SURVEY: Do you believe the using of the atomic bomb during WWII was justified?

[MiKT]

How can we second guess decisions made back then really?

We can assess facts but not states of mind.

Seems to me most people just want to use this thread isnt much more than people exercising their 2015 bias'

Well Thai Visa wasn't invented back then. But I can assure you that very few people in the 1940's were against ending the war with the A bombs. However, I think this has for the most part been a very objective post. We can see that most people understand the history and the decisions that led up to dropping the bombs. But I would think that very, very few would agree with using them again except in really dire circumstances that we All hope never arise. Long live the MAD.

[sirineou]

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

I don't know enough about the historic details and had accepted that they would not surrender, you say the sticking point was the status of the emperor but doesn't that still mean they would not surrender? You said they were desperately trying but come on, how much do you have to try to surrender? Also if they were so ready why did it take 2 bombs before they did?

a lot of information concerning this on the internet and elsewhere

This makes interesting reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

The emperor aside from being a governing entity, the emperor had religious significance to the Japanese people,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/shinto/history/emperor_1.shtml

The Americans insisted on the removal of the emperor an his trial as a war criminal as a condition for surrender know that this condition would be unacceptable to the Japanese , The British were of the opinion that the Emperor is retained. There are those who say that the insistence of the Americans to remove the Emperor was a delaying tactic to give them time to drop the bombs and as a warning to the Russians

After the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered and the Japanese were allowed to keep the Emperor

You draw your own conclusions.

The first serious meetings of the Emperor of Japan and his cabinet about surrender took place on August 10th. Two bomb had already been dropped. The discussions by the Americans about the fate of the Emperor took place after August 10th and after both bombs had been dropped. Sorry it was not a delaying tactic as the bombs had already been dropped.

The History of Nuclear War I: How Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastated by ... By John Richard Shanebrook Page 154

"the Potsdam Declaration, defining "Unconditional Surrender" and clarifying what it meant for the position of the emperor and for Hirohito personally. The American and British governments strongly disagreed on this point—the United States wanted to abolish the position and possibly try him as a war criminal, while the British wanted to retain the position, perhaps with Hirohito still reigning. The Potsdam Declaration went through many drafts until a version acceptable to all was found."

"On July 26, the United States, Britain and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

August 6th the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima

September 2 1949 Japan formally surrender, but the allies , notably the US deviates from the Potsdam Declaration and the emperor retains his position

[Keesters]

Which side would be on when you voted no? The aggressors who were trying to take over the world (don't have a bomb)? Or. The part of the world being taken over (has the bomb)? If you vote no you will killed and your wife and family given to terrorists as slaves.

I said no to possessing a bomb so your writings are irrelevant. No side has a bomb. There are no bombs. Get it?

Aggression can be and are fought without nuclear bombs. It's been done for the last 70 years.

I simply dont get the point you are making. Do you think the population of Warsaw for instance or Stalingrad or Dresden or even the hundreds of thousands killed in Tokyo by conventional bombs were better of than those wiped out by the A bombs. It seems you are arguing that it was more moral for Hitler to wipe out people slowly but not save many thousands of Japanese civilian lives, let alone all the soldiers of many countries, which was achived by dropping the A bombs. Its just a knee jerk response.

Do not jump to conclusions. You are doing yourself no favors. Do not bring up the past I quite clearly stated I did not vote as I could not make up my mind on something that happened before my time. So again your ranting about Stalingrad, Dresden etc are irrelevant. I concentrate on the future. I am not arguing anything except no more nuclear bombs.

Better is of course NO war, NO aggression, NO terrorism, NO bombs, NO guns, NO killing. That's an ideal world that perhaps we shall never achieve but can still strive for. At least the USA, Russia (USSR) and other countries have gone some way to ridding the world of nuclear weapons with their many treaties.

The point is, which is obvious if you'd read my first post,

But if it came to a vote on using one again or even possessing one then it's a great big

NO

nothing else....

Edited August 21, 2015 by Keesters

[lostoday]

a lot of information concerning this on the internet and elsewhere

This makes interesting reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

The emperor aside from being a governing entity, the emperor had religious significance to the Japanese people,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/shinto/history/emperor_1.shtml

The Americans insisted on the removal of the emperor an his trial as a war criminal as a condition for surrender know that this condition would be unacceptable to the Japanese , The British were of the opinion that the Emperor is retained. There are those who say that the insistence of the Americans to remove the Emperor was a delaying tactic to give them time to drop the bombs and as a warning to the Russians

After the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered and the Japanese were allowed to keep the Emperor

You draw your own conclusions.

The first serious meetings of the Emperor of Japan and his cabinet about surrender took place on August 10th. Two bomb had already been dropped. The discussions by the Americans about the fate of the Emperor took place after August 10th and after both bombs had been dropped. Sorry it was not a delaying tactic as the bombs had already been dropped.

The History of Nuclear War I: How Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastated by ... By John Richard Shanebrook Page 154

"the Potsdam Declaration, defining "Unconditional Surrender" and clarifying what it meant for the position of the emperor and for Hirohito personally. The American and British governments strongly disagreed on this point—the United States wanted to abolish the position and possibly try him as a war criminal, while the British wanted to retain the position, perhaps with Hirohito still reigning. The Potsdam Declaration went through many drafts until a version acceptable to all was found."

