People question the dropping of Atomic bombs,what about 300.000 Chinese killed in the Massacre of Nanjing?

Question

I 'm not talking about revenge,also feel sorry for the cilivans killed by the two Atomic bombs,but think about how they tortured,murdered POW and inocent civilians.So far ,seems like no one knows The Massacre of Nanjing,they took away 300.000 lives included women,children,how they raped the women and cut open their stomach,how they raised their knife with the children on it and the race of chopping human heads down.I'm not trying to bring hatred here but just don't understand why so many people question the correct decision by president Truman.

Answer 1

The person that said that the dropping of the atomic bomb ended the war is not really true. it just shortened the war, the japanese were losing already, although they did have a couple of days between hiroshima and nagasaki to think about if they should surrender or not. See the japanese deem themselves superior towards other races, they still probably do believe that they could be able to win the war. the fierce fight put up at Okinawa just shows how crazy they are. now the massacre of nanjing? you mean the rape of nanking. most people know it is the rape of nanking. that massacre was brutal, my dad's family was actually living in nanjing at that time but was fortunate enough to flee into the suburbs and hide there. the japanese were absolutely ruthless and nobody isnt saying that we aren't holding the japanese accountable for the horrible activity that they done. the dropping of little boy and fat man was not justified regardless of what the japanese did. the americans understood that the japanese were losing in the war and they probably would have surrendered because the americans were able to launch an invasion on the actual main islands of japan. also a lot of people agree that Truman dropped the atomic bombs on the two cities to intimidate the Soviet Union too. this just shows how much distrust was going on back then. everyone should also take note that the japanese are manipulating their history textbooks making them bias and making it seem like the japanese were victims of the world war. and i am still offended when the japanese prime minister prays at the yasukuni shrine.

i'm so glad someone actually takes note of the rape of nanking, virtually no one at my school even knows what it is. bravo!

Answer 2

You both ask an interesting question and make a good point. It isn't so much a question of revenge for Nanjing as the sad realitization that a society that could sanction the rape of Nanjing had to be destroyed. Imperial Japan, like Nazi Germany, had to die and such cultures will never be brought down by harsh words and economic boycotts, but would only perish by the sword. It seems that Japan has never fully come to grips with its actions during the last century, unlike America which agaonizes over them on a daily basis it seems, and to most Japanese World War Two and the events leading up to it, don't really exist.
I've spoken with some who bemoan the terrible nature of any war, I agree that war is a terrible thing, but they then go on to say that there is nothing that is ever worth fighting a war over. If you ask them if that means that the Nazi Holocost should have gone on without interuption or if slavery should still exist they pretend that they don't understand the question but at some level they must undersatnd the truth of the matter and that is that no amount of economic sanctions or League of Nations Resolutions would have had any real impact. War was the civilized worlds only recourse. In fact, Japan's sneak attack upon America at Pearl Harbor was a result of American economic sanctions over Japan's actions in China. So it can be said that peaceful economic meaures taken by America were answered by Japan with bombs and torpedos. The proposed invasion of the Japanese home islands, Operations Olympic and Coronet, were expected to cost over half a million American lives and as many as five million Japanese, mostly civilian, lives. President Truman made the only descision that he could and it will have to be for a more enlightened time, more realistic and less moralistic fantasy, to appreciate that.

Answer 3

Truman didn't drop the bombs as a form of retribution. He wanted to end the war ASAP. At the time though probably about 150000 Asians a month were dying at the hands of the Japanese. Obviously allied servicemen were dying, POWs and civilian internees were dying, not to mention the Japanese who were dying.

Even if we accept that Japan was preparing to surrender in the summer of 1945 (which is debatable) the Japanese would have felt that an invasion would not come before the end of typhoon season. So the earliest a surrender would have come is late October. Therefore anyone who can do math can see that the atomic bombs saved lives.

Answer 4

The people who question the validity of the decision by President Truman to drop the two atomic bombs that effectively ended World War II prefer to live off the guilt of the victor. The "Rape of Nanking" itself pales in comparison to some of the vicious attacks perpetrated by mankind for no apparent reason other than animal cruelty or power grabbing. 300,000 Chines died at the hands of the Japanese at Nanking but 10-30 million Chinese died at the hand of Chairman Mao during his poorly named "Great Leap Forward" aimed at developing the infrastructure of China.

However, from the perspective of those who find fault with taking lives in order to save countless others, there is no justification for helping oneself (saving American and Japanese lives by killing several Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki). It is indescribable stupidity and poorly directed criticism.

Answer 5

It seems warfare should be restricted to those who have chosen the military as their career. Otherwise, perhaps this is barbaric, inhumane and ungodly.

The atom bomb is terrible weapon. It kills indiscriminately. The atom bomb also leaves deadly radiation lingering in the atmosphere. This deadly radiation may even drift hundreds of miles by air or water.

I don't know about the political issues.

Answer 6

The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized, and if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 7

The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war and saved the lives of perhaps 300,000-600,000 Americans. War is hell but I want the lives of Americans saved and that was accomplished in addition to ending the suffering of millions enslaved by the Japanese empire. Sorry but I feel absolutely no guilt over the events of August 1945.

Answer 8

All nations are capable of cruelty especially armed forces when they are given unlimited power.

Answer 9

What does one thing have to do with the other?????

Two wrongs do not make a right.


But three lefts do.

Answer 10

I can answer all the questions I want. How bout that?