Poll: were the nukes dropped on japan in WW2 really needed to win?

[Commissar Sae]

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.

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.

Oh, and speaking [http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/LordAzrael/Az/?action=view&current=slanted.jpg] of propaganda, how's this?

Taken from the Yasukuni War History Museum in Tokyo. I went through with one of my friends, and we had to laugh at just how slanted the whole thing was. Laugh, or cry over the absurdity. According to the text in the museum, the Japanese "expanded their defensive concerns" into Korea, helped "establish order and control" in China, and then were "forced into war" by the war-hungry American government. That whole Axis power thing is barely mentioned, and forget about trying to find anything that would portray the Japanese as something other than a peaceful people minding their own business in the Pacific. I mean, every country puts their own slant on history (while I learned that the American Revolution was a great act of freedom, I'm sure in Britain it's regarded as "those ungrateful little punks starting shit"), but the level of denial and disregard here was just outstanding.

This is actually why a lot of people are still really upset at Japan.

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.

The Yasukuni Shrine museum is basically the right wing propaganda center of Japan. It would be like looking for a historically and racially balanced view of the Holocaust in a museum run by neo-nazis. Their education on the war is generally a lot more balanced than the American one from what I've seen as an outsider to both sides. High school classes tend to discuss the Rape of Nanking and other atrocities commited during the war by Japanese troops, I can pretty much guarantee the majority of American schools don't talk about the huge amount of rapes commited by American GIs during the occupation.

 

[TheFinalFantasyWolf]

No, I don't think killing civilians is ever justified, even in war. I could understand defending your land in the midst of battle, but bombing towns filled with people who had no business in the war was just horrible.
We are not psychics, no one can really determine whether this prevented a longer and more bleak war, or not. Either way, I believe it was wrong, and an unnecessary approach.

 

[Merkavar]

they werent needed but it saved alot of lives like alot have already said.

 

[jumjalalabash]

We would have lost if it wasn't for the bomb.

The Japanese were fighting a hopeless conflict since Midway. They were going to lose with or without the bombs dropping.

 

[Sean951]

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.

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.

Oh, and speaking [http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/LordAzrael/Az/?action=view&current=slanted.jpg] of propaganda, how's this?

Taken from the Yasukuni War History Museum in Tokyo. I went through with one of my friends, and we had to laugh at just how slanted the whole thing was. Laugh, or cry over the absurdity. According to the text in the museum, the Japanese "expanded their defensive concerns" into Korea, helped "establish order and control" in China, and then were "forced into war" by the war-hungry American government. That whole Axis power thing is barely mentioned, and forget about trying to find anything that would portray the Japanese as something other than a peaceful people minding their own business in the Pacific. I mean, every country puts their own slant on history (while I learned that the American Revolution was a great act of freedom, I'm sure in Britain it's regarded as "those ungrateful little punks starting shit"), but the level of denial and disregard here was just outstanding.

This is actually why a lot of people are still really upset at Japan.

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.

The Yasukuni Shrine museum is basically the right wing propaganda center of Japan. It would be like looking for a historically and racially balanced view of the Holocaust in a museum run by neo-nazis. Their education on the war is generally a lot more balanced than the American one from what I've seen as an outsider to both sides. High school classes tend to discuss the Rape of Nanking and other atrocities commited during the war by Japanese troops, I can pretty much guarantee the majority of American schools don't talk about the huge amount of rapes commited by American GIs during the occupation.

No, we tend to avoid any moral question here in the states. Typically, we cover the facts (i.e. WWII started, America won, we used nukes) and then move on to the next topic. Though I must say, if Japan has been discussing the Rape of Nanking, then things have changed greatly in the last 10 years. I seem to recall them refusing to even publish it in books, or own up to it as a nation. The closest they have come was saying "it was war, shit happens."

 

[Commissar Sae]

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.

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.

Oh, and speaking [http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/LordAzrael/Az/?action=view&current=slanted.jpg] of propaganda, how's this?