"On July 26, the United States, Britain and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

August 6th the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima

September 2 1949 Japan formally surrender, but the allies , notably the US deviates from the Potsdam Declaration and the emperor retains his position

The Potsdam declaration makes no mention of the Emperor of Japan. Sorry wrong again.

Instrument of Surrender, "The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender."

Edited August 21, 2015 by lostoday

[sunshine51]

^^^ Outta likes Geriatrickid. Well stated IMO.

My late father was a fighter pilot during WWII out here

in the Pacific Theatre and every now & then he'd tell

me a small bit about his war experiences. The IJA soldier

was a well trained & battle hardened soldier...same applied

to the IJAF pilots. mind you he never really talked much

about his wartime experiences and 40 years after participating

in my own war out here, I understand why he didn't say much.

His reasoning was fairly simple...it is too horrific for you to

comprehend...end of story. And it doesn't need to be a

World War to be horrific...a nasty low intensity conflict will

do.

There was a plan for the invasion of Japan named Operation

Downfall which comprised two main components; Operation

Coronet & Operation Olympic. Had Operation Downfall been

set in motion the war in the Pacific may well have lasted at

least 4 more years (rough estimate) or longer, and the casualty

figures for just the US would be in the range of between 500,000

to a million fatalities...and this is also just a rudimentary estimate.

Why? Because the US military would not only be fighting the

Imperial Japanese Military on their own soil...the US military

would also have to fight every Japanese person who could

heft any type of weapon. And this included every man, woman,

child & possibly dog.

There were plans to use nuclear weapons during the two phases

of Operation Downfall with about 7 devices that would be ready

when needed. However...there were arguments regarding their

usage due to what little was kown about fallout at that time.

Yes...the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were horrific events

but during war horrific events happen with horrific regularity.

Many lives were saved on both sides;Japanese & American, by

dropping those two nuclear devices compared to how many would

have perished had Operation Downfall commenced.

Enclosed is a PDF file...for those who may be interested...

read it.

We are constantly told that many American lives would be lost attacking Japan, but it was never necessary to invade. With total air supremacy, there was no need to put a single American GI on Japanese soil to gain surrender. However, the American high command have never been slow to sacrifice their troops in poorly executed warfare. Just look at Vietnam where thousands of lives were lost due to incompetent leadership. The Australians and New Zealanders lost very few in comparison because their tactics were far superior, despite pressure from the Americans to implement bad tactics in search of a faster resolution. Luckily for the ANZ troops, their leaders refused to be intimidated.

I did 4 years between Vietnam & Cambodia with the US military..March 1971-April 10, 1975...I know about

bad decisions and I also know there were good decisions made too. All in all I spent 10 years in the

Army-1969-1979 and know of even more good vs bad decisions. My old man retired a Rear Admiral (O-7)

in 1965 after spending 45 years on active duty beginning as an ordinary seaman (E-0). I tended to believe

what the old man told me about the war in the Pacific. He also witnessed the nuclear tests conducted in the

Pacific and when I asked him what a test looked like his reply was simply this..."The most frightening I have

ever seen."...to the Castle Romeo test in 1954 around Bikini Atoll.

This topic is not about bad decisions made during wartime it is a poll of sorts concerning the usage of the

first nuclear devices in wartime...should or should not have been used. if you have read the PDF file I

attached you can come to our own conclusion. There's more factual info on the web concerning how the

so called blockade of Japan was going to go and the state of the Soviet forces available to block off any

Western Japanese military movement & supply routes plus the Soviets were ready to invade Manchuria...

Japans only real remaining source of raw materials. And that of the state of affairs within the Imperial

Japanese military & war council, which was split 50-50 whether to surrender or continue the war. There

was even an attempted coup d'etat to remove the ones who opted for surrender but that failed. The first

two nuclear devices ever used in war had already been employed beforehand. Seven more nuclear

devces were being readied....should the Japanese war council & Emperor not accept the Potsdam

declaration and Operation Downfall had to be implemented. More nuclear devices would be made

available as Operation Downfall needed them and at that time, yes America was the only nation on

this planet who had "The Bomb"....and America would have used them to completely obliterate Japan

had not the surrender taken place at noon, 15 August 1945.

Thank God, or whomever you pray to, that it took ony two nuclear devices to convince the Japanese

leadership that surrender was their best option. However...the word Surrender was never used by

Emperor Hirohito....

A short & partial transcript of his "Surrender" speech....

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to

do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to

fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but

also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves

before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered

the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers....

The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly

great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is

according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand

peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is

unsufferable."

Here's a chart depicting what Japan still "controled" as of 01 August 1945...

Here's two before & after pix of Hiroshima & Nagasaki...remember, compared to the nukes

available today the only two ever used in war are small in yield...approx 15Kt & 21kt

respectively...

Hiroshima...

Nagasaki...

