Dropping the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was

  • The ultimate crime against humanity

    Votes: 12 30.8%
  • A serious war crime because US had other options

    Votes: 10 25.6%
  • An unethical act of war although US needed to check USSR

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • An inferior choice although US had few other options

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Justified because it saved many US & Japanese lives

    Votes: 8 20.5%
  • Entirely justified because Japan would not surrender without it

    Votes: 9 23.1%

  • Total voters
    39

ippolito

Regular Member
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
rome italy
Yesterday I saw in tv a history program that for 90 minutes
there were all the steps before the us airforce aircraft
left usa and straight to some targets that were differents in case of
fog and bad weather....
the reportage was in color and the pilot cannot image what kind
of power had that bomb.
It is my opinion that no one in 1945 in usa could image what kind of bomb
was that exactly and how many people could kil or leave radiations for years and years creating baby monsters.
There were 100.000 killed among the civil population women children
in less than a minute in Hiroshima.
Many bodies had dissapeard completaly.
I think that was a very dark moment for the us white house
the decision to send in japan 2 bombs it is my opinion was a big mistake of truman and hiw entourage.
Till today 2004 fortunanly us has been the only country in this world
to use such dark death weapon....and all we hope that will reamin the only one for the rest of the history of the world.
What is your opinions?
Which are the japanese' of this forum opinions?
 
There is no doubt in my mind that the A-bomb was a horrific "dark death weapon." It's effects and the toll was terrible and terrifying. I am glad that it has never been used again, and I hope it never will.

As a high school history teacher, I have argued both sides- that it was justified and that it was not. I have struggled with this for years, but I believe the decision to use the bomb, and to use it on civilians was the only decision Truman could have made. The battles of Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa demonstrated that the Japanese would continue to fight, and that civillians would continue to die in mass numbers. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civillians were bombed, burned, strafed and starved before the Atomic bomb was dropped. Yet the government and the emperor did not surrender. The larger parts of the Japanese economy and military lay in ruins- with hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civillians stranded on islands and in China, the Japanese Navy at the bottom of the ocean and the Airforce reduced to suicide attack. Japan was defeated, but would continue to fight on and on and on. There was no sign of giving in, no sign that the slaughter would end. Projections of a million US casualties were made.

As president, what other decision could be made? There were only two bombs-- and so the attack was really a bluff-- the bomb had little tactical value- it would not ease the number of casualties an invasion would cause... and should we have kept firebombing the population night after night until there was nothing left and no one left to surrender? He had to hope that something this aweful would force a surrender. (And remember that the surrender almost didn't happen, a last minute coup by junior officers against the emperor was only unsuccessful by dumb luck)

And I hate this answer because it basically says the end justifies the means- I think this is a poor foundation for ethical reasoning.
 
I think the A-bombs were not necessary. I do believe however, that it was definatley a better solution than invading japan. Not just better for less american casulaties, but there would have been an enormous amount of japanese casualties as well if the USA invaded japan, and japan woud look nothing like it does now. Most of the temples, historical atrifacts, etc of japan would have been destroyed, and all of the cultural heratige that japan still has today would be all but gone. Most major cities would have lied in ruin when everything would be over and done with (not just hiroshima and nagasaki), and it would have been complete chaos. With japan's suicidal fighting style in WWII, it would have been a absolute real hell on earth. I know that a projection of over a million american casualties was made if the USA decided to invade japan, but i guarantee that over 10x that number (even higher) of japanese casualties would have resulted if the USA invaded japan.

Also, the USA didn't need to drop the A-bombs over major cities. If they dropped them in a much less densley-populated area, I think it might have still got the message across, without all the unneeded casualties.

EDIT: also... a quick question Ive always wondered. Is WWII covered in depth in school in japan like it is in the USA? What about Germany? I would imagine that it might hurt national pride if this topic was covered extensivley in school in japan and germany, so Im really curious...

Anyone know?
 
Well if you thinkkthat was the only way to stop the war they could
bomb military bases or the pacific sea fleet....but not 2 towns...with civilians
they could demostrate such superior destructive bomb and convince th jp
imperor to finish thre war before to attach jp main cities.
All the story it something that they (the project managers) were loosing the control of the situation a want to try how powerfuls was that bomb without calculating how many people they were going to kill.
Sorry but i would (if Truman) never use such black death bomb on towns.
 