Taken from the Yasukuni War History Museum in Tokyo. I went through with one of my friends, and we had to laugh at just how slanted the whole thing was. Laugh, or cry over the absurdity. According to the text in the museum, the Japanese "expanded their defensive concerns" into Korea, helped "establish order and control" in China, and then were "forced into war" by the war-hungry American government. That whole Axis power thing is barely mentioned, and forget about trying to find anything that would portray the Japanese as something other than a peaceful people minding their own business in the Pacific. I mean, every country puts their own slant on history (while I learned that the American Revolution was a great act of freedom, I'm sure in Britain it's regarded as "those ungrateful little punks starting shit"), but the level of denial and disregard here was just outstanding.

This is actually why a lot of people are still really upset at Japan.

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.

The Yasukuni Shrine museum is basically the right wing propaganda center of Japan. It would be like looking for a historically and racially balanced view of the Holocaust in a museum run by neo-nazis. Their education on the war is generally a lot more balanced than the American one from what I've seen as an outsider to both sides. High school classes tend to discuss the Rape of Nanking and other atrocities commited during the war by Japanese troops, I can pretty much guarantee the majority of American schools don't talk about the huge amount of rapes commited by American GIs during the occupation.

No, we tend to avoid any moral question here in the states. Typically, we cover the facts (i.e. WWII started, America won, we used nukes) and then move on to the next topic. Though I must say, if Japan has been discussing the Rape of Nanking, then things have changed greatly in the last 10 years. I seem to recall them refusing to even publish it in books, or own up to it as a nation. The closest they have come was saying "it was war, shit happens."

Yeah there was a big controversy over one history textbook glossing over the events there, but it was the least used of three textbooks in Japan and the other two discussed events in relative detail.

I am going to run into so many problems when I'm a history teacher...

 

[scott91575]

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 you should think about it this way....you have a country of your own people where millions of their sons fight in the military. Your foe attacked and killed civilians not only in the US but the atrocities in China, the Bataan Death March, etc. were well known. This is also a foe known to fight with suicide weapons, willing to kill themselves to the last man in the name of honor. So you have a choice, drop a weapon of mass destruction that has no alternative but kill civilians or continue to risk hundreds of thousands of your own country men so you can feel you have some moral ground.

Sorry, but not only was use of the atomic bomb justified but it was also moral. The US military at the time was full of just as many innocent people. Most were draftees, and were only part of the war machine thanks to an attack by the nation of Japan. They were in no way less innocent than the people that died during the atomic bombs, yet you would easily sacrifice them for supposed innocent civilians? I think you need to get off your high horse and re evaluate your so called ethics.

BTW...yes, it would have been bad if Japan surrendered under their own terms. It's sad to think you allow a militant government who committed countless atrocities continue to function under their own terms.

 

[Rems]

Need is a tricky word. Did they absolutely need to bomb Japan, no. Was it a course of action that would in the end result cause less casualties to both sides than a full scale invasion? Most likely. Conventional warfare would have procured a much higher number of casualties.

On the flip side the atomic bombings arguably kick started the atomic arms race between the U.S and the Soviets. While stalin knew of the atomic program he didn't know if the bombs would work or to what degree they would if they did. As such they would have been unlikley to invest in atmoic weapons technology had the U.S never showcased their potential. However had there been no arms race then perhaps the two super powers would have engaged in conventional war, resulting in millions of deaths.

Trying to play what if? with history is very hard, there are so many variables and events to consider.

 

[Ravenseeker]

yes and no. Yes if you wanted Japan, and in fact most of the world, to be like it is now. No if you want to see the population cut drastically.
If it had come down to a land invasion then the casualties would of been extremely high, for both sides. The Japanese were willing to fight down to the last man, woman, and child to delay the inevitable, while the allies had enough men to kind of equal things out. These high casualty rates, mixed with the US being prepared to send in everyone if need be, would cancel out or at least diminish the Baby Boomers generation's affect on the world population. More men lost in that fight=less babies being born next generation, which in turn leads to a dramatic change in world events. Yes the atomic bomb drops were awful, but it was probably one of the better solutions, rather than exterminating an entire ethnic group: the Japanese (or at least make them a very high minority in the world population) and the killing off of many lives needed for the baby boomers generation

 

[Sean951]

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.

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.