Good source of info about the last days of the Japanese Empire on Wiki

which I must say is pretty darn good....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

[billd766]

War is a terrible thing no matter what weapon one is using. People seem to forget that the Japanese were fierce fighters who tended not to surrender but instead fight to the death taking as many of their foes as possible with them. America lost well over 100,000 military in the Pacific and about a quarter of a million were injured. While the US (almost single highhandedly) had them on the ropes, there was no offer of surrender. There was not even an offer of surrender after the first bomb was dropped. To those who think Americans were monsters in using the atomic bomb I ask this. How many more American lives should have been sacrificed to end the war? In the end, the emperor was allowed to stay on the throne instead of being hanged as a war criminal so I don't think that argument has much merit.

Well part of your post is correct, but the "almost single handedly" bit is not and is an insult to the thousands of British and British commonwealth troops and others who suffered and died defeating Japan. Maybe you should check out Kohima for a start. Plus check out how many Chinese nationalist troops died whilst the communists under Mao were skulking around avoiding fighting the Japanese. Try to be a little bit more objective, please.

Strictly speaking he is correct if he was writing only about the Pacific area of the war.

The British and Commonwealth troops plus the Army and Navy were attacking through India, and Burma on their way down towards Singapore. The Royal Navy was active around Indonesia. The Chinese were tying down large numbers of Japanese troops as well. The USN didn't want the RN in the Pacific as our task forces were smaller than theirs and would also require large numbers of support vessels though the RN aircraft carriers were much stronger than the USN carriers mainly because of the armoured flight decks where the USN carriers mostly had wooden decks which offered little protection from kamikaze attacks.

[MiKT]

Which side would be on when you voted no? The aggressors who were trying to take over the world (don't have a bomb)? Or. The part of the world being taken over (has the bomb)? If you vote no you will killed and your wife and family given to terrorists as slaves.

I said no to possessing a bomb so your writings are irrelevant. No side has a bomb. There are no bombs. Get it?

Aggression can be and are fought without nuclear bombs. It's been done for the last 70 years.

I simply dont get the point you are making. Do you think the population of Warsaw for instance or Stalingrad or Dresden or even the hundreds of thousands killed in Tokyo by conventional bombs were better of than those wiped out by the A bombs. It seems you are arguing that it was more moral for Hitler to wipe out people slowly but not save many thousands of Japanese civilian lives, let alone all the soldiers of many countries, which was achived by dropping the A bombs. Its just a knee jerk response.

Do not jump to conclusions. You are doing yourself no favors. Do not bring up the past I quite clearly stated I did not vote as I could not make up my mind on something that happened before my time. So again your ranting about Stalingrad, Dresden etc are irrelevant. I concentrate on the future. I am not arguing anything except no more nuclear bombs.

Better is of course NO war, NO aggression, NO terrorism, NO bombs, NO guns, NO killing. That's an ideal world that perhaps we shall never achieve but can still strive for. At least the USA, Russia (USSR) and other countries have gone some way to ridding the world of nuclear weapons with their many treaties.

The point is, which is obvious if you'd read my first post,

But if it came to a vote on using one again or even possessing one then it's a great big

NO

nothing else....

Well I was there and the vote was not whether we should drop another bomb which everybody agees no. But should it have been dropped on Japan in 1945 and the majority here today and the overwhelming majority at the time said yes and they were right it saved millions more lives. Actually if you think I am ranting about Stalingrad, Dersden, etc I think you are pretty sick. Edited August 21, 2015 by MiKT

[sunshine51]

War is a terrible thing no matter what weapon one is using. People seem to forget that the Japanese were fierce fighters who tended not to surrender but instead fight to the death taking as many of their foes as possible with them. America lost well over 100,000 military in the Pacific and about a quarter of a million were injured. While the US (almost single highhandedly) had them on the ropes, there was no offer of surrender. There was not even an offer of surrender after the first bomb was dropped. To those who think Americans were monsters in using the atomic bomb I ask this. How many more American lives should have been sacrificed to end the war? In the end, the emperor was allowed to stay on the throne instead of being hanged as a war criminal so I don't think that argument has much merit.

Well part of your post is correct, but the "almost single handedly" bit is not and is an insult to the thousands of British and British commonwealth troops and others who suffered and died defeating Japan. Maybe you should check out Kohima for a start. Plus check out how many Chinese nationalist troops died whilst the communists under Mao were skulking around avoiding fighting the Japanese. Try to be a little bit more objective, please.

Strictly speaking he is correct if he was writing only about the Pacific area of the war.

The British and Commonwealth troops plus the Army and Navy were attacking through India, and Burma on their way down towards Singapore. The Royal Navy was active around Indonesia. The Chinese were tying down large numbers of Japanese troops as well. The USN didn't want the RN in the Pacific as our task forces were smaller than theirs and would also require large numbers of support vessels though the RN aircraft carriers were much stronger than the USN carriers mainly because of the armoured flight decks where the USN carriers mostly had wooden decks which offered little protection from kamikaze attacks.

A fair bit OT but a good writeup from Wiki regarding carrier flight decks...Wiki is begining

to surprise me...it is actually getting better....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_flight_deck

OK back OT...

