The one argument I would make is that the bombs hit civilians rather than military, it's like comparing a military offensive to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.Soviet Heavy said:
Bombing Japan Saved More People Than It Killed.
- Thread starter Soviet Heavy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It did cut the war short and almost certainly saved and even greater number of lives.
In the big picture, it also put into perspective how horrible such weapons are and is probably a good part of the reason that they haven't been used since.
In the big picture, it also put into perspective how horrible such weapons are and is probably a good part of the reason that they haven't been used since.
Yeah, that's generally accepted.
Plus, now people see what atomic weaponry does, so it serves as an acceptable reason not to go to war. Unless you're country is led by crazies, of course.
Plus, now people see what atomic weaponry does, so it serves as an acceptable reason not to go to war. Unless you're country is led by crazies, of course.
To be fair, this was only to try to get a piece of the post-war territory-split-up. At this stage, eisenhower wasn't too keen on the russians being anywhere nearby, and the russians had ignored the requests to make an official declaration of war until just before the atomic bombing.Soviet Heavy said:
I can agree with the OP, that an invasion would have caused a higher death poll than the bombs. It doesn't change the fact, that the bombs were targeted on civilians (meaning: killing civilians was the main target, nor colleteral damage), wich makes it a war crime.
I'm quite sure that warcrimes would have happened to during an invasion, it still does not change the fact of a commited war crime. It's allways worthwhile remembering this, if nothing else.
But this may just be me being German and therefore a bit touchy on the whole subject.
I'm quite sure that warcrimes would have happened to during an invasion, it still does not change the fact of a commited war crime. It's allways worthwhile remembering this, if nothing else.
But this may just be me being German and therefore a bit touchy on the whole subject.
Despite your knowledge from specific schooling in the matter I disagree with you. A good reason was that emperor sanctioned an unprovoked sneak attack against the US. They killed civilians and even soldiers in vile sadistic ways when it was uncalled for. Leaving a political group anda person in power after they allowed that, would be a bad idea. Back then dealing and seeing that stuff first hand would probably move you to a different way of seeing it.Optimis Prime said:
In any event, the number of people killed by those bombings are nothing compared to the number of Soviet civilians killed, many starving or being tortured and raped, not most dying instantly and painlessly. Or the bombings on London?
Us looking back not actually experiencing it will have it's own impact on our views.
I wouldn't have a problem with it if they bombed military targets.
What disgusts me is that they chose to obliterate 2 primarily civilian hubs.
People argue with me over this point but watching a naval base or airfield being incinerated in the blink of an eye would probably have got the point across to Japan just as much as murdering a couple hundred thousand civilians.
They may have been zealous but people seem content to paint them as suicidal morons.
What disgusts me is that they chose to obliterate 2 primarily civilian hubs.
People argue with me over this point but watching a naval base or airfield being incinerated in the blink of an eye would probably have got the point across to Japan just as much as murdering a couple hundred thousand civilians.
They may have been zealous but people seem content to paint them as suicidal morons.
Thank you for this completely topical thread, which I'm sure you did not post just to have people argue with you.
On the thread itself. July 1945. The Japanese cabinet had received an unofficial outline of terms of surrender, and were reportedly inclined to accept, but decided to wait for an official ultimatum before announcing their decision. At a press conference official Kantaro Suzuki, when asked for the cabinet's position, said they were adopting one of mokusatsu. Mokusatsu can either mean to withhold comment for the moment, or to ignore. Radio Tokyo and the Japanese News Agency mistakenly used the latter meaning, which reached the US, which lead to Truman giving the order to drop the bombs. paraphrased from The Greatest Stories Never Told by Rick Beyer, presented by the History Channel, HarperResource 2003
On the thread itself. July 1945. The Japanese cabinet had received an unofficial outline of terms of surrender, and were reportedly inclined to accept, but decided to wait for an official ultimatum before announcing their decision. At a press conference official Kantaro Suzuki, when asked for the cabinet's position, said they were adopting one of mokusatsu. Mokusatsu can either mean to withhold comment for the moment, or to ignore. Radio Tokyo and the Japanese News Agency mistakenly used the latter meaning, which reached the US, which lead to Truman giving the order to drop the bombs. paraphrased from The Greatest Stories Never Told by Rick Beyer, presented by the History Channel, HarperResource 2003
Thank god someone who knows their history.Optimis Prime said:
Now everyone read this well-informed gents post and promptly /thread.
