Poll: were the nukes dropped on japan in WW2 really needed to win?
- Thread starter cryogeist
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Fun fact: This EXACT topic is what finally made me cave and create an account on this website. I was reading so many posts that were making me angry that I felt I had to respond. On page 7. Were no one was bothering to read replies anymore. Still, it made me feel better. My answer hasn't changed.
Yes, they were needed. Anyone who witnessed the Japanese fight on tiny islands saw that they were devoted to the cause, even if it was lost. Imagine trying to take an entire country were the vast majority of people thought that way. To say it would be a bloodbath is an understatement.
On a side note, there's a good chance I wouldn't be alive as my grandfather was supposed to be in the first wave of troops that would invade Japan.
Yes, they were needed. Anyone who witnessed the Japanese fight on tiny islands saw that they were devoted to the cause, even if it was lost. Imagine trying to take an entire country were the vast majority of people thought that way. To say it would be a bloodbath is an understatement.
On a side note, there's a good chance I wouldn't be alive as my grandfather was supposed to be in the first wave of troops that would invade Japan.
Hmmm. Part of the reason why they went with the nuke option was that a land invasion could have possibly dragged the war on for another year, costing immense amounts of money, and the projected human sacrifice of such an invasion was something that by that point most generals were keen to avoid. The Japanese were willing to fight to the last man, we had learned this during the island-hopping campaign. The soldiers were tired, the generals were tired, the people were tired of the war. Something needed to be done to break Japan's will to fight. The atom bomb seemed to be a viable solution, and although we recognize it to be a horrific instrument, in the end, it still may have saved more lives.
JustJuust said:
At the same time thought you get the Emperor sending this message: "His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated."JustJuust said:
"His Majesty is deeply reluctant to have blood lost among the peoples on both sides for this reason, and it is his desire, for the welfare of humanity, to restore peace with all possible speed."
Something which was completely ignored at the Postdam Conference. Had they opened diplomatic lines they could easily have come to a more reasonable peace agreement. Also by that point what military forces, the Navy was devastated after the destruction of the Yamoto, morale was shot all around and they were basicaly decimated, starving and had lost most of their infrastructure. The will to fight was gone in all but the high command.
Yes.
Books like Persimmon Wind show, from a Japanese civilian's point of view, how the populace was being prepared to fight off a land invasion. The notion that the will to fight was gone from the people is just revisionist history. The civilian populace were being drilled in not just armed combat but throwing bamboo spears and attacking bare-handed. The popular sentiment was still "Death Before Dishonor".
But, as has already been said, this topic has been made every time August 6th rolls around and will probably continue long after we are all dead. At this point, we're just regurgitating arguments and convincing nobody.
Books like Persimmon Wind show, from a Japanese civilian's point of view, how the populace was being prepared to fight off a land invasion. The notion that the will to fight was gone from the people is just revisionist history. The civilian populace were being drilled in not just armed combat but throwing bamboo spears and attacking bare-handed. The popular sentiment was still "Death Before Dishonor".
But, as has already been said, this topic has been made every time August 6th rolls around and will probably continue long after we are all dead. At this point, we're just regurgitating arguments and convincing nobody.
Frankly, even the firebombings were unnecessary. I could go into detail but in the end, Japan was alone in a war against the entire world. How long do you honestly believe they could have lasted? Even though they ignored the first peace treaty that the Allies proposed their military did not posses a threat and their nuclear program was barely in its infancy. They would have surrender either way.Sean951 said:
While I don't like that the bombs became necessary, I would like to point out that the American high command was doing what was best for it. Dropping the bombs cost 0 American lives and inflicted thousands of casualties, while invading would have cost America significantly in both manpower and financial assets. It may sound cruel, but when a country declares war on you, your loyalty is to your people. For the record, this does not mean break agreements to not use certain weapons, like gas, which America did not use during the war.
It is really, really astounding, how almost everyone here has absolutely no problem to justify a nuklear strike against a city full of civilians.
Maybe I do not understand this kind of behavior because it is an American thing as it is related to pride, patriotism and the lack of ability to see something bad in the history of America.
Would it have been really that bad if Japan surrendered with own terms?
There are even hints ( that are not waterproof of course ) that the Japanese already surrenderd days before the bombs dropped, but the US-Gouvernment wanted them to surrender without conditions AND for the most important thing they wanted to test the bomb.
But even if alle this is totally untrue und all you guys are right to say that they killed less people with the bomb than hypothetically would have died during an invasion (which is by far not certain), do you feel comfortable by justifying the dropping of the bomb? Or do you do it only to soothe your conscience and try to convince yourself that everything was absolutely okay and well done?