[BuaBS]

Interesting read about the bomb on H & N :

http://www.silverdoctors.com/did-us-nuke-hiroshima-nagasaki-to-advance-imperialistic-goals/

We all know what the Japanese did , and the bombs that stopped it . In Germany the allied did the same (but not with nukes) , even worse after the war !

An eye opener from a comment on that page : Hellstorm - Exposing The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany (Full)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkQ6J5F01Do worth the 1h30.

It also shows that what ISIS is doing is not so medieval as some may think.

[thaibeachlovers]

It is fantastic to see how Government Propaganda has reached its goal ...

People think it is ok to kill other people [nothing else happened with the bombs] as long as it serves its purpose.

That's why it is happening now and that's why it will happen in the future.

ALL Governments are cirminals and the people who "serve" in the wars are foolish sheep who think

it's for "the greater good" ... until they die and are called heroes.

This is madness and insane !!!

There is NO justification for any mass killing [or even single killing] of a human being ... and everybody who remembers that he/she him/herself

is still a human being should never ever vote YES in a poll where thousands of people got murdered !!!

It is obvious you were not alive at the time and do not understand the cause and effect let alone the feeling of the public in the UK. Had Germany not invaded Poland after securing Russian neutrality then the UK would not have declared war on Germany. Hitler thought the threats made by the UK were just hot air. He also wanted to avoid a conflict with the UK as he believed once Europe had been conquered he could come to an amicable agreement with the British government. The German plan was to make Europe part of the German empire with the assistance of Italy. The result was the escalation of the war which also drew in Japan. Their bombing of Pearl Harbor, which Hoover had been informed about and ignored, resulted in the US entering WW2. From there on you had two major conflicts in play on either side of the world. Stopping it was another thing altogether and with the Japanese die before surrender attitude the A bomb was the only way of terminating the war in the far east. Even after the first bomb had been dropped the Emperor still refused to surrender, causing the loss of many thousands more lives from the second A bomb.

Hoover didn't necessarily ignore warnings about the Pearl attack. He might have figured it was the only way to get Americans riled up enough to join the war. He obviously wanted to participate in the European war or he would just have stayed in the Pacific. If not for Pearl, America would probably have remained neutral.

The ships destroyed were mainly obsolete and the aircraft carriers were significantly absent during the attack.

[thaibeachlovers]

^^^ Outta likes Geriatrickid. Well stated IMO.

My late father was a fighter pilot during WWII out here

in the Pacific Theatre and every now & then he'd tell

me a small bit about his war experiences. The IJA soldier

was a well trained & battle hardened soldier...same applied

to the IJAF pilots. mind you he never really talked much

about his wartime experiences and 40 years after participating

in my own war out here, I understand why he didn't say much.

His reasoning was fairly simple...it is too horrific for you to

comprehend...end of story. And it doesn't need to be a

World War to be horrific...a nasty low intensity conflict will

do.

There was a plan for the invasion of Japan named Operation

Downfall which comprised two main components; Operation

Coronet & Operation Olympic. Had Operation Downfall been

set in motion the war in the Pacific may well have lasted at

least 4 more years (rough estimate) or longer, and the casualty

figures for just the US would be in the range of between 500,000

to a million fatalities...and this is also just a rudimentary estimate.

Why? Because the US military would not only be fighting the

Imperial Japanese Military on their own soil...the US military

would also have to fight every Japanese person who could

heft any type of weapon. And this included every man, woman,

child & possibly dog.

There were plans to use nuclear weapons during the two phases

of Operation Downfall with about 7 devices that would be ready

when needed. However...there were arguments regarding their

usage due to what little was kown about fallout at that time.

Yes...the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were horrific events

but during war horrific events happen with horrific regularity.

Many lives were saved on both sides;Japanese & American, by

dropping those two nuclear devices compared to how many would

have perished had Operation Downfall commenced.

Enclosed is a PDF file...for those who may be interested...

read it.

We are constantly told that many American lives would be lost attacking Japan, but it was never necessary to invade. With total air supremacy, there was no need to put a single American GI on Japanese soil to gain surrender. However, the American high command have never been slow to sacrifice their troops in poorly executed warfare. Just look at Vietnam where thousands of lives were lost due to incompetent leadership. The Australians and New Zealanders lost very few in comparison because their tactics were far superior, despite pressure from the Americans to implement bad tactics in search of a faster resolution. Luckily for the ANZ troops, their leaders refused to be intimidated.

I did 4 years between Vietnam & Cambodia with the US military..March 1971-April 10, 1975...I know about

bad decisions and I also know there were good decisions made too. All in all I spent 10 years in the

Army-1969-1979 and know of even more good vs bad decisions. My old man retired a Rear Admiral (O-7)

in 1965 after spending 45 years on active duty beginning as an ordinary seaman (E-0). I tended to believe

what the old man told me about the war in the Pacific. He also witnessed the nuclear tests conducted in the

Pacific and when I asked him what a test looked like his reply was simply this..."The most frightening I have

ever seen."...to the Castle Romeo test in 1954 around Bikini Atoll.