Oh, and speaking [http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/LordAzrael/Az/?action=view&current=slanted.jpg] of propaganda, how's this?

Taken from the Yasukuni War History Museum in Tokyo. I went through with one of my friends, and we had to laugh at just how slanted the whole thing was. Laugh, or cry over the absurdity. According to the text in the museum, the Japanese "expanded their defensive concerns" into Korea, helped "establish order and control" in China, and then were "forced into war" by the war-hungry American government. That whole Axis power thing is barely mentioned, and forget about trying to find anything that would portray the Japanese as something other than a peaceful people minding their own business in the Pacific. I mean, every country puts their own slant on history (while I learned that the American Revolution was a great act of freedom, I'm sure in Britain it's regarded as "those ungrateful little punks starting shit"), but the level of denial and disregard here was just outstanding.

This is actually why a lot of people are still really upset at Japan.

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.

The Yasukuni Shrine museum is basically the right wing propaganda center of Japan. It would be like looking for a historically and racially balanced view of the Holocaust in a museum run by neo-nazis. Their education on the war is generally a lot more balanced than the American one from what I've seen as an outsider to both sides. High school classes tend to discuss the Rape of Nanking and other atrocities commited during the war by Japanese troops, I can pretty much guarantee the majority of American schools don't talk about the huge amount of rapes commited by American GIs during the occupation.

No, we tend to avoid any moral question here in the states. Typically, we cover the facts (i.e. WWII started, America won, we used nukes) and then move on to the next topic. Though I must say, if Japan has been discussing the Rape of Nanking, then things have changed greatly in the last 10 years. I seem to recall them refusing to even publish it in books, or own up to it as a nation. The closest they have come was saying "it was war, shit happens."

Yeah there was a big controversy over one history textbook glossing over the events there, but it was the least used of three textbooks in Japan and the other two discussed events in relative detail.

I am going to run into so many problems when I'm a history teacher...

I do not pretend to know anything about Japan other than what I read in the news paper or have gathered from their brief mention in my history classes, which focused largely on Europe and China.

Although the Japanese government has admitted the acts of killing of a large number of noncombatants, looting and other violence committed by the Imperial Japanese Army after the fall of Nanking,[8][9] some Japanese officials have argued that the death toll was military in nature and that no such crimes ever occurred. Denial of the massacre (and a divergent array of revisionist accounts of the killings) has become a staple of Japanese nationalism.[10] In Japan, public opinion of the massacres varies, and few deny the occurrence of the massacre outright.[10] Nonetheless, recurring attempts by negationists to promote a revisionist history of the incident have created controversy that periodically reverberates in the international media, particularly in China, South Korea, and other East Asian nations.[11]

From the intro Wikipedia page. As far as I can tell, they still refuse to acknowledge it as more than your standard military action. Individuals have, including a porn star offering to sleep with people, though there is has been no official apology and the older generations, as I understand it, still say it never happened. Compare this to Germany, where denying the Holocaust is actually illegal.

Depending on how you approach the morals, this might not have been Japan's greatest crime of the war, either.

 

[Corewalker]

This may have been touched on, I haven't read the 100+ replies yet.
Why did Japan attack in the first place?

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

It wasn't needed to win, (by that point it was clear who was going to win the war in the Pacific no matter what) but it was preferable to a land invasion. Many Japanese citizens proved how fanatical they were when they committed suicide (taking their children with them) to avoid capture, and the Japanese government was literally handing out sharp sticks and ordering their citizens to go down fighting should the US invade. It's kind of hard to believe, but dropping the bombs really did end up saving lives.

Now, why we couldn't have just detonated the bombs safely off shore as a demonstration first, I don't know. Maybe it would have worked, maybe not. But it seems to me like it was at least worth a shot, especially considering the alternative.

EDIT: Well, now I know. We only had 2 bombs, and we had to make them count. And some other stuff that's been explained really well just a few posts down.

 

[scott91575]

This may have been touched on, I haven't read the 100+ replies yet.
Why did Japan attack in the first place?

They needed oil to fuel their war machine, and the US controlled much of the oil in the area. They didn't need oil to get from a to b. They needed oil in order to continue their imperialistic desires.