You forgot the fire bombings.Soviet Heavy said:
Also that killing the entire death toll of Europe would be impossible, there would not be enough Japanese people.
The Japanese attacked because of the US getting involved in their affairs overseas. Everything that followed after was us cleaning up a mess we made (our ancestors at least).
Hundreds of Thousands of innocent people died because their leaders wouldn't do what we told them to do.
Sure we saved American lives, but we'd have saved quite a few more from not harassing and then slaughtering them after.
(However, the Japanese military deserved a beating after the Nanking incident, but they weren't the ones we were nuking).
You could very easily mention that they were nearly out of fuel. Which is why most of their navy was moored by the time we nuked them. The entire reason they attacked was in hopes that they'd delay our assault, occupy china, and become too large to stop (like Russia).zehydra said:
We had cut off their Oil supply, Japan produces no oil of their own, they had to choose between either going back to a pre-oil period, or fighting back.
check out modern day US to see how those options pan out (and we are talking about an Area that doesn't even supply most of our oil, and we STILL invaded
).But it gets better. Hiroshima and Nagasake were not fire bombed very heavily because they wanted Pristine cities to nuke.Bobzer77 said:
The nuclear strikes, by most post high school history courses I've taken, were more about seeing what happens when you nuke human beings, than about stopping a war.
At least we were nice enough to not firebomb Himeji castle, that's something.
Japan's history of honour and sacrifice is both their biggest strength and their greatest weakness.
No other country would have been able to get an army of 10,000 strong that had the specific job of committing suicide by crashing planes into the enemy.
No other country would have been able to get an army of 10,000 strong that had the specific job of committing suicide by crashing planes into the enemy.
Also this. I mean, I'm only doing GCSE History and I knew that the Americans had no real reason to do this.Optimis Prime said:
It was the lesser of their two evils, no the least evil of the options they had.
*EDIT*
Nice first post, by the way. Welcome to the escapist, we get these threads a lot.
the moral of this story is YOU CANT TRUST THE SYSTEM!!
ok seriously
japan attacked us first. granted they probably didn't know what we had and what we were capable of doing (or what we would do), but what happens after there attack is on them there is no right way to end a war....... IN AMERICA
ok seriously
japan attacked us first. granted they probably didn't know what we had and what we were capable of doing (or what we would do), but what happens after there attack is on them there is no right way to end a war....... IN AMERICA
Well we'll never know for sure, but I agree that it was probably better that we dropped the bombs to help end the war rather than mount a full scale invasion. Many more lives would have been lost and the war might have dragged on for quite some time. Not to mention that the Russians could have expanded farther possibly making the Cold War that much trickier.
Anyway, I think the main reason why people are so upset about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is because of the mental image of the atomic bomb. Millions of people had already died during the war by that point, plenty of them civilians. Bombing cities had become just another tactic. In fact the fire bombing of Dresden that took place a couple months before in Germany was quite horrific as well. But people remember the atomic bombing because there were two bombs that wiped out a large portion of two cities. And all the radiation that played hell with the people living in the area for years to come.
I'm not trying to downplay the horror that was inflicted upon the Japanese people by the bombs (it's something that had a serious impact on the collective psyche of the the Japanese society) but when put in perspective, it doesn't seem as horrible as the millions of civilians who died elsewhere over those 6 brutal years.
Anyway, I think the main reason why people are so upset about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is because of the mental image of the atomic bomb. Millions of people had already died during the war by that point, plenty of them civilians. Bombing cities had become just another tactic. In fact the fire bombing of Dresden that took place a couple months before in Germany was quite horrific as well. But people remember the atomic bombing because there were two bombs that wiped out a large portion of two cities. And all the radiation that played hell with the people living in the area for years to come.
I'm not trying to downplay the horror that was inflicted upon the Japanese people by the bombs (it's something that had a serious impact on the collective psyche of the the Japanese society) but when put in perspective, it doesn't seem as horrible as the millions of civilians who died elsewhere over those 6 brutal years.