The US military chose populated cities that were large and untouched to show difinitively the power of the devices. Planners wanted a high number of casualties. A less populated area would not do. Cities of higher military and economic importance had already been bombed. The pacific sea fleet was for the most part either sunk or scattered. And a single military target would have been too small.

The Russians had also declared war a few weeks earlier and were looking to grab as much territory as possible. So it may have also been important to demonstrate to Moscow how powerful a weapon we had in our arsenal.

There was a (minor) military target in Hiroshima- The Army southern command. It was destroyed.

The reasoning is "the ends justifies the means." I am still uncomfortable saying that because it ended WWII and the killing all around the pacific, that it was a good thing and it was justified. At least we can take solice in that the sacrifice of two cities and their people may have saved the lives of countless others.
 
Sorry I am not agree, even I respect your point of view I still think
that a such powerful governement could find another solution
as skared them bombing an empty island in the pacific with japanese observer and give them an ultimatum or you decleare defetad or we bomb some of your
main towns and refusing this offer you will be the responsable of the death 100s
thousend of civilitians....
Don't you think that this could convince jp to be surrended...and won...
They belived in the bushido but not stupid...the Emperor in front of a such distructive weapon would (perhaps) his country won...
Do not forget all the deaseas and baby monsters that fo years and years came
as for the radiations and people died after years with cancer etc.....
Anyway this history and you will continue to teach as the school books require
about Vietnam there were many films that were a mile stone of a stranage war loosed in which milions of vietnamises died and also many us soldiers
As I saw a lot of films about the pacific war..and european field against hitler.
But it seems that noone could talk or produce a film in that forgotten part of world history. Do you have your opinion about this?
It is look strange no one there would make a critics by a film like many did for Vietnam...
have a nice day
 
Japan had already been given ultimatums and had refused to surrender in spite of hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths. The potsdam declaration, leaflet drops and radio broadcasts calling for surrender were all ignored-- and dozens of Japanese cities were firebombed- killing far more civillians than the atomic bomb. If burning Tokyo to the ground didn't work, then why would bombing some deserted island work?
 
i too have struggled with this unfortunate decision made by the united states administration at the time. in the end, i feel that japan got the short end of the stick. there is a question of morality that is rarely taken into consideration on this subject. in 1940 hitler held repeated meetings with the japanese military, you can find documentation on these talks in the writings of adolf eikman, hitlers chief of command to the ss party. hitler had persuaded japan to tackle the us, while he concentrated on the whole of europe. at the time, both parties thought this to be a good strategy, little did japan know what unearthly power the united states had uncovered in the years leading up to the monstrous show of force in question. japan made a decisive mistake. against hitlers advice, japan attacked the us, (pearl harbor) 10 months ahead of schedule. a criticle mistake. its an ironic story, because it was hitlers own scientists that developed the bomb. 3 years prior, hitler had refused continued funding for the research of the atom bomb. upon this decision, the 2 scientists responsible defected to the uk for further research, they in turn, were handed over to the united states, who gave them unlimited funding for research. the critical error was that originally, the 2 german scientists thought that it would take over a ton of enriched uranium to produce the weapon, material that was hard to find and incredibly expensive to refine at the time. litttle did they realize that it would take less than a pound. upon discovery of this miscalculation, research zoomed forward at an unpresedented rate, and soon, the world saw the first example of the a bomb. the reason i feel that japan in some ways did not deserve such horror is that at the time, it would have been impossible to bomb germany, with our allies bordering the country. japan on the other hand, was geographically isolated, and fallout posed no threat to our allies. arguably, hitler deserved to be bombed far more than the japanese, but that was just not possible.
i have spoken to many japanese on this matter, being american and wanting to have a strong relationship with japans ppl. nearly every japanese i talked to admitted that the attack was provoked, being that they attacked the united states first. i was very supprised to hear this. of course, no one beleaves it was the right thing to do, but as has been stated, there was no other alternative. the war had raged on for nearly a decade, and it had to end. i do not think it was right, i do not think we should have used such a horrible device on civilians, it just goes to show how tenacious the japanese are when it comes to war, alongside the germans. the united states and great britain wanted that war to end. with the death of 20 million russians and 6 million jews, countless american, british, and french casualties, along with massive loss of life for the japanese and the germans, the death toll would continue to rise beyond those experienced with the bomb. it was a quik and simple way out. as horrible and in-humane as it was. but japanese history is no stranger to in-humanity, just look at the rape of nanking, absolutely barberous. but then again, whitch world power can claim that they are humane?
 
