Are you Americans really sure that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is justified?

Question

I am writing this from Japan.
I know you Americans are all taught in schools that a-bombing had served as the means to end the war and saved the lives of the people who might have died if the war continued.
But there were other alternatives like dropping the atomic bombs on uninhabited islands instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 1

I am Japanese and was educated in the US, and honestly I have never had a teacher or professor tell me that the bombing of those cities was justified. Every teacher I have had said that it was a monstrous and violent act against humanity and not to be used under any circumstance. Most of the history books include photos of the shrine, the cranes or victims. We will hang our heads in shame for all of eternity for the bombing deaths of those innocent people. I think you have been under the wrong impression that we support it. The politicians at the time it was decided are the only ones who ever supported it. The rest of us understand the murderous nature of it and will do anything we can to prevent another bombing in the future. Americans for the most part are in love with Japanese culture. I am admired for my heritage. Lots of Asians come to me for advice and assistance so they have forgiven the Japanese too. There are cultures who have a right to view the Japanese as monsters but they have chosen to forgive. Spread the word that bombing civilians is never to be done again, and be willing to fight for the protection of others!!

Answer 2

Acts of War are hardly ever justified. It's the end result that matters, in this case the end of the war which it helped accomplish. It's true that Japan was "ironed out" as you say but the fact that it took two bombs too bring about a surrender should tell you that they were having no thoughts of giving up. In fact even after the war had ended there were still some Japanese hidden throughout the Pacific who still fought to preserve the honor of Japan. This went on to the 70s. Surrendering was considered to be the most disgusting thing a person could do, Japanese or not, if you surrendered then you did not deserve an honorable death. They made this point across to their prisoners and to the civilians they encountered in China. I can't say that the Atomic bombings were justified, but I do believe that they did bring about a cleaner end to the war. When people are driven to a state of war they go insane, and the only thing insane people can be influenced by is Shock and Awe.

Answer 3

Just like Japan had a choice not to attack the U.S, the U.S. had a choice not to bomb those cities. However, both did not choose those alternatives because they were greedy. Greedy enought to think that they were superior than others and that they had right to occupy and control other countries.

Not attacking the U.S would have result in giving up occupation of other Asian nations, which Japan could not accepted at that time. Not using atmic bombs would have resulted in letting Soviet Union have more power in Japan and China after the War.

I am a Japanese humanist, and I believe any inhuman acts should not be justified. I also don't belive the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were caused only by the U.S. The victims of those cities knows that. That's why the memorial in Hiroshima says "We never do the same mistakes," -- mistakes caused by humans' greed.

Answer 4

I am writing this from Taiwan. Yes, the island the Japanese occupied from 1895 - 1945. Yesterday I answered the same question - "Was America justified in using the atomic bombs?" It appears we are in the middle of a historical propaganda war. I would say the Japanese propaganda has been quite effective in making many Americans question their past actions. However many Americans remain steadfast in supporting the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a way to end the war and save lives - both American and Japanese.

Since I have the eyes, ears, and brain of someone from Japan, I would like to ask - Are you Japanese really sure that the invasion and occupation of Burma, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam from 1931 - 1945 was justified? I am not sure what the Japanese are taught in their schools, but the invasion and occupation of those countries resulted in the deaths of more civilians than those that died at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Did Japan not have another alternative to develop it's "Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" than the invasion and occupation of those Asian nations? I would like to read your reply.

Answer 5

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. That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Answer 6

Japan would have been utterly decimated if we had to invade,
and I believe many more lives would have been lost on both sides if that had happened. Japan was an extremely militaristic society at that time and dropping the bomb would have been played down as theater rather than as reality and therefore would have had no effect. Also thank you for the Pearl Harbor reference, why didn't Japan just drop some flour bombs or something just as a demonstration? Germany and Japan were working on their own bombs but they didn't get it to work, and I have no doubt what so ever that if they had gotten the bomb first they sure as s--t would have used it.

Answer 7

Yes. Your military at the time was trained to fight to the death a very un-western way and a way we are not use to fighting. We would have had very high casualties and the war would have been extended for years thats something after fighting for 4 years and thousands of our own casualties the American people wouldnt support. While I hate and I really do see all those innocent people lose their lives I think dropping a bomb on an un-inhabited island wouldnt have stopped your leaders at that time. That and your military was very close to development of an atomic bomb its self. So yes I think it saved lives on both sides can you imagine over 1 millions US troops trying to invade the mainland of japan at the time it would have been a total mess for both sides. And yes it was 1 million troops they had drawn up for our invasion plans. So yes I think it was justified.

Answer 8

The sacrifice of a few to save many more lives in war has always been justified. But let me turn this around on you: was the attack on Pearl harbor, or on mainland China, or the prison camps run by Japan justified? Let us not forget had it not been for your country's leader and military, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would never have happened. So before you blamee us "Americans", the blam falls on your own people. They brought it upon you by attacking us.

Answer 9

Had your empire "the Japanese empire" not surrendered and a land invasion was required, many 100's of thousands of both Japanese and Americans would have died. I believe the end results would have been the same only with 100's of thousands more deaths on both sides.

If after the first bomb and seeing the results japan still did not surrender, what make anyone think bombing a different island would have convinced Japan to surrender??

Answer 10

It was fully justified! My only regret is that so many Americans at Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima, The Philippines, Midway, and so many other places had to die for the cowardice act committed by Japan!

War, and the results of war are never good. But don't point fingers at the US for a war your country started and we finished!

Pearl Harbor was attacked without warning, the US warned both cities of the impending attack!

Answer 11

In Japan do they teach you that invading China was necessary, or that killing over 200,000 civilians and disarmed military was necessary, torturing and killing prisoners, raping women and girls and keeping them in "comfort houses" so they can service the Japanese Army, attacking countries without declaring war first, and running wild in the Pacific for years before being beaten back to your own country where if we had invaded your loses would have been 100 times greater because you were teaching civilians to fight in the streets with bamboo swords? Maybe you should concentrate on writting correct history books instead of making excuses for past wrongs that we are not responsible for.