This topic is not about bad decisions made during wartime it is a poll of sorts concerning the usage of the

first nuclear devices in wartime...should or should not have been used. if you have read the PDF file I

attached you can come to our own conclusion. There's more factual info on the web concerning how the

so called blockade of Japan was going to go and the state of the Soviet forces available to block off any

Western Japanese military movement & supply routes plus the Soviets were ready to invade Manchuria...

Japans only real remaining source of raw materials. And that of the state of affairs within the Imperial

Japanese military & war council, which was split 50-50 whether to surrender or continue the war. There

was even an attempted coup d'etat to remove the ones who opted for surrender but that failed. The first

two nuclear devices ever used in war had already been employed beforehand. Seven more nuclear

devces were being readied....should the Japanese war council & Emperor not accept the Potsdam

declaration and Operation Downfall had to be implemented. More nuclear devices would be made

available as Operation Downfall needed them and at that time, yes America was the only nation on

this planet who had "The Bomb"....and America would have used them to completely obliterate Japan

had not the surrender taken place at noon, 15 August 1945.

Thank God, or whomever you pray to, that it took ony two nuclear devices to convince the Japanese

leadership that surrender was their best option. However...the word Surrender was never used by

Emperor Hirohito....

A short & partial transcript of his "Surrender" speech....

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to

do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to

fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but

also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves

before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered

the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers....

The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly

great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is

according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand

peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is

unsufferable."

Here's a chart depicting what Japan still "controled" as of 01 August 1945...

1945-08-01JapWW2BattlefrontAtlas-a.jpg

Here's two before & after pix of Hiroshima & Nagasaki...remember, compared to the nukes

available today the only two ever used in war are small in yield...approx 15Kt & 21kt

respectively...

Hiroshima...

Hiroshima_1945.jpg

Nagasaki...

Nagasaki_1945.jpg

Good source of info about the last days of the Japanese Empire on Wiki

which I must say is pretty darn good....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

It is not possible to consider if using the bomb was a good thing or a bad thing without considering the American lives lost if the US invaded. My point is that there was no need for a land invasion, but the US high command would have used one because they wasted their men with bad tactics.

IMO the only ones that can really say if it was justified or not would be the US troops that would have been sent into Japan had the Japanese not surrendered. I'm pretty sure they would have been exceedingly happy that so many Japanese lost their lives to force a surrender.

[lostoday]

Hoover didn't necessarily ignore warnings about the Pearl attack. He might have figured it was the only way to get Americans riled up enough to join the war. He obviously wanted to participate in the European war or he would just have stayed in the Pacific. If not for Pearl, America would probably have remained neutral.

The ships destroyed were mainly obsolete and the aircraft carriers were significantly absent during the attack.

Hoover?

[MiKT]

Hoover didn't necessarily ignore warnings about the Pearl attack. He might have figured it was the only way to get Americans riled up enough to join the war. He obviously wanted to participate in the European war or he would just have stayed in the Pacific. If not for Pearl, America would probably have remained neutral.

The ships destroyed were mainly obsolete and the aircraft carriers were significantly absent during the attack.

Hoover?

yes, about as vacume cleaned as this post is empty of sense. Significantly absent! what rubbish! God where do these theories come from? Sorry, I am still feeling sick from worrying about what we did to poor old innocent Hitler and his 3rd reich country after watching that film. Shame on us. I think it was so wicked of the Russians to loose 4 milion dead when they could have peacfully let those poor Germans make slaves of them. I will never again think the battle of Britain was a heroic defense against an evil foe. Never will I think Churchill was the best man in the War. As for those Jews and gipsies and homos well why did they not all commit suicide and save those innocent Germans the price of the gas and bullets. No it is clear to me now the 65 odd years I have been studying the history of both world wars was completely wasted. Really I should be dead and be greatfull up in heaven thanking the Germans for killing me. Na, sorry, not so. Pity the Russians did not have the A Bomb, it would have saved a few more of those poor suffering "BASTARDS". Nb I dont hate any Germans alive now. Far from it. But I dont buy the "knew nothing defense". Like the Japanese the Germans deserved everything that happened to them. Except perhapse the economic miracles that American aid bought to them after the war.

[Keesters]

I simply dont get the point you are making. Do you think the population of Warsaw for instance or Stalingrad or Dresden or even the hundreds of thousands killed in Tokyo by conventional bombs were better of than those wiped out by the A bombs. It seems you are arguing that it was more moral for Hitler to wipe out people slowly but not save many thousands of Japanese civilian lives, let alone all the soldiers of many countries, which was achived by dropping the A bombs. Its just a knee jerk response.

Do not jump to conclusions. You are doing yourself no favors. Do not bring up the past I quite clearly stated I did not vote as I could not make up my mind on something that happened before my time. So again your ranting about Stalingrad, Dresden etc are irrelevant. I concentrate on the future. I am not arguing anything except no more nuclear bombs.

Better is of course NO war, NO aggression, NO terrorism, NO bombs, NO guns, NO killing. That's an ideal world that perhaps we shall never achieve but can still strive for. At least the USA, Russia (USSR) and other countries have gone some way to ridding the world of nuclear weapons with their many treaties.