Well said. The Japanese people got the short end of the stick. As did the German people, the Russian people and the Chinese people. In war, it is the innocents that pay the greatest price and bear the greatest burden. In WWII millions of civillians were targeted, and suffered arial bombardment, loss of property, dispossesion,starvation, torture, deprivation, rape, and murder.War is all hell, and most of its victims are innocent. No one deserves to be burned alive or irradiated.

Today, people are returning to what's left of their homes in parts of Fallujah. They probably don't deserve what they will find.

I'm interested to hear other opinions. (Esp. from Japan) Can you make this a poll?
 
Last edited:
To see and fill the traditional bombs could not change th jp position
to assist to the distruction that an a-bomb could do I think there were perhpas 50% of possibilities to let them understand that the story was over..
But us gov wanted to try anyway that bomb
If there were no other solutions...why 2 and not one?
The destruction of Hiroshima and 100.000 died I think was a very strong message to the imperor....
What I wish with this dialog is to undestand if they did (truman &co)
all the best to not bombing with atomic one.
 
The "traditional" bombs used in Tokyo in other large cities were nothing like any that had been used before. The incidiaries were clustered in large canisters which were slowed and burst open above the city releasing little time delayed tubes of napalm. These tubes landed and then burst spewing gooey burning jelly for a dozen yards.

You may be right, maybe one would have been enough. The emperial government gave no indication in the days before Nagasaki. Maybe a demonstration would have worked. I don't think Truman seriously considered either of these options.
 
just wanted to add a few things i had forggoten last time i replied to this post. the reason it is hard to find either side (us or japan) at fault is that because of economic pressure put on japan by the united states in 1931, before america joined the war. at the time, japan relied heavily on the united states for steel, oil, minerals, and petrol. because of japans involvement with germany and italy, the united states placed embargo's on these resources, without them, japan could not fight a war.
may i say also that no one in washington at the time wanted any part of this war, except for president roosevelt. he saw the war as an opportunity for america to become a world super-power. how right he was. without resources, japan was "forced" to fight. so they attacked pearl harbor, a plan that hitler thought would keep us out of the war for at least another year, having a chunk of our navy destroyed. like i said before, this was a critical mistake of enormous proportions. after having declared war on the united states, italy and germany were obligated to join a head-on war campaign
. agree'ing to aid the cause of the other two, should they plunge into full-fledged war. this sealed the 3 nations into an unbreakable agreement. so when japan declared war on the united states, italy and germany were obliged to join the war.
so you see, in my eyes, we sort of "forced" japan to fight. they of course attacked the united states first "physically", but they really had no other choice. roosevelt knew this, and used this knowledge to his advantage, to show the world that america, was a dominant force in the world. that is why i feel japan got the short end of the stick, they had no chance.
 
zeroyon said:
EDIT: also... a quick question Ive always wondered. Is WWII covered in depth in school in japan like it is in the USA? What about Germany? I would imagine that it might hurt national pride if this topic was covered extensivley in school in japan and germany, so Im really curious...

Anyone know?

Either it's not covered, or no one pays attention in class. My girlfriend who grew up in Osaka had only a faint idea of what the holocaust was. She knew it had to do with jews and not much else. I would also bet that the Pacific war is not given an in depth treatment.
 
bossel said:
Not really, AFAIK.


They had. Eg. they could have stopped attacking China.

according to the trilateral agreement between gemany, italy, and japan, the italians and the germans were obligated to fight america, this was a document signed by all three countries, and by signing it, they were "required to fight".
this is the essence of the axis powers.

no one "has" to do anything. but by not adhearing to their own policies, japan would be going against its very own tradition of "saving face".
 
babar-san said:
according to the trilateral agreement between gemany, italy, and japan, the italians and the germans were obligated to fight america, this was a document signed by all three countries, and by signing it, they were "required to fight".
this is the essence of the axis powers.
Not really.
The pact says: "to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked"
Japan was not attacked, it attacked 1st.
 
