before the allies had to put in a full scale invasion.
The Japanese where known for their to the death attitude one part of the army may have surrendered but the general wasn't going to surrender anytime. Yes I do know hitler shot himself it was just easier to say killed, I didn't say by who so it's still technically correct.
Well, what happened is we destroyed Japan's military for the most part but they still refused to surrender. Rather than having a potential mini D-Day they decided to test out their nuclear weapons which ended up being really really bad. So yes... and no.
I'm a 50/50. The Americans were just curious if the bombs work and doing it for experiment was wrong. The Japanese were already losing tho but if you think, the Japanese alone killed many innocent people too and that pearl harbor incident was a sneak attack so there's a bit of justice in it.
Well it was after all Japan's fault for turning a trade war (the embargo the USA placed on them) into a World War (attacking the USA without declaring war at least).
In addition, the USA had offered them the Postdam declaration more than twice and they refused. It was to surrender (unconditionally) already, no ifs nor buts.
The Japanese were fighting a new kind of war that many had never fought before. The estimated casualties for a land invasion of the Japanese main land was about 11million. American military loses were estimated at 1.5 million. America lost more men in the Pacific theatre than the did fighting the nazi's in the West.
This situation was simply pretty over the top and more of a statement and fear factor. It was also a way for the U. S. to flex their power to the world.
No destruction is ever justified. Wars are not justified and the death of millions of people for the sake of a few people's greed can never be justified
Wow. Just remember that when someone comes to rob your house in the middle of night. Sure, their actions aren’t justified. But with your logic, let them come in, give them what they want, let them do what they want to your whife, children, pets, and belongings. Don’t defend your home, your spouse, children, friends and such. Because any justifiable action of self defense and justice, is mot justified according to your logic
You defend yourself against the robber, you don't attack and destroy the people who know him who didn't rob your house. Which is what happens in wars where innocent people are being killed and they're all civilians
The leaders of unjust wars do not visit the battlefields. Even if you kill the leaders, others can replace them. It is necessary to remove the aggressor's capacity to wage war. That means crippling the aggressor's ability to manufacture weaponry, planes, ships, etc. Wars and won and lost on the basis of logistics. The "innocent" civilians back home are manufacturing bombs, ships, munitions, etc. Their innocence is not absolute.
However, I will concede that truly innocent people were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Truly innocent people were killed at Pearl Harbor, in the Philippines, Guam, and every other part of the Pacific that was invaded by Japan.
How morally superior is it to resist the call to defense, the call to end aggression, when doing so means that more innocent people will die?
You still don’t understand. If you are a pacifist, then the bullies win and take your stuff and rape you and then kill you when you are no longer beneficial to them.
The point was to demonstrate the destructive capability of the nuclear weapon. And taking out a base near Tokyo or Kyoto would have killed millions. (And you don’t use a weapon like this to blow up a tiny peripheral island with no population). It was MEANT to kill a lot of people and be absolutely HORRIBLE. And you might just noticed that no cities have been nuked since these two!!! So 129,000 people’s lives destroyed instead of Russia using it on Washington DC or NYC. Or North Korea on Seoul. Or Pakistan on New Delhi.
You have the luxury of being a pacifist because someone else has assumed the responsibility of insuring your safety. If you were walking alone through the woods and a guy approached you and threatened to rape you, would you use force to resist him or would you allow him to do what he wanted to you?
The ideal world of which you dream does not exist. You have remained in a cocoon of innocence and you are viewing the world in child-like terms. If every other occupant of the world held similar beliefs, the world could live at peace. However, there are people in the middle east who, if given the opportunity, would cut my head off just because I am a Christian. These people live in cities and they use the urban landscape as their battleground. Destroying villains sometimes causes harm or even death to innocent people. Such unintended consequences are rarely avoidable. Soldiers rarely look for opportunities to kill innocent civilians. You are not the only one who is motivated by morality and the fact that others see war as necessary does not mean that they are immoral.
Same applies to some people who hate Muslims. I know very well in what kind of world I live in. The question was pretty clear if those things are justified. No no violence can be justified and that's my own opinion which I have a right to have. I respect your opinion and no need to try to convince me otherwise. I stick to my own opinion and thank you for the discussion
Speak softly, but carry a big stick. If someone is trying to hurt you or someone else, your goal is to immediately disable their ability to do so, so that they cannot continue to harm you or anyone else. That means hitting back twice as hard so they stay down.
11.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Japan was already on its knees by the napalm bombings of all cities. And ready to capitulate. The Abbomb was only dropped to stop the Russians from landing in Japan.
"Japan was already on its knees by the napalm bombings of all cities. And ready to capitulate." They were offered a chance to capitulate well before the bombing. If theyyou accepted the conditions of the surrender in the Potsdam conference, there wouldn't have been any problem. But they didn't. They wanted to keep their occupied territories, as well as keeping the Imperial system, and they wanted to prosecute their war criminals themselves (which translates to "let's sweep it under the rug"). Thus they rejected the surrender. Before the bombing, both cities were littered with flyers warning about the bombing.