 

[Sean951]

It wasn't needed to win, (by that point it was clear who was going to win the war in the Pacific no matter what) but it was preferable to a land invasion. Many Japanese citizens proved how fanatical they were when they committed suicide (taking their children with them) to avoid capture, and the Japanese government was literally handing out sharp sticks and ordering their citizens to go down fighting should the US invade. It's kind of hard to believe, but dropping the bombs really did end up saving lives.

Now, why we couldn't have just detonated the bombs safely off shore as a demonstration first, I don't know.

If we had done that, the people wouldn't have known and this would have allowed the Generals who didn't want to surrender to stage a coup, removing the Emperor and the other 2 leaders who were pro-surrender. It would also be possible for Japan to claim that it was a new super weapon THEY had created and were testing, the the population would have believe it.


As for why... look no further than the 5:5:3 ratio of "allowed" ships as part of the treaty between Britain, the US, and Japan. They wanted to be treated like equals, we said no, then they invaded Asia for more land and oil, eventually attacking the US hoping to cripple us by taking out the carriers and eventually forcing us to accept an end to hostilities favoring them, likely with a greatly reduced US presence in the Pacific limited to Hawaii. Needless to say, we were very fortunate in that our carriers were all out at sea that day, and we able to go out and do very well, largely unsupported, while we rebuilt the fleet. The USS Enterprise is one of the greatest examples of what a properly commanded carrier is capable of.

 

[scott91575]

It wasn't needed to win, (by that point it was clear who was going to win the war in the Pacific no matter what) but it was preferable to a land invasion. Many Japanese citizens proved how fanatical they were when they committed suicide (taking their children with them) to avoid capture, and the Japanese government was literally handing out sharp sticks and ordering their citizens to go down fighting should the US invade. It's kind of hard to believe, but dropping the bombs really did end up saving lives.

Now, why we couldn't have just detonated the bombs safely off shore as a demonstration first, I don't know. Maybe it would have worked, maybe not. But it seems to me like it was at least worth a shot, especially considering the alternative.

The US only had two bombs, and the production of more would have taken another year or more. This of course was not known to the Japanese, but a "show" of their power could have backfired. Attacking industrialized areas was the most prudent course of action.

If there were more than two bombs I have no doubt they would have been used for show first, but since there were only two they had to be used in the most devastating manner.

 

[Commissar Sae]

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.

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.

Oh, and speaking [http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/LordAzrael/Az/?action=view&current=slanted.jpg] of propaganda, how's this?

Taken from the Yasukuni War History Museum in Tokyo. I went through with one of my friends, and we had to laugh at just how slanted the whole thing was. Laugh, or cry over the absurdity. According to the text in the museum, the Japanese "expanded their defensive concerns" into Korea, helped "establish order and control" in China, and then were "forced into war" by the war-hungry American government. That whole Axis power thing is barely mentioned, and forget about trying to find anything that would portray the Japanese as something other than a peaceful people minding their own business in the Pacific. I mean, every country puts their own slant on history (while I learned that the American Revolution was a great act of freedom, I'm sure in Britain it's regarded as "those ungrateful little punks starting shit"), but the level of denial and disregard here was just outstanding.

This is actually why a lot of people are still really upset at Japan.

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.

The Yasukuni Shrine museum is basically the right wing propaganda center of Japan. It would be like looking for a historically and racially balanced view of the Holocaust in a museum run by neo-nazis. Their education on the war is generally a lot more balanced than the American one from what I've seen as an outsider to both sides. High school classes tend to discuss the Rape of Nanking and other atrocities commited during the war by Japanese troops, I can pretty much guarantee the majority of American schools don't talk about the huge amount of rapes commited by American GIs during the occupation.

No, we tend to avoid any moral question here in the states. Typically, we cover the facts (i.e. WWII started, America won, we used nukes) and then move on to the next topic. Though I must say, if Japan has been discussing the Rape of Nanking, then things have changed greatly in the last 10 years. I seem to recall them refusing to even publish it in books, or own up to it as a nation. The closest they have come was saying "it was war, shit happens."

Yeah there was a big controversy over one history textbook glossing over the events there, but it was the least used of three textbooks in Japan and the other two discussed events in relative detail.

