If you had asked most Americans in 1945 whether it was right or wrong to bomb Japan, you would have found overwhelming support for using the atomic bombs. That your school today tells you it was definitely "mostly wrong" says much more about our schools today than it does about U.S. history. Here are several arguments advanced by those who contend the atomic bombs were a necessary decision:
1) In early 1945, U.S. planes firebombed Tokyo in order to wipe out its war industry. In a single night, over 100,000 civilians (many of them producing war materials out of their homes) were killed or horribly burned. This conventional bombing attack was more destructive than either atomic bombing (though it was carried out by thousands of bombs, not just one bomb).
2) Japanese soldiers fought ferociously, in most cases to the death, at Okinawa and Iwa Jima in early 1945. Hundreds of Japanese civilians killed themselves by jumping off cliffs at Saipan rather than surrender to Americans. There is every indication Japanese defenders of the home islands would have fought just as fiercely.
3) At Okinawa, Japanese pilots by the hundreds were sent on suicide attacks (kamikaze), intentionally crashing their planes into American ships. The Japanese air force began mass producing cheap aircraft called "Sakura" (rose blossoms) that were flying bombs piloted by suicide soldiers. The Japanese battleship Yamato was sent on a suicide run on the high seas; most of her 4,000 crew died when she ran the gauntlet of U.S. naval aircraft. There is every indication the Japanese would have continued these tactics to defend their home islands.
4) The only Japanese home island that could be readily invaded was Kyushu. Original estimates of Japanese defenders gave available U.S. invasion forces (Operation Olympic) a numerical advantage. By mid 1945, however, the Japanese had heavily reinforced Kyushu with more troops. Whereas U.S. invaders outnumbered German defenders on the beaches on D-Day, had the U.S. actually invaded Kyushu they would have been badly outnumbered by Japanese defenders. Some military historians suggest a Kyushu invasion would have failed, with heavy American losses. Even had U.S. forces won at Kyushu, had they suffered the same casualty rates as American forces did at Okinawa, that would have yielded at least 50,000 killed and 150,000 wounded. And Kyushu was just one of four Japanese home islands.
5) Even after Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, most of the Japanese governing cabinet opposed surrender. Only after the second atomic bomb against Nagasaki on August 9 did the Emperor and some of his advisors decide surrender was necessary.
6) Diehard militarists in the Japanese government opposed surrender even after Nagasaki. Emperor Hirohito recorded a surrender message to be played all over Japan radio announcing surrender. That night, a group of Japanese officers attempted a coup to seize the Emperor and prevent him from surrendering. The coup was narrowly defeated by palace guards.
THE OVERALL ARGUMENT: Japan was not on the verge of surrendering in 1945. Even after two atomic bombs, much of the Japanese government would have preferred fighting to the death. Had atomic bombs not been used and had U.S. troops invaded the Japanese home islands instead, there is a real chance the invasion would have been defeated. Even had the invasion been success, at least 200,000 (some military historians argue closer to 500,000) would have been casualties. Furthermore, there is every indication that Japanese defenders would have fought a bloody guerilla insurgency against U.S. occupying forces. Arguably, the power of the atomic bombs convinced the Emperor to order surrender, thereby convincing most Japanese not to resist the American occupation.
2007-03-22 11:18:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Prof Scott 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
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.
2007-03-22 13:26:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You mean the U.S. bombing campaign against Japan during World War II? The U.S. was forced into that war by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Bombing Japan was an absolute strategic imperative, and it hastened the Allied victory tremendously. Where'd you hear that it was "mostly wrong?" That bombing campaign wasn't mostly wrong, or even partly wrong. It saved A LOT of lives, Allied as well as Japanese.
2007-03-22 11:16:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is an argument that states that trying to occupy the Japanese mainland to force a surrender would have cost more lives-American AND Japanese, than the Atomic Bombing. In fact the atomic bombs weren't even the worst bombing the Japanese sustained. The United States firebombed them before that, which caused much greater casualties and destruction.
2007-03-22 11:04:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by outlaw_tattoo_biker 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Karma - both Japan and Germany set events in motion by starting wars with nations who were relunctant to fight at first. Though Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were terrible affairs one could say it was KArma coming back on them for beginning this cycle of destruction. And both were guilty of horrible crimes against humanity such as the Holocaust and the Nanking massacre.
The Japanese way of fighting in WWII was fight to death or as long as you can then kill yourself. Dying for the Emperor was seen as the greatest thing you could do. There's a vast number of reports of Japanese soldiers and civilians killing themselves with grenades which could have been thrown at the enemy. Had the US invaded Japan, it would have been a bloody mess with fierce fighting and massive suicides that would have dwarfed the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
In a way the atomic bombings allowed Japan to save some face by giving them no choice but to surrender due to the powerful weapon possessed by America. The threat of invasion and its bloody aftermath was not enough to make them surrender.
2007-03-22 15:33:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by samurai_dave 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
They saved more lives than they killed, and spared Japan over 50 years of being divided and partially occupied by the Soviet Union.
2007-03-22 11:04:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Captain Hammer 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Start from here.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=951
Was it right or not? I don't care. it was all about political matter.
2007-03-24 03:46:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Joriental 6
·
0⤊
1⤋