No offense, but think about it this way. A small, weak guy approaches you at a bar. Grabs your girlfriend's butt. You tell him "buddy, I give you a chance to let go of my girlfriend's ass. If you do, and you buy her a drink, I'll leave you alone, we're good" He says "No, that's not gonna work", and keeps his hands on her butt.
You raise your fist, and tell him "Buddy, I'll punch you on the count of three if you don't let her go". He doesn't. You punch him.
Are you at fault here?
"The Abbomb was only dropped to stop the Russians from landing in Japan." What? More like to pressure the Japanese into a quick surrender, instead of letting them negotiate with the Russians, and eventually retain their power.
@Benedek38 Just look at chronology: Soviet invasion of Manchuria began on 9 August 9,1945 Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945 TRuman wanted to scare WHO?
@Benedek38 They didn't have it yet and Truman could drop the next one on the Red Army or on a Russian city. That was the American message. Too bad if 225,000 Japanese more had too die.
Also, "just look at the dates" End of Potsdam conference, where the conditions of surrender were determined for Japan: August 2 Nuclear bombs: August 6 and 9 So... it could just as well be what I said.
I have no doubt that the US was in a race to get hold of Japan faster than the Russians, but just because the Russians had Manchuria, that doesn't mean they were anywhere near occupying Japan. In fact, they would have needed a whole D-day like operation to defeat the Japanese, so the Americans were in no hurry.
"Truman could drop the next one on the Red Army or on a Russian city. " Russian. City. The Russians weren't as bad at maths as you think. No plane going from America, or the Pacific, or the Atlantic could possibly reach any of the major Russian cities.
And as for the Red Army - anti-aircraft cannons. Seriously, you believe the Japanese weren't scarred of the bomb... but the Russians were? LOL. Why didn't they drop it on Berlin then? The tests were successful, the bomb was functional. Undoubtedly Germany was a more valuable asset than Japan.
"That was the American message. Too bad if 225,000 Japanese more had too die." I love when people want to make a point, so they take the highest estimate possible. The estimated number of deaths were 129-225 thousand. And 20000 were certainly soldiers.
"That plane could come from an American base in the UK" The range of a B29 superfortress is around 5000 km. The difference between London and Moscow is almost EXACTLY 2500 km, a bit more. So technically, if they are carrying almost no load, and they never hesitate a minute, everything goes perfectly, etc - they COULD maybe do it, but then that is almost certainly a suicide mission. So I am pretty sure taking turbulence, enemy air traffic, surveillance, etc into account, there is no way a superfortress could make it to Moscow without being taken down, or the plane having to emergency land somewhere on the way back.
"Don't forget those who died from radio active exposure during the next 5 years." Do your own research. The radiation after a nuclear bomb is minimal. Even with only a fraction of the bomb actually engaging in chain reaction, the radiation was not even significant. Most people who died of radiation were in the zone of radiation, and are included in the casualities.
That is what I meant. The fallout of a nuclear bomb is insignificant compared to, say, the Chernobyl or Fukushima catastrophy. It's not even comparable. If you are not educated on the topic, I suggest brushing up on highschool physics, specifically nuclear fission. Short version, if the bomb is 100% effective, there is almost no residual radiation. That's kind of the point. The fact that the Little Boy and the Fat Man were badly primed, and only a fraction of their actual load exploded, is another business entirely. But even then, the radiation is no greater than if you ground down a small bundle. of uea ium rods, and sprinkled it over Hiroshima.
It was necessary, I dont think Japan would have given up otherwise, and the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned to evacuate before the bombs were dropped, but Japanese officials claimed it was only propaganda, after the first bomb was dropped Japan was given the chance to surrender, but they didn't believe that the US had more than one bomb.
Looking at it today it's clearly bad and unjustified. I think it was an overdone attempt to end the war and well it was successful. It's bad but I don't see it happening any other way
no not really, like I duno I know the situation was bad but I dont think either of them would be justified to drop a bomb, but it already happened so I guess there's nothing we can really do now
The Japanese government was offered the opportunity to surrender on multiple occasions before the bomb was dropped, and they refused. Thats how war works. It is cruel and no-one cares whether its morally right or not. whatever gets the job done.
Weren't we going to kill about that many of them in any event? They allied themselves with Nazis and fascist Italy, they took a stand on the wrong side of history, and the good guys had the strength to put the lid on Pandora's box.
It is impossible to be without war, because humans are greedy, ambitious, destructive, divided, etc. Thus as long as humans exist in this world, war is unavoidable and inevitable. The only times war couldn't possible happen or exist are the times way before humans came into existence. And the other, and it may not be what you want to hear, is probably when our species have died out, but that would be in the distant future. Could something else, some other new kind of life with the same ore greater scale or level of intelligence and consciousness as we humans currently have come into existence afterwards? Who knows? If so, then they may repeat the process, if they aren't able to tolerate each other, become greedy and become too ambitious, and is another very divided species, in which we always had been and still currently is.