Now after many years and thks to Gorbaciov many old secrets documents came out from underground.
Few knew that there were an agreement betwen hitler an stalin...germany lost
most for the russia campaign ....in which a lot of german soldiers were killed or captured...or died for the cold.
If russia were taking the war against uk and france with germany italy and japan
the war was winned perhaps who knows?

Japan was not attacked, it attacked 1st.
Yes it is true they attacked a militare force the navy and they bombed
ships not houses....it was an attack without a war declaration and a big mistake by the jp.
 
bossel said:
Not really.
The pact says: "to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked"
Japan was not attacked, it attacked 1st.


yes, but japan had already signed the document, meaning they were supporters of the cause, and intended to enter the war, but, they could not because of the us opposition and embargo's, so, what were they supposed to do? tell germany "ahh, we cant enter the war because the united states, a country who hasnt even entered the war, embargoed all of our resources"? in a sense, they were attacked, economically. to "assist" germany, they had to have these resourses, so yes, they attacked the us, but the united states provoked the attack. im not saying it was right, but japan had no idea we had the bomb, and as said before, the japanese never back down from a fight.
 
babar-san said:
yes, but japan had already signed the document, meaning they were supporters of the cause, and intended to enter the war, but, they could not because of the us opposition and embargo's, so, what were they supposed to do? tell germany "ahh, we cant enter the war because the united states, a country who hasnt even entered the war, embargoed all of our resources"? in a sense, they were attacked, economically. to "assist" germany, they had to have these resourses, so yes, they attacked the us, but the united states provoked the attack. im not saying it was right, but japan had no idea we had the bomb, and as said before, the japanese never back down from a fight.
Well, Japan started it all by attacking China. The US embargo was a reaction to Japan's imperialist war. Can't really see how any blame can be laid upon the US.

The Tripartite Pact was not so much about joint war efforts but about spheres of interest & mutual support. That doesn't mean that all pact members had to fight (or declare war on) the same enemies.

Whether the Japanese knew if the US had the bomb (which they didn't have in 1941) doesn't really matter.

Anyway, the A-bomb was originally intended to hit Germany. Japan was unlucky to hold out long enough to let the US finish the development.
 
bossel said:
Well, Japan started it all by attacking China. The US embargo was a reaction to Japan's imperialist war. Can't really see how any blame can be laid upon the US.

The Tripartite Pact was not so much about joint war efforts but about spheres of interest & mutual support. That doesn't mean that all pact members had to fight (or declare war on) the same enemies.

Whether the Japanese knew if the US had the bomb (which they didn't have in 1941) doesn't really matter.

Anyway, the A-bomb was originally intended to hit Germany. Japan was unlucky to hold out long enough to let the US finish the development.


hmmm..... good point, i dont know that much about the japan-chinese conflicts pre-ww2. most of what i know about japan and chinese conflict happened throughout the 14-18th centuries, not much knowledge about warfare between them in modern history. but, i think the point i was trying to make is that the united states eagerly intervened by placing such pressure on japan. i mean, why else would america care about an imperialistic country, attacking a communist country? if it wasnt for hitler, we would have been rootin for japan, not squeezing their economy. and while the trilateral agreement didnt in fact "impose" an ultimatum to commit forces to the war effort, it happened anyway.
im definatley not placing a blame on the united states, but the reason i feel that japan did not deserve such a blow, is that like you said, "originally", the target was germany. but you and i both know, that not in 1000 years, would america drop nuclear weapons on germany. the reason for this is plain and simple. our allies bordered germany. we had interests at stake that could not put our allies in harms way, so, we turned instead to the georgaphically isolated japan, a perfect place to show our strength. my point is, germany arguably deserved it more than japan. the united states has forever now had a hard-on for communist countries, more so than imperialist countries. imperialist countries, in the eyes of the american government, do not pose a fraction of a threat to our way of life the way communism does, or rather did.
and that is because communism is an idealistic form of government, or at least thats how congress saw it, fearing a spread of communist ideals to other countries like your own. japan never really posed a significant threat to the united states militarily, but they were the scapegoats for a war that had to end, and there was no way in hell that america was going to drop a bomb on western europe.
 

This thread has been viewed 77023 times.

Back
Top