I am going to run into so many problems when I'm a history teacher...

I do not pretend to know anything about Japan other than what I read in the news paper or have gathered from their brief mention in my history classes, which focused largely on Europe and China.

Although the Japanese government has admitted the acts of killing of a large number of noncombatants, looting and other violence committed by the Imperial Japanese Army after the fall of Nanking,[8][9] some Japanese officials have argued that the death toll was military in nature and that no such crimes ever occurred. Denial of the massacre (and a divergent array of revisionist accounts of the killings) has become a staple of Japanese nationalism.[10] In Japan, public opinion of the massacres varies, and few deny the occurrence of the massacre outright.[10] Nonetheless, recurring attempts by negationists to promote a revisionist history of the incident have created controversy that periodically reverberates in the international media, particularly in China, South Korea, and other East Asian nations.[11]

From the intro Wikipedia page. As far as I can tell, they still refuse to acknowledge it as more than your standard military action. Individuals have, including a porn star offering to sleep with people, though there is has been no official apology and the older generations, as I understand it, still say it never happened. Compare this to Germany, where denying the Holocaust is actually illegal.

Depending on how you approach the morals, this might not have been Japan's greatest crime of the war, either.

Yeah thats one of the major problems with Japan and its war guilt. Most would rather forget it than keep bringing it up. I suspect that as long as there are still survivors from the conflict there will be no official apology from the Japanese government, and it is likely to take a while before that happens. I'd probably expect something akin to the recent Canadian apology for the Chinese head tax in the late 19th and early 20th century. Wait until everyone involved is dead before you say sorry. Most of what I know comes from about a years worth of studying Japanese history and politics in university, we had a some pretty major class discussions on these subjects and they form the basis for a lot of my points.

I agree that Germany has been considerably more progressive in its approach, but keep in mind that was only West Germany until recently, Holocaust denial was alive and well in East Germany and its only more recently being explored and quashed.

Keep in mind I have no interest in excusing Japanese War Crimes, some of the stuff I researched is pretty horrific by any standards. I mean the Shiro Unit are right up there with the greatest scum of humanity, but ultimately I think we're all human and that we should strive to be better than barbarians.

 

[Commissar Sae]

This may have been touched on, I haven't read the 100+ replies yet.
Why did Japan attack in the first place?

Mostly due to a US oil embargo they viewed as an act of war. Which in turn started as a protest against Japanese expansionism and war crimes in east Asia and the Pacific. Its actually pretty complex.

 

[Sean951]

It wasn't needed to win, (by that point it was clear who was going to win the war in the Pacific no matter what) but it was preferable to a land invasion. Many Japanese citizens proved how fanatical they were when they committed suicide (taking their children with them) to avoid capture, and the Japanese government was literally handing out sharp sticks and ordering their citizens to go down fighting should the US invade. It's kind of hard to believe, but dropping the bombs really did end up saving lives.

Now, why we couldn't have just detonated the bombs safely off shore as a demonstration first, I don't know. Maybe it would have worked, maybe not. But it seems to me like it was at least worth a shot, especially considering the alternative.

The US only had two bombs, and the production of more would have taken another year or more. This of course was not known to the Japanese, but a "show" of their power could have backfired. Attacking industrialized areas was the most prudent course of action.

If there were more than two bombs I have no doubt they would have been used for show first, but since there were only two they had to be used in the most devastating manner.

No, the US would have had 7-15 more by the invasion, and we had an additional 1-2 that would have been ready within the month. I believe they were fitting up the third bomb when they got the news that Japan had surrendered.

 

[tofulove]

needed to win, no. saved allot of time money and lives, yes. plus most of the cities were burned to the ground by than any ways with our low altitude fire bombings.

 

[tofulove]

This may have been touched on, I haven't read the 100+ replies yet.
Why did Japan attack in the first place?

Mostly due to a US oil embargo they viewed as an act of war. Which in turn started as a protest against Japanese expansionism and war crimes in east Asia and the Pacific. Its actually pretty complex.

the oil embargo was less than a act of war but more of a we have no choice to go to war. they needed oil for there war machine, we denied them said oil.