The point is, which is obvious if you'd read my first post,

But if it came to a vote on using one again or even possessing one then it's a great big

NO

nothing else....

Well I was there and the vote was not whether we should drop another bomb which everybody agees no. But should it have been dropped on Japan in 1945 and the majority here today and the overwhelming majority at the time said yes and they were right it saved millions more lives. Actually if you think I am ranting about Stalingrad, Dersden, etc I think you are pretty sick.

Well I wasn't and my post made it pretty clear that I could/would not comment on the past and gave my judgement on the future. I think you must be pretty sick not to have seen that from my post making all yours about the past irrelevant.

[MiKT]

I simply dont get the point you are making. Do you think the population of Warsaw for instance or Stalingrad or Dresden or even the hundreds of thousands killed in Tokyo by conventional bombs were better of than those wiped out by the A bombs. It seems you are arguing that it was more moral for Hitler to wipe out people slowly but not save many thousands of Japanese civilian lives, let alone all the soldiers of many countries, which was achived by dropping the A bombs. Its just a knee jerk response.

Do not jump to conclusions. You are doing yourself no favors. Do not bring up the past I quite clearly stated I did not vote as I could not make up my mind on something that happened before my time. So again your ranting about Stalingrad, Dresden etc are irrelevant. I concentrate on the future. I am not arguing anything except no more nuclear bombs.

Better is of course NO war, NO aggression, NO terrorism, NO bombs, NO guns, NO killing. That's an ideal world that perhaps we shall never achieve but can still strive for. At least the USA, Russia (USSR) and other countries have gone some way to ridding the world of nuclear weapons with their many treaties.

The point is, which is obvious if you'd read my first post,

But if it came to a vote on using one again or even possessing one then it's a great big

NO

nothing else....

Well I was there and the vote was not whether we should drop another bomb which everybody agees no. But should it have been dropped on Japan in 1945 and the majority here today and the overwhelming majority at the time said yes and they were right it saved millions more lives. Actually if you think I am ranting about Stalingrad, Dersden, etc I think you are pretty sick.

Well I wasn't and my post made it pretty clear that I could/would not comment on the past and gave my judgement on the future. I think you must be pretty sick not to have seen that from my post making all yours about the past irrelevant.

So pretty clear you are tolling then. All your useless posts on this subject should be removed as they contain zero informed dialog, no cogent arguments and appear to have no point except to annoy or inflame other posters which definately meets the definition of trolling. This thread was only about what happened to end the war 70 years ago not about the future. Read the title or are you, as it appears, simply too arrogant to do even that little thing right. It is clear that you have ignored all the points of view put forward by a couple of hundred other posters who have taken the time to write interesting information (and some disinformation) and divergent viewpoints that others have agreed with, disagreed with, or added to, but all of which have kept to the main theme of the topic. But you, YOU think only your off-topic divel has any relevence - for sure the white coats are looming in your mirror.

[Scott]

When you encounter a troll, the advice is to not feed them.

[MiKT]

When you encounter a troll, the advice is to not feed them.

Thats not what Billy goat gruff did! But thanks anyway.

[MiKT]

Interesting read about the bomb on H & N :

http://www.silverdoctors.com/did-us-nuke-hiroshima-nagasaki-to-advance-imperialistic-goals/

We all know what the Japanese did , and the bombs that stopped it . In Germany the allied did the same (but not with nukes) , even worse after the war !

An eye opener from a comment on that page : Hellstorm - Exposing The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany (Full)

worth the 1h30.

It also shows that what ISIS is doing is not so medieval as some may think.

Well BuaBS, after considerable reflection I want to thank you for the movie. Sick making Neo Nazi, anti Jewish propaganda though it is, like all good lies it does contain an element of truth. That is that the Germans fought to the bitter end against the allies and many millions of soldiers of many nations and many millions of civilians, again of many nations - the Germans did not cease their brutalities as they retreated - died, were wounded, raped or trumatised because of this, also because of allied bombing. So I belive this fully makes the point that many posters have tried to put across, that is, in the long run it was better to drop the bonbs because it saved more lives than it took and far less Japanese civilians (and pows) were effected as they were not subject to the brutal, but understandable, depredations of revengeful Soviet and other allied troops or from civilians freed from German slavery.

[Scott]

Off-topic commentary and replies removed.

[sunshine51]

^^^ Outta likes Geriatrickid. Well stated IMO.

My late father was a fighter pilot during WWII out here

in the Pacific Theatre and every now & then he'd tell

me a small bit about his war experiences. The IJA soldier

was a well trained & battle hardened soldier...same applied

to the IJAF pilots. mind you he never really talked much

about his wartime experiences and 40 years after participating

in my own war out here, I understand why he didn't say much.

His reasoning was fairly simple...it is too horrific for you to

comprehend...end of story. And it doesn't need to be a

World War to be horrific...a nasty low intensity conflict will

do.

