Were the Atomic drops at Nagasaki and Hiroshima justifiable or its insisted to show Stalin America prowess?

Question

I mean if America didn't take these opportunities drop on Japan, Stalin might press his army on to the western powers and even into Japan.

Answer 1

One fact that is always overlooked in the discussion on the Atomic Bombs is that the US knew the Soviet Union was going to declare war on Japan on August 8th. This was exactly 3 months after Germany surrendered, and that timetable had been agreed to at Yalta. Given that we knew the date on which the Soviet Union was going to enter the war, I think it's clear that the timing of the Bombs was intended to bring about Japan's surrender before the Soviet Union gained very much territory. As it was, the Red Army rolled over Manchuria, northern Korea, the Kurile islands, and the southern half of Sakhalin island, and obliterated the 1 million Japanese defenders there, in under 2 weeks. Even without the bombs, Japan might have surrendered then, but Stalin would have been in a much stronger position to influence the occupation of Japan. Had Japan not surrendered then, the Red Army had plans to invade Hokkaido in early September. Either way, Japan would have fared far worse. Because of the Atomic Bombs, Japan was spared being divided and partially occupied by the Soviet Union.

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 not war crimes, per the terms of Geneva convention then in effect. , 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 3

The historian Stephen Ambrose said in Europe it was cousin fighting cousin. In the Pacific theater it was completely different. The Japanese were not signatories to the Geneva Convention and openly abused POW's. They beheaded captured B-29 crews. You may call this justifiable, but it certainly was poor public relations.

Others have mentioned the estimated cost in American lives to achieve final victory. Also remember there were hundreds of thousands of American families who lost husbands, sons and fathers. There was rationing of many foods, shoes, gasoline and other stuff. I was alive when the bomb was dropped. I don't recall any tears being shed for the enemy.

You forget, after the war we turned the other cheek. There were no Neuremberg trials in Japan. The emporor lived and was treated with more respect than he deserved. Subsequent research showed that he was not the inactive diety as far as the conduct of the war was pursued. Only Tojo and a few others were hanged. We immediately started to make provisions for food, water, sanitary control, electricity, etc. If you think the Japanese would have done that for us were they victorious, you are in Lala land. If they had the bomb, they would have used it, too.

In the last few years, the Stalin issue has received a lot of emphasis. After the collapse of the Germans, he was moving large units eastward. He did grab a few islands belonging to Japan. Perhaps the a-bomb scared him off.

Answer 4

Justifiable, well yes and no. The belief at the time was that if Truman were to send another attack toward Japan, then there would be serious casualties on both sides. However, what we do know is that by dropping these weapons of mass destruction, he showed his power not only to Stalin, but to the entire world.

Answer 5

During the latter part of 1944 and early part 1945, American leaders realized that Japan will not surrender. During this time period the Japanese fought until most of them were killed.. American leaders were planning to invade Japan by force starting in the later part of 1945 through 1946. Truman decided to drop the bomb to save lives. The Japanese had over 1 million troops in the home islands.

Answer 6

No not at all. There simply is no way to justify dropping weapons of mass destruction on anyone. America did justify its actions as you say but the truth is Stalin had enough problems of his own in Europe (germany)even tho conflict there had ended, without the added burden of a second front. Also Russia had suffered greatly in resources and manpower and would not have been capable of an advance into Japan, especially with american forces already so close. The truth is if you have a new weapon you have to test it dont you!! and as the Japanese where thought of as less than human, even depicted as "monkey men" then why not after all they weren't people were they. Another point to back up the weapons test argument is that neither Nagasaki or Hiroshima were military targets, they were purely civilian cities with no military value. Makes you think dont it. Makes a mockery of Bushs excuse of going into Iraq to save people having weapons of mass desctruction used on them. So far america is the only country to ever use weapons of mass destruction on other human beings.

Answer 7

Remember what options that Truman had. He could invade Japan, and the cost by the planners was around one million on both sides, perhaps even more. A blockade in which thousands, or millions starve to death is inhuman as well. by which time thousands would have been killed by the Russians as well in their offensive against Japanese holding in Asia. Combine that with the knowledge of what was happening to the Soviet controlled part of Europe Truman wanted to end the war quickly. Another problem he had was the atomic bomb was untested, so no one was completely sure the bombs would actually work. I think Truman picked the best solution to ending the war as quickly and with as little dead as he could given the situation AT THE TIME!

Remember its easy to look back on history and say what should have been done, its harder when your actually there and have to make the decision.

Answer 8

Japan was already defeated, but was ready to fight to the death rather than surrender. Invading Japan to get that final surrender would have cost thousands of American lives and thousands of Japanese lives (both military and civilian).

The decision to drop the bomb was a decision in favor of a quick decisive end to the war. Yes, thousands of Japanese lives were impacted, but fewer died. More have died since of cancer, but that wasn't that well understood when they dropped the bomb.

By the way, Japanese civilians were ready to surrender. It just took the order from the Emperor, which could not be given without overwhelming reason, to let them do it.

As far as I know the decision to drop the bomb had everything to do with Japan and nothing to do with Stalin.

Answer 9

Of course they were justified the entire nation of Japan was ready and willing to fight to the last man, woman, and child. In the end it saved live by convincing the Japanese government to surrender rather than face total annihilation with no chance of fighting back.

Answer 10

I think it was a bit of both.

On one side, the US wanted to end the war in Japan as quickly as possible, if only to spare the lives of soldiers they would have lost in an island to island battle.

Then, you also have the warning to Stalin: "This could be YOUR city...don't try us."

Nice question.