Maybe I do not understand this kind of behavior because it is an American thing as it is related to pride, patriotism and the lack of ability to see something bad in the history of America.
Would it have been really that bad if Japan surrendered with own terms?
There are even hints ( that are not waterproof of course ) that the Japanese already surrenderd days before the bombs dropped, but the US-Gouvernment wanted them to surrender without conditions AND for the most important thing they wanted to test the bomb.
But even if alle this is totally untrue und all you guys are right to say that they killed less people with the bomb than hypothetically would have died during an invasion (which is by far not certain), do you feel comfortable by justifying the dropping of the bomb? Or do you do it only to soothe your conscience and try to convince yourself that everything was absolutely okay and well done?
Completely Unnecessary, and its good to see that the propaganda that every Japanese citizen was willing to fight, that we didn't fire bomb every city in Japan to the ground (except Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and the dropping was just a way to intimidate Europe and test the A-bomb on a metropolitan target. But I suppose the winners get to write history.
"Admiral William Leahy, top military aide to President Truman, said in his war memoirs, I Was There: "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." And General Dwight Eisenhower agreed."
"Admiral William Leahy, top military aide to President Truman, said in his war memoirs, I Was There: "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." And General Dwight Eisenhower agreed."
Dropping the bomb was never the ideal solution, but to allow Japan to keep it's military and oversea gains would have solved nothing. The war would only have stopped long enough for Japan to rebuild and start again. To truly win a war, you can leave no doubt in your opponents mind that they lost. We never really took that approach since then, which is likely a good thing (we didn't drop nuclear weapons on Korea as MacArthur wanted), but other than Korea and possibly Vietnam, the world hasn't known a major war that involved all of the world powers since.JayOwnAss said:
Actually Kyoto was thankfully untouched by the firebombings alongside with a few others (granted the others were atomic bomb targets so it was more so that they could gauge the destruction afterwards but hey.)HammerzArk said:
Good find on the quote.
Edit: oh and welcome to the Escapist.
if the bombs hadn't been dropped the world wouldn't have understood the horrible destructive power of nuclear weaponry, which would have made the Cold War more likely to result in actual conflict
Was it needed? No
Was it easier to do? Yes
A land invasion would have resulted in too many casualties on both sides, and a whole bunch of other crap that we don't want.
Letting them rot there would just bring the Russians in and then the USSR could have possibly spread there.
I would have supported a demonstration out at sea. They wouldn't have agreed, because it might have seemed too risky to waste millions of dollars.
Then, what I would have suggested, is drop the one on Hiroshima, and tell them they had 5+ bombs ready or in the process of getting ready, which was true. Enough to make anyone surrender.
Was it easier to do? Yes
A land invasion would have resulted in too many casualties on both sides, and a whole bunch of other crap that we don't want.
Letting them rot there would just bring the Russians in and then the USSR could have possibly spread there.
I would have supported a demonstration out at sea. They wouldn't have agreed, because it might have seemed too risky to waste millions of dollars.
Then, what I would have suggested, is drop the one on Hiroshima, and tell them they had 5+ bombs ready or in the process of getting ready, which was true. Enough to make anyone surrender.
The nukes where basically a show of force that made the japanese realize that things will 100% end badly so they surrendered. Without the use of the nukes an invasion would of been required and almost every civilian would of fought for every inch of soil resulting horrific loses on each side. The cost in human lives lost due to the nukes is a drop in the bucket compared to what a land invasion would of been.
No, they weren't needed to win, but they did, as many others pointed out already, shorten the war. The president of the era ok-ed their drop because letting the war continue could result in substantially greater losses than if the bombs weren't dropped at all.
That's also why the a-bomb has since then been considered a war crime.
That's also why the a-bomb has since then been considered a war crime.
Yes, The American land invasions would of been a blood ocean ( D-day, about twice as worst), the way they were fighting they would of literally fought to last Child capable of firing a weapon or wielding a sword ( if you don't believe me look up Japan WWII suicide weapons, second link). so in the end, more people would of died on both sides if we didn't nuke them.
They weren't required for the allies to win. The nukes were required to win quickly and decisively. It is a long winded debate that has raged for over 50 years.
Well, considering the War Cabinet was split 50/50, and they declared Martial Law to make sure people couldn't surrender, I think it's safe to say that they were preparing to put up one hell of a fight.HammerzArk said:
Oh, and speaking [http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/LordAzrael/Az/?action=view¤t=slanted.jpg] of propaganda, how's this?
The quote is a bit from the blog of an American who has been living in Japan for the last few years to help put the picture into context, as I found it from his blog.