There was a plan for the invasion of Japan named Operation

Downfall which comprised two main components; Operation

Coronet & Operation Olympic. Had Operation Downfall been

set in motion the war in the Pacific may well have lasted at

least 4 more years (rough estimate) or longer, and the casualty

figures for just the US would be in the range of between 500,000

to a million fatalities...and this is also just a rudimentary estimate.

Why? Because the US military would not only be fighting the

Imperial Japanese Military on their own soil...the US military

would also have to fight every Japanese person who could

heft any type of weapon. And this included every man, woman,

child & possibly dog.

There were plans to use nuclear weapons during the two phases

of Operation Downfall with about 7 devices that would be ready

when needed. However...there were arguments regarding their

usage due to what little was kown about fallout at that time.

Yes...the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were horrific events

but during war horrific events happen with horrific regularity.

Many lives were saved on both sides;Japanese & American, by

dropping those two nuclear devices compared to how many would

have perished had Operation Downfall commenced.

Enclosed is a PDF file...for those who may be interested...

read it.

We are constantly told that many American lives would be lost attacking Japan, but it was never necessary to invade. With total air supremacy, there was no need to put a single American GI on Japanese soil to gain surrender. However, the American high command have never been slow to sacrifice their troops in poorly executed warfare. Just look at Vietnam where thousands of lives were lost due to incompetent leadership. The Australians and New Zealanders lost very few in comparison because their tactics were far superior, despite pressure from the Americans to implement bad tactics in search of a faster resolution. Luckily for the ANZ troops, their leaders refused to be intimidated.

I did 4 years between Vietnam & Cambodia with the US military..March 1971-April 10, 1975...I know about

bad decisions and I also know there were good decisions made too. All in all I spent 10 years in the

Army-1969-1979 and know of even more good vs bad decisions. My old man retired a Rear Admiral (O-7)

in 1965 after spending 45 years on active duty beginning as an ordinary seaman (E-0). I tended to believe

what the old man told me about the war in the Pacific. He also witnessed the nuclear tests conducted in the

Pacific and when I asked him what a test looked like his reply was simply this..."The most frightening I have

ever seen."...to the Castle Romeo test in 1954 around Bikini Atoll.

This topic is not about bad decisions made during wartime it is a poll of sorts concerning the usage of the

first nuclear devices in wartime...should or should not have been used. if you have read the PDF file I

attached you can come to our own conclusion. There's more factual info on the web concerning how the

so called blockade of Japan was going to go and the state of the Soviet forces available to block off any

Western Japanese military movement & supply routes plus the Soviets were ready to invade Manchuria...

Japans only real remaining source of raw materials. And that of the state of affairs within the Imperial

Japanese military & war council, which was split 50-50 whether to surrender or continue the war. There

was even an attempted coup d'etat to remove the ones who opted for surrender but that failed. The first

two nuclear devices ever used in war had already been employed beforehand. Seven more nuclear

devces were being readied....should the Japanese war council & Emperor not accept the Potsdam

declaration and Operation Downfall had to be implemented. More nuclear devices would be made

available as Operation Downfall needed them and at that time, yes America was the only nation on

this planet who had "The Bomb"....and America would have used them to completely obliterate Japan

had not the surrender taken place at noon, 15 August 1945.

Thank God, or whomever you pray to, that it took ony two nuclear devices to convince the Japanese

leadership that surrender was their best option. However...the word Surrender was never used by

Emperor Hirohito....

A short & partial transcript of his "Surrender" speech....

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to

do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to

fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but

also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves

before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered

the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers....

The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly

great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is

according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand

peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is

unsufferable."

Here's a chart depicting what Japan still "controled" as of 01 August 1945...

1945-08-01JapWW2BattlefrontAtlas-a.jpg

Here's two before & after pix of Hiroshima & Nagasaki...remember, compared to the nukes

available today the only two ever used in war are small in yield...approx 15Kt & 21kt

respectively...

Hiroshima...

Hiroshima_1945.jpg

Nagasaki...

Nagasaki_1945.jpg

Good source of info about the last days of the Japanese Empire on Wiki

which I must say is pretty darn good....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

It is not possible to consider if using the bomb was a good thing or a bad thing without considering the American lives lost if the US invaded. My point is that there was no need for a land invasion, but the US high command would have used one because they wasted their men with bad tactics.

IMO the only ones that can really say if it was justified or not would be the US troops that would have been sent into Japan had the Japanese not surrendered. I'm pretty sure they would have been exceedingly happy that so many Japanese lost their lives to force a surrender.

Clarify your point there was no need for an invasion had the two bombings never taken place.

How can one consider American & possibly Allied lives lost if the invasion had taken place

when one didn't take place. All one can do is estimate losses...a best guess scenario. I

posted info on casualty estimates in my OP.

Are you also saying that the US military planners made bad strategic decisions when sending

men into war after the US entered the war? Show me a bad dcecision & how you would have

done it differently. Remember...the Pacific theatre was rather large. So...from the Battle of

Midway to off the coast of Japan in less than 4 years was facilitated by making bad decisons?

Bullshit.