@madhatters4 You should never attack someone who's stronger than you and if you do do not complain about the consequence of it. It was totally justified to me. What Japanese did was very cowardly.
so you've basically given credence to the terrorist who suggest that because america caste the first stone they can in turn respond by killing anyone america or associated with america
violence in the middle east was instigated by the USA and western forces meddling in the middle east. terrorist justify this as reason to attack innocent americans, europeans, and western sympathizers. so basically it's no wonder america attacked japan after pearl harbor is like saying no wonder 9/11 happened after decades of war and death in the middle east through American outright aggression and proxy wars
@madhatters4 Then go explain to me why the majority of terrorist attack are made in the middle east / Muslim countries and not in the countries who attacked them?
You can't compare the both, that's truly not the same things, the only things you can compare the terrorist attack nowadays are with the Christian Crusade.
not really relevant why most attacks are in the middle east against their own. the fact is if you excuse the atomic bomb based on the notion of they hit us first then you would have to excuse terrorism against the west because we hit them first
it is an apt comparison since until the the western world created Israel and subsequently interjected itself into geo politics in the mideast (over the next 70 years) after world war 2 there was not an ongoing assault of Muslim and Islamic extremist against western nations.
I don't see nukes as ever justified in the same way I don't agree with chemical warfare. You can put it down to ignorance of the after effects at the time.
Yes it was justified in saving American lives because the only other option was to invade mainland Japan and that would have gone worse than D-day if you cut D-days American casualties in half.
Japan was warned many times too stop their assault over the pacific but they continued, resulting in The Rape of Nanjing as well as many other atrocities in their persuit over more land and "a pacific empire". It was justified in conclusion
And how much of the land and people they'd seized through outright aggression would they have been allowed to keep under their brutal "forced labor" regime?
they'd already lost the land to the russians who has attacked the eastern front. literally russia was weeks if not days to being ready to launch an attack on the main island. under the terms of the surrender the japanese twice offered they conceded all seized lands. the only thing they requested was an end to war and to keep the imperial emperor in place.
I answered yes, and that mostly had to do with how bad the war was and the fact nobody knew how bad using those weapons would be. However, I would never want to see nuclear weapons used ever again.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Of course it was justified... this question is a lot like asking do you have any clue about history.
why was it justified? japan offered to surrender on two occasions prior to the a-bomb being dropped under terms that the US agreed to after the a-bomb was dropped
Really, what were the conditions? Japan was given a warning it was coming and didn't surrenderer. Then they didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped. doesn't that put a little hole in your story?
How many people would have died if we were forced to invade?
they offered surrender twice. the only condition was that they be able to keep their imperial emperor in power. the americans twice ignored it saying unconditional surrender was the only terms they'd accept (no imperial emperor)... ultimately when the japanese surrendered their condition of keeping the imperial emperor was met.
the bomb was merely a show of military might to warn the USSR that in the upcoming cold war the USA had the advantage
the USA wasn't going to be forced to invade, as again, the japanese twice offered surrender
Interesting, your interpretation seems very generous. Below is what i found with a quick search. So your saying war crimes, Korea, Taiwan.. are no big deal i guess...
"The Japanese government was imagining giving back the Pacific islands, and essentially keeping everything else. They were not imagining returning Taiwan, Korea, Manchukuo (Manchuria) the occupation of Japan, or punishment of war criminals. Japan would surrender if certain conditions were met: (1) preservation of the emperor; (2) that Japan was not to be occupied; (3) that the Japanese armed forces be disbanded voluntarily; (4) that war criminals would be prosecuted by Japanese courts in Japan."
where did i say I was ok with war crimes? please show me? if you want to have an earnest conversation do not put inflammatory words in the mouths of others ok... here is the potsdam delaration of July 26th. this is documented as the potsdam meeting was attened by the allies (truman, churchill, and stalin) and stalin and the soviets were attempting to mediate surrender... here are the terms
the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest" the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies" that the "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943, Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory and stripped of her pre-war empire including Korea and Taiwan, as well as all her recent conquests. that "[t]he Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives." that "[w]e do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners."
you the said japan offered to surrender before... the surrender japan was talking about did not include prosecution of war crimes. Since you were fine with that, i assume you were ok with that.
Its very convient to blame the us and make excuses when you tell half the story. japans surrender that was offered before the bomb was NOT the same as after!
can you stop? seriously? prosecution of war crimes is not included in a surrender. it just happens once a war is concluded. look at the german's surrender. it makes no mention of war crimes and yet they were prosecuted. japan's surrender after the bomb made no mention of war crimes and yet they were prosecuted. the potsdam declaration was the accepted terms of surrender as negotiated by japan and the allies... and it makes no mention of war crimes
you can try and push whatever narrative about me on to me if you wish. it's disingenuous and just a sign that in lieu of real facts, and ignoring the explicit facts, you opt for personal provocation. it's incredible
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 
+1 y
Anonymous(25-29)+1 y
Opinion Owner+1 y
Opinion Owner+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions