There was no good reason for dropping Nukes on Japan during WW II

We've all heard the standard excuse for why the US "had" to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II; it supposedly saved hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of American lives that would have been lost during an invasion of the mainland because the Japanese were ready to fight door to door with the entire civilian population ready to fight to the death against us.

That explanation is a load of bull. The fact is; the Japanese were ready to surrender long before the atomic bomb attacks and were just looking for a way to save face in defeat. It was the US demands of "unconditional surrender" and that they depose their emperor that were the biggest sticking points.

In the end, even after the atomic bombs dropped, the Japanese were allowed to maintain the Emperor and surrendered on much the same terms they were offering before the bombs dropped.

The best evidence that the use of nukes was unwarranted comes right from the mouths of our military commanders in the field at the time. Eisenhower, and MacArthur, along with a host of other military leaders and even the assistant secretary of war protested against the use of the bomb at the time.

This quote from Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War pretty well sums up the leadership's assessment of the necessity of using the bomb on Japan to end the war.

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.

The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

BLN

That article contains quote after quote from high ranking military leaders of the time who all thought there was no justifiable reason to use the bomb against Japan. They saw no tactical, political or any other advantage to its use and most saw it as the ultimate act of barbarism.

The real reason why the bomb was used may have been more political; to send a message to the Russians that we had the bomb and were ready to use it as relations with the Soviets soured toward the end of the war.

In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.

The destruction of two Japanese cities at the end of World War II had nothing to do with enticing the Japanese to surrender; it was a show for the Soviets and the first shot in the Cold War to warn them that we had the bomb and were unscrupulous enough to use it on innocent civilian populations.

Millions of Japanese died needlessly to send a message to a nation that was still our ally at the time. The atomic bombing should be seen as one of the greatest war crimes in the history of mankind.

It was us or them and I'm glad it was them. They had numerous chances to surrender and they didn't. They brought it upon themselves with their stubborn attitude.

They shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor. Perhaps we wouldn't have been so ruthless if they had thought twice about attacking us in such a fashion.

Older Americans have NOT FORGOTTEN.

Too bad that the dropping of the bombs is what led to the Cold War

In my opinion, the dropping of the bombs should be considered as a war crime. But, when was the last time the USA got done on War Crimes

What is interesting though, is that Japan could have had the last laugh. They had their "super weapon" deployed at the time of the bomb dropping. They had kick arse submarines which could launch planes which were equipped with biological weapons. They were going to his the US with them, but didn't in the end. They instead destroyed their submarines, so the US would not find out.

My grandfather used to tell me stories of the Japanese rushing tanks after they ran out of ammo committing suicide with samurai swords. Also the Japanese were crashing planes into ships because suicide is a huge part of their culture. And ur claim is that they were rdy to give up??? They didn't even give up after the first bomb was dropped. How can u claim with such certainty that dropping the bomb was such a bad decision and less live we're lost including innocents.

Sry about my grammar had to reply with my phone.

Originally posted by FortAnthem


The destruction of two Japanese cities at the end of World War II had nothing to do with enticing the Japanese to surrender

Do you even understand what normal incendiary bombs dropped by B-29's did to Japan, and it's civilians? That is just as horrific, and was never truly meant to devastate the military. Our usage of strategic bombing was meant to shock the leadership and the civilian population into surrender, end of story. It had no military advantage, at all. The Germans, actually increased war production under the weight of the strategic bombing in Europe. It did nothing to curb national production of war material.

The usage of the atomic bomb is just an extension of what was already happening during WW2, and any military leader that was shocked to see it used was blind to what normal strategic bombing was already doing.

Check this website out:

www.ditext.com...

reply to post by JDmOKI

Your grandfather knew what youngsters today don't. He lived it. Never forget what he told you about history because there are a lot of people trying to rewrite the truth and to bury it.

Originally posted by PrplHrt
It was us or them and I'm glad it was them. They had numerous chances to surrender and they didn't. They brought it upon themselves with their stubborn attitude.

They shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor. Perhaps we wouldn't have been so ruthless if they had thought twice about attacking us in such a fashion.

Older Americans have NOT FORGOTTEN.

Your sir, obviously do not understand the Japanese culture.

It was pride which was driving them on. They weren't stubborn, although i can see why you would interpret it as such. You are blind to other cultures...

reply to post by daaskapital


More like fear of their war crimes

It's a historical fact that the dropping of two nuclear devices upon Japan did not serve to defeat Japans military or industrial might. Japan was already preparing a message of surrender. It was a warning shot over the Russians bow to show them their place. The Pentagon was already planning on a war with Russia at that point of time.

The main reason for dropping the bombs was to show the world what the U.S. was capable of, and the bombs quite effectively sealed Japan's defeat in World War II. Barbaric is what happened in China and the Philipines, and the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only real consequences for Japan's attrocities of war, the overwhelming defeat seems far more than just. It is no secret that Japan was seeking its own nuclear weapons program, and Japan had created a far superior close range delivery program- so we can sit here with the benifit of hindsight and cast aspersions, but there is no way of knowing what the outcome would have been had the U.S. not dropped the bomb.

The equivalent number of people were killed by British incendiarys at Dresden.We COULD have dropped it on TokyoTe Maps could have surrendered after 1st drop but no...

Originally posted by JDmOKI
reply to post by daaskapital

 

More like fear of their war crimes

The way the Japanese viewed their enemies, they had no fear of war crimes. What they did to those who would not fight, or those who surrendered, was justifiable to them by their culture at the time. Of course it was horrible, but the fact that a lot of Japanese refuse to see it as such today, tells you a lot.

Every country did something horrible during the war. Whether or not you think it's justified...well...that is really irrelevant. Every country was covered in blood and shame of what it had done, during the war. That is war.

reply to post by PrplHrt


Gah just think about invading the homeland of people who live by the way of the samurai. U think suicide bombing is bad....

Originally posted by JDmOKI
reply to post by daaskapital

 

More like fear of their war crimes

Both sides committed war crimes, so i do not see where you are coming from. I'm sure if the USA was out in the same position, it would have fought to the end...

reply to post by daaskapital

You don't know anything about me. I respect many cultures including the Japanese. Their cuisine happens to be my favorite.

I'm not going to derail this thread defending myself. You should carefully consider what you say to other people here. You don't know who you're talking to.

reply to post by daaskapital


In my opinion it wasn't as much pride as it was blindly following the Emperors will.

The Japanese did regard the Emperor as a divine being, and his will was holy. Some may call that pride, I call it brainwashing par excellence.

The apologists for Japan are busy trying to rewrite history. if Japan had wanted to surrender it could have surrendered anytime up to the first bomb being dropped, then they could have surrendered before the 2nd one was dropped, but even after the 2nd bomb was dropped there was a attempt at a coup by some in the military, and only the emporer stepping in and demanding a surrender did Japan surrender. The USA was also getting ready to keep dropping them until Japan did surrender.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets, something else the apologists ignore.

reply to post by hellobruce

They also ignore the fact that Kyoto was selected as a target and then taken off the list because it was considered sacred by the Japanese.

We owned the seas surrounding Japan, and the skys above. We clearly would have won without dropping the atomic bombs using conventional weapons, such as the big naval guns, along with bombers high above. Ground troops would not have been necessary as all military targets could have been taken out without the indiscriminate mass killing of the population, which consisted of a high percentage of childern and women.

That said, the Japenese military command brought this on themselves when they commited the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor; however many of the civilians paid the ultimate price instead of the military hierarchy.

Originally posted by lunarcartographer
We owned the seas surrounding Japan, and the skys above. We clearly would have won without dropping the atomic bombs using conventional weapons, such as the big naval guns, along with bombers high above. Ground troops would not have been necessary as all military targets could have been taken out without the indiscriminate mass killing of the population, which consisted of a high percentage of childern and women.

What war has ever been won without ground troops occupying another country it is at war with?