do you think this is justified?

Question

Do you think Truman's reasons for dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified?

Answer 1

Yes, it was either that or invading the mainland, which was codenamed Operation Downfall.

Operation Downfall consisted of two parts — Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in November 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island of Kyūshū, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. Later, in the spring of 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kantō plain near Tokyo on the Japanese island of Honshū. Airbases on Kyūshū captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.

Japan's geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese as well, who were able to accurately deduce the Allied invasion plans and adjust their defense plans accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties, and tens of millions for Japanese casualties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall

Answer 2

Yes without a doubt,

Japan was a fight to the last man force. Just look at iwo jima and other battles where almost no prisioners were taken becuase they either fought till death or commited suicide.

Japan was ruthless in the defense of islands that they occupied just think how they would have defended their motherland and actual soil, It would have been a bloody battle that would have cost more lives on both sides than were lost in the entire campain to that date.

The bombs forced japan to surrender with the least loss of life.

By the way dont think the 200k lives lost in the bomb droppings is that huge.

Japan killed far more civilians in one town alone prior to us getting involved in the war. They were ruthless and murdered many civilians during the war

there is a city in china called nanking it was the capital at the time. When japan invaded the town they slaughtered over 300k civilians in a few months there. They cut babies out of the mother wombs and threw the babies in the air and caught them on bayonetes.

The had contest to see who could chop the most people's heads of in the shortest time.

They machine gunned so many people that the bodies made a dam in the local river.

Read the link and see if you think a invasion of the actual island of japan would have been a better option

Answer 3

Without a doubt. Defeating the Japanese army the traditional way would have taken several more years, and cost perhaps millions of more lives. The bombs ended it quickly, and with far less loss of life, than had the war continued.

And FDR never would have had the balls to drop the bomb!

Harry Truman, the last great Democrat President!

Answer 4

When someone asks about the actions of a military ipso facto, they are treading into dangerous waters. People need to know if what was done was right. When there is a life and death struggle, only in this case on a global scale, there is no time to start up the PR machine and justify why something did or did not happen. A lot of terrible things happened during WW2, but what allowed us to win was not asking “how will people see this in 50 years?”, but “does it need to be done?” and let it be at that.

Answer 5

Yes. Before we dropped the bomb Japan was taking women and children in the cities and training them with sticks to attack the invading Americans. We saw this anytime we took one of the Japanese held islands the civilians would commit mass suicide. The only we could stop the war quickly and minimize the loss of life was to terrify Japan into surrender. War is never pretty but id rather a few hundred thousand die then millions in banzai rushes on our troops. Also the Japanese govt told the Americans that as soon as we set foot on there mainland they would execute all American POW's. They never should have attacked us and woken the sleeping giant that we were. Shock and Awe works best.

Answer 6

It's like anything else.... compared to what? If you look at Europe, was the fire bombing of Dresden (which actually killed as many people as the ABomb) justified?

It is also asking after the fact when hind-sight is always 20/20. At the time, it was probably the best way to go.

Answer 7

Yes. It saved millions of lives. Japanese and Allied.

My Grandfather was in the occupation of Japan. His first job in Tokyo was to man a check point where all these "civilians" had to turn in their government issued weapons. The Japanese government armed all those civilians. They had truck loads of weapons every day for weeks when he first got there. People like Asylum above me do not understand what we were facing back then.... the near genocide of the Japanese people if we had been forced to invade.

Answer 8

If the bombs weren't dropped, it was estimated the war would drag into 1948, and there would be approx 250,000 more American casualties., plus many Japanese casualties.
The Japanese had many opportunities to surrender. They refused.
Yes. it was justified.

Answer 9

Yes. Japan's military had been crippled so badly by that time that they encouraged their pilots to be suicide bombers. Japan needed overwhelming evidence, provided via the nuclear bombs, that they should surrender instead of hope for victory through their insanely desperate tactics.

Answer 10

Yes, he knew that millions would die in the invasion of Japan. That also included the Japanese whose fanatical system would have had every man, womean and child die for the Emperor, rather than surrender