English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-03-08 13:08:38 · 6 answers · asked by princess 1 in Arts & Humanities History

6 answers

It was not.

Historical revisionists and other second guessers all condemn the Allied use of the nuclear bomb, but they overlook the facts that influenced Harry Truman in his decision.

After the invasions of Okinawa, Saipan and Iwo Jima, it was obvious that the Japanese civilians were convinced they would be raped and killed, just as their troops had raped and killed civilians in their conquests. As a result, those who did not participate in suicide attacks committed suicide in horrendous numbers.

The casualties of an attack on the Japanese homeland was estimated by intelligence to be one million dead and wounded allied troops and ten million Japanese casualties.

The people who are opposed to the bomb forget that the Allies had been attacked, and after surrender their troops and civilians had been killed and/or abused. They forget the sneak attacks on Pearl Harbour, Hong Kong, Manila and a dozen other places. We were in a war, and the object was to bring our own men home with as little harm as possible.

An invasion of the Japanese mainland would also have cost more than ten Manhattan projects, and would quite likely have resulted in two years of digging troops out of tunnels with flamethrowers and grenades.

Any person who believes that would have been more humane, quicker, more civilized or cheaper is frankly uninformed and operating from a biased position.

2007-03-08 20:07:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Good question!

While the US did not invade Japan with ground soldier, it did attach it with the A-Bomb, which led to Japan total surrender and US occupation. The same result as an invasion, but much quicker results, and possible less casualties.

I believe war must be avoided at all costs, because of the suffering and destruction it brings. Sometimes, though, the pain of being attacked pushes war on people.

While I am not an historian, I have read this 500 page book on Japan last summer and understand better Japan and how it started occupying & invading a large part of Asia, to then attack the US in Pearl Harbour, which caused the US and its allies to declare war on Japan.

A few years later, Japan had effectively lost its control of Asia when it lost the Philippines, but the Japanese army and the Emperor still would not accept total surrender. To leave that government in place in Japan would give the signal that its acceptable to attack so many other countries to exploit them and control them, and would have left a bad political and military system in charge of Japan: Japanese citizens were not bad, but the system was bad.

The eventual occupation of Japan allowed the US to fix and improve the Japanese Government system, and allowed Japan to reach its full potential peacefully in the following decades. :) It's just very sad that many people had to die and suffer to get there.

Reading about Japan and its long history reveals that it is a great country with good people, but it had a bad era during the second world war. Japanese understood that, fixed their political problems and now play a much better role economically and politically in the world.

2007-03-08 13:32:23 · answer #2 · answered by The Goal Interceptor 2 · 1 0

When was the invasion of Japan the best course of action?? I remember my dad telling me over and over that in WWII, the atomic bomb was the only thing that saved thousands of his buddies and he from dying as they came ever closer to winning the war against the Japanese, so, from that standpoint, the invasion of Japan was not even close to the best course of action, unless you were a Jap. Maybe you're talking about a different war, or a cultural invasion, or something else. God Bless you.

2007-03-08 13:18:58 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 1 1

The US didnt invade mainland Japan in WWII, which is what I assume this question is about. They captured Okinawa, the big island south of the main Island, but they also lost 50,000 troops in the process. This is one of the main reasons nuclear weapons were used to end the war. An invasion of the mainland would be devestating to the allied armed forces.

2007-03-08 13:19:04 · answer #4 · answered by chris 4 · 1 0

uh, it never once. Much more people would have killed from soldiers both American and Japanese and Japanese civilians. and not just from battle also suicides. Many Okinawans committed suicide due to the propaganda put forth from the Japanese goverment about american troops. You would have had that on a grander scale had the Americans launched an invasion.

Or are you talking about the Mongol Invasions of the late 13th century?

2007-03-08 13:26:57 · answer #5 · answered by samurai_dave 6 · 0 0

I don'y know what teacher you have been talking to Princess but we never invaded Japan. We just occupied it after they surrendered in WW2. After THEY invaded: Korea, Manchuria(China) , Phillipinnes, Burma, Indonesia, etc etc etc. and we BEAT THEM BACK! They murdered MILLIONS of people.

2007-03-08 13:19:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers