Could WWII have been ended without the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagakaski?

Question

I am doing a debate in my AP history class and I am on the opposing side * The United States should NOT have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki* was the side we chose. If you have any points going against the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki drop a line here! :-)

Answer 1

They actually did not surrender after the bombs were dropped anyway. The surrender did not come until the Russians declared war on them. Everyone at the time was terrified of the Russian army (English fear of the Russians led to the terror bombing campaigns in some portions of Germany, specifically Dresden).

Answer 2

What made the atomic strike effective was that it was something that the Japanese high command couldn't understand. In January of that year we tried conventional aerial attacks on Tokyo, more people died there than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Because conventional bombing was something they understood it had no psychological effect on the Japanese High Command, they just carried on as usual. It must also be remembered there were only two of the things in existence, were couldn't afford to waste one on a warning shot that wouldn't have been believed. It took the loss of two cities to make the Japanese give up, and a key factor was the fact that didn't know how many more bombs we had. From a strategic standpoint, it was the way to end the war with the fewest casualties on both sides. I suppose you could argue that, rather than kill 800,000 people at Hiroshima and 400,000 at Nagasaki, it would have been more humane to invade, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of American lives to achieve the total destruction of the Japanese people and culture. You might also point out all the advantages the U.S. would currently enjoy if Japan had ceased to exist in '45. We wouldn't have any economic competition in the Pacific and no Japanese based industry or business anywhere.

Answer 3

Revisionist history has reverted the image of Japanese to the pre-World War 2 racist stereotype of pacifist small asian people and no threat to the rest of the world.

The truth of the matter is that Imperial Japan was a brutal, cruel and inhumane force in Asia, -Ask China, Korea or the Philipines about it.

They would not allow surrender unless it was on their terms, a right they had lost all moral claim to- considering how they treated Nanking or Manila, never mind countless other locations.

A long protracted island war would have brought countless other deaths, stretched the already tenous relationship with the USSR for the USA and weakened and bogged down the USA- leaving the USSR a free hand in a Western Europe ripe for communist take over.

Guilt should not motivate this debate- the japanese were inhumane in the execution of the War in the pacific- specifically their treatment and subjugation of other Asian Peoples- a denial they proudly carry on to this day.

Amazing that in the west we debate this, while being given mandatory reading of propaganda books like "Hiroshima" , while the rest of Asia wishes that 10 times as many Atom bombs had been dropped on japan.

Answer 4

No, it was necessary to drop both bombs. In the '70's when more military information about WW2 became declassified, a better picture of what Truman faced became clearer. "Magic" was the classified term used by the US military for radio intercepts and the breaking of japan's codes. The release of the complete (unredacted) "Magic" Far East Summary, supplementing the Diplomatic Summary, in the 1990s revealed that the diplomatic messages amounted to a mere trickle by comparison with the torrent of military intercepts. The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war. Several American historians have insisted vigorously that any assessment of the end of the Pacific war must include the horrifying consequences of each continued day of the war for the Asian populations trapped within Japan's conquests. It was calculated that between a quarter million and 400,000 Asians, overwhelmingly noncombatants, were dying each month the war continued. just look up "The Rape of Nanking"

Answer 5

Yes, you could, but the problem is the loss of life would have been much higher. IMHO you have the harder position to argue. You have to prove that not dropping the bomb would not result in an invasion. Its not an easy position considering that even after the dropping of the atomic bombs some high ranking officials still wanted to fight. Remember that conservative estimates of loss of life started at a million people. Also remember that more people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 6

Well the very reason the world war 2 ended was because of the bombing of hiroshima and nagakaski.

But did their war end with world war 2?

What did President Roosevelt by showing they have this powerful weapon and that is the question we have to ask ourself?

Still Hostilities exist in America.
There is no blinking at the fact that that the people, their territory and their interests are in grave danger. the very reason trying to bring the Eight corner of the World under one roof the very reson japanese went into war.

If they did not the japanese or the germans.
Now what if Japan dropped the bomb.

Answer 7

Yes it could have been possible the Japanese if warned and shown of the bomb they would have talked turkey about surrender. The big problem was that the Japanese never let their people know of how they were being defeated and they needed to know more of what the Allies had in place to destroy them so they could protest their government. The Allies should have done much more than they did to warn the people other than just dropping leaflets.

Answer 8

I think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still stands today as one of the most disgusting examples of human atrocity in history. It was totally unecessary.By August 1945, Japan had lost all its territory it had gained during the conflict and was bargaining for peace. Japan was no longer a threat. Sure Japan took part in its own share of arocities{The Rape of Nanking} but to purposely kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in this manner was totally uncalled for. Its not like the Japanese people were not already humiliated enough by having U.S. citizens of Japanese descent being held in internment camps.

Answer 9

They would have been defeated but the estimates were it would have cost between 1/2 to1 million allied lives, and I for one am glad they chose the path they did. Second, they were trying to surrender but they wanted to keep their essentially feudal and
militaristic system which in large part lead to the war in the first place. They had occupied China and Korea and most of the Pacific Rim and were committing all sorts of atrocities on those people and it needed to be stopped at all costs, but again I prefer that the cost be paid on their end not ours.

Answer 10

Only after an invasion ( as planned) on Japan Mainland, which would have resulted in hundres of thousands of lives being lost, civilian & military.
The bombs were absolutely necessary to bring WW2 to an end..

Answer 11

It would have ended, but much longer and much bloodier. The Allies would have had to invade Japan and move city to town, killing everyone. The Japanese were proud to fight to the death, like they did on all the little islands. Iwo Jima is a good example. 30+ days and very few Japanese survivors. Plus, if the Allies invaded Japan, women and children would have been in harms way. Sorry, this doesn't support your side of the debate