Had the Trinity test failed there may well have been Operation Downfall commencing in short

order however we don't know that these days do we because it took two nukes to force the

Japanese surrender. Remember the Japanese "high command" was split 50-50 to either

surrender or continue to fight and the Emperor was with the 50% who wanted to continue

the fight...until Nagasaki got nuked...and then it took another 9 days for Hirohito to come

out with the so called "surrender" speech in which the word surrender was never even

mentioned. Then it took some time longer to get the word to all Japanese commands

left to lay down their arms.

If Hirohito had not "surrendered" after Nagasaki got nuked, there may well have been

another Japanese industrial area/city suffering the same fate, perhaps more, perhaps

Operation Downfall would have began....but we will never know that will we.

[Humberstone]

Japanese still refuse to apologize and to take responsibility for what they did.

I find it incredible that westerners agonize over the bombing which ended the war and saved countless lives, while the Japanese celebrate their reign of terror, torture and tyranny.

That is not correct. The Japanese have apologized for their actions in WWII on many ocassions.

Read: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33902065

[lostoday]

Japanese still refuse to apologize and to take responsibility for what they did.

I find it incredible that westerners agonize over the bombing which ended the war and saved countless lives, while the Japanese celebrate their reign of terror, torture and tyranny.

That is not correct. The Japanese have apologized for their actions in WWII on many ocassions.

Read: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33902065

You want to provide a link where they apologized for the comfort women and unit 731.

[Humberstone]

Japanese still refuse to apologize and to take responsibility for what they did.

I find it incredible that westerners agonize over the bombing which ended the war and saved countless lives, while the Japanese celebrate their reign of terror, torture and tyranny.

That is not correct. The Japanese have apologized for their actions in WWII on many ocassions.

Read: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33902065

You want to provide a link where they apologized for the comfort women and unit 731.

Ok, seeing as you've asked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

I can't find anything speciifc on Unit 731 though

[MiKT]

Japanese still refuse to apologize and to take responsibility for what they did.

I find it incredible that westerners agonize over the bombing which ended the war and saved countless lives, while the Japanese celebrate their reign of terror, torture and tyranny.

That is not correct. The Japanese have apologized for their actions in WWII on many ocassions.

Read: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33902065

So can we correct that to "partially apologise" but lets not count Nagasaki (or any other massacres in China or Korea) cos they didn't happen?

[lostoday]

Japanese still refuse to apologize and to take responsibility for what they did.

I find it incredible that westerners agonize over the bombing which ended the war and saved countless lives, while the Japanese celebrate their reign of terror, torture and tyranny.

That is not correct. The Japanese have apologized for their actions in WWII on many ocassions.

Read: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33902065

You want to provide a link where they apologized for the comfort women and unit 731.

Ok, seeing as you've asked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

I can't find anything speciifc on Unit 731 though

In 2007, the surviving sex slaves wanted an apology from the Japanese government. Shinzō Abe, the prime minister at the time, stated on March 1, 2007, that there was no evidence that the Japanese government had kept sex slaves.

S Korean 'comfort women' to file $20 mil lawsuit in California

NATIONAL

JUN. 24, 2015 - 03:25PM

It is an up and down thing. Some apologize (you are correct there) some keep trying to deny it. I don't think they ever apologized for the atrocities of unit 731.

Edited August 24, 2015 by lostoday

[thaibeachlovers]

Hoover didn't necessarily ignore warnings about the Pearl attack. He might have figured it was the only way to get Americans riled up enough to join the war. He obviously wanted to participate in the European war or he would just have stayed in the Pacific. If not for Pearl, America would probably have remained neutral.

The ships destroyed were mainly obsolete and the aircraft carriers were significantly absent during the attack.

Hoover?

Tongue in cheek reply to anon, who claimed Hoover was president ( it was Roosevelt ). Because you chose not to include his post mine makes no sense.

[lostoday]

Hoover didn't necessarily ignore warnings about the Pearl attack. He might have figured it was the only way to get Americans riled up enough to join the war. He obviously wanted to participate in the European war or he would just have stayed in the Pacific. If not for Pearl, America would probably have remained neutral.

The ships destroyed were mainly obsolete and the aircraft carriers were significantly absent during the attack.

Hoover?

Tongue in cheek reply to anon, who claimed Hoover was president ( it was Roosevelt ). Because you chose not to include his post mine makes no sense.

There was a story about Hoover (J Edgar) getting advance warning about Pearl Harbor but it was so classified I thought i was the only one who knew about it.

[Dumbastheycome]

Unjustified targeting of civilians with weapons of mass destruction.

War crime.

[lostoday]

Unjustified targeting of civilians with weapons of mass destruction.

War crime.

What would you have had the Allies do? The Japanese killed 300,000 after the surrender of Nanking. Japan was asked to surrender but did not. Nanking did surrender and the Japanese shot and stabbed and raped to death 300,000. It is not like the Allies were playing with momma's nice boys here eh? Japan did not ratify the Geneva convention BTW.

Edited August 24, 2015 by lostoday

[MiKT]

Unjustified targeting of civilians with weapons of mass destruction.

War crime.

Probably correct. But in this case it was justified, ergo, not a war crime. The Japanese did enough of those by themselves. Edited August 24, 2015 by MiKT