"the americans were justifiably right in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Question

how far do you agree?

Answer 1

I've got mixed feelings about it since I was born in Nagasaki and my whole family had to go through that (my mom was 7 at the time) but have been an American citizen for many years.

Justifiably right? I'm not sure I consider the murder of tens of thousands of people and the anguish the survivors endured was justifiable, but certain things in war are deemed necessary evils, and the bombings did ultimately serve a purpose as Japan surrendered days later. While I am proud of my Japanese heritage, I will freely admit that in times of war, my people were known to be brutal.

Rather than go into a lengthy diatribe from here, I'll just say that I agree to an extent - but that all lives lost in that conflict, both "ours" and "theirs," should never be forgotten.

Answer 2

It's true we lost the moral high ground after use of the nukes on Japan, but looking at what Truman faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.

The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).

Not only did they finance Adolf, they supplied him with Zyclon B for use in the death camps. The American side of the company was not tried at Nuremburg, although they were just as culpable, go figure.
The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?

The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.

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.

Answer 3

Just to weigh in on this subject.
Absolutely correct, justifiable, and were I in President Truman's shoes at the time, I would most likely do the same.
Japan attacked US we did not attack them, we bent over backwards to try and avoid this war but Japan would not change it's plans of Asian conquest. Japan order #21 issued to Japanese troops in China was to kill women and children by sword or bayonet in order to save ammunition.
The Japanese were loosing the war but were not beaten. They were giving notice that prior to the bombings that unless Japan came to terms a terrible bombing would destroy a Japanese city. Japan ignored all warnings, and choose not to come to terms, 6 August 1945, Hiroshima was bombed, again they were asked to come to terms and again they refused, 8 August 1945, Nagasaki was bombed. Japan surrender on 14 August 1945, 6 days after the bombing. In-fact Truman was horrified at the effect of the bombings and the Japanese response to the bombings. He could not understand the die for the emperor mentality that the Japanese had.
The Germans were beaten, physically and mentally they were done with war for a long time. The Japanese were not. Two Atomic bombs wiped-out two large cities and they had to think about it for 6 days.

Answer 4

If people look at Hiroshima, It was a Naval base, That was the spot that the Yamato was built. The bomb was a choice between the death of Millions of US and British Servicemen and the entire population of Japan or a bomb that will level an entire city to the ground. What choice would you make? I'm glad the bomb was droped for two good reason.
My Father's Dad, 1st Wave to land on Japan
My Mother's Dad, 2nd wave to land on Japan

Answer 5

It was estimated at the time, because of the utter devotion to their Emperor and the Homeland, that the fanatical Japanese army and other forces would die in defending the same against an American invasion. Such an invasion was estimated to be a minimum of 1,000,000 dead Americans and at such a cost, Truman decided he would not pay that price, so he dropped the bombs in the hope that the war would end. It did.

Answer 6

We cannot look back at the past with the glasses of today, it taints our point of view. The Japanese were going to fight very hard if we invaded Japan. Truman was given a huge estimate of Allied losses, that doesn't include Japanese losses. For all its horror, the simple fact is back then civilian losses were part of war, something this generation has forgotten about war. The killing of innocents is nothing new in war.

Answer 7

At the time,Pres. Truman was told that an invasion of mainland Japan would cost us at least one million Allied lives. He chose to give the Japanese a symbol of utter destruction that they could culturally and psychologically surrender to. American newspapers and magazines were also somewhat responsible for this in that they were portraying the Japanese soldiers and people as baby killing savages who deserved no compassion at all.

Answer 8

Absolutely. The Japanese were stuck in a war mentality, and would have fought to the last man, woman, AND child had we opted for the invasion. Those two bombs woke the emperor up and made him realize that he could not continue to pursue his dreams of conquest. The jig was up. Not only did those two bombs end Japanese aggression, they saved far more lives than they destroyed.

Answer 9

One way to look at it is: "the lesser of two evils."

Considering the mentality of the japanese defenses, every soldier was prepared to die fighting, defending their homeland. Look at Iwo Jima for instance and the death tolls of that single battle that waged for over 60 days.

Many thousands of innocent japanese civilians died in the two bombings. however, many also died during the blaket bombing runs of industrial complexes. During world war II civilian casualties were simply an unfortunate reality of war unlike today where efforts are made to minimalize the death of noncombatants.

Many more innocents would die if american soldiers fought for japan city by city to the last standing japanese soldier. So either way history went, innocents were going to die by the thousands.

In fact, more innocent civilians would have died in a brutal land struggle than did in the 2 atomic bombings, not to mention the additional cost of american soldiers.

Truman decided to send the message to japan: we don't have to get involved in a land war for the japanese homeland. we can annilate your defenses, your soldiers, your cities, your infrastructure, your populace, your civilization with out ever having to jeapordize one american soldier's life.

The message was understood, and japan righty surrendered saving millions of lives on both sides of the war. was the bombing of entire cities justified? in the larger scheme of things, yes it was. those innocents died honorably sacrificing their lives for those of millions of countrymen and combatants. if there isn't a shrine to these unfortunate souls, there should be.

Answer 10

I agree totally. The bomb saved lives on both sides. The war may have raged on for months and the death toll would have been higher with conventional bombing and a land invasion of Japan may have been a disaster for the US.