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

[chiang mai]

An outstanding post.

[chuckd]

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.

Then why drop 2 bombs? to double prove? You had Japan on their knees ready to surrender as stated so why chop their head off? The B52's were already carpet bombing Tokyo at will so why the overkill? I can see saving American's soldiers lives but really killing all those innocent people to show Russia how powerful you are? With all their spies they more than likely knew all about the A bomb and more than likely had the instructions on how to build one. Whats the point?

"The B52's were already carpet bombing Tokyo"

The USAF was flying B-29's and B-17's and the 8th Air Force was in preparation for deployment to Japan when the bombs were dropped...by one lone B-29.

The B-52 was put into service in 1955.

[Scott]

Inflammatory post and reply removed.

[lostoday]

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.

Then why drop 2 bombs? to double prove? You had Japan on their knees ready to surrender as stated so why chop their head off? The B52's were already carpet bombing Tokyo at will so why the overkill? I can see saving American's soldiers lives but really killing all those innocent people to show Russia how powerful you are? With all their spies they more than likely knew all about the A bomb and more than likely had the instructions on how to build one. Whats the point?

"The B52's were already carpet bombing Tokyo"

The USAF was flying B-29's and B-17's and the 8th Air Force was in preparation for deployment to Japan when the bombs were dropped...by one lone B-29.

The B-52 was put into service in 1955.

As a historical note to those interested in bombing and B-29's they were tested bombing Bangkok before they went to Tokyo.

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

Edited August 17, 2015 by lostoday

[trainman34014]

I would like all the ''No'' voters to think about if the boot had been on the other foot. Perhaps they are dumb enough to believe that the Japanese wouldn't have used the Atom Bomb if they had developed one first !!

[CarolJadzia]

They did not surrender after the first one. Aug, 6th first bomb. Aug 9th second bomb. I guess they might have dropped three if they had three but they only had two bombs. Surrender Aug 15th.

I think you need to go back and study the facts. The Japanese were desperate to surrender before the first bomb was dropped but the bombs were dropped to prove a point.

Peace by superior firepower is misguided and makes the world a more dangerous not safer place.

Nobody condones what the Japanese did. I visited Kanchanaburi last year and once you get passed the tourist rubbish you don't have to look far to see the atrocities of war.

It should be mentioned as this is a Thai based forum that the peace loving buddhist Thais were treated even worse by the Jap's than the PoW's.

But the bombs were not dropped on the solders. One was actually dropped on a buddhist temple. The bombs killed thousands on innocent civilians and left many thousands more with life changing medical conditions and scars.

All just to prove a point.

The more you dig into the history the murkier it get's.

[ABCer]

I would like to introduce a slightly different angle to the results of voting.

At present the figures are 132 "yes" against 54 "no".

I hope our esteemed Mods will not hold against me the following question:

" Would you hold on to your opinion if the question was about using A-bomb today on the enemy of your country?"

I am a very old man. And my heart is bleeding for the Homo Sapiens.

[billd766]

Nowadays it is more or less accepted that the reason given at the time which was the inevitable high body count that an invasion would have resulted in, was indeed a political message just for public consumption, Japan was surrounded and could have been starved into submission without any need for a military invasion against a defended country.

However the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan a week or so earlier and was advancing across Mongolia quickly and would have had no such qualms about body count if they had got into a position to invade Japan. Also the relationship between the UK/US and the Soviets was already degrading in Europe and as mentioned above a demonstration of the power of the atomic option was required. In fact Stalin already knew about the Manhattan project as the Soviets had spies embedded in the project but was in no position at that stage to counter such a threat.

In this context the two atomic explosions were more of a political act than an act of war and any justification must be in the political arena

Meanwhile if Japan were to have been starved into submission what do you think would have happened to ALL the Allied POWs in Japan and the occupied territories, not to mention the civilian POWs?

Do you think that the Japanese would have said, sorry chaps, and let them all go free.

They would have slaughtered every last one of them so on those grounds alone.

Ask the FEPOWs what they think (there are still a few of them left alive) or ask the survivors of the Bataan march what they think.

THEY were there and we were not.

[billd766]

In the sense that it was used as leverage to help contain Soviet expansion and avoided a "hot" war!

Yea in that sense perhaps it was.

In my opinion reprehensible, but we are so far removed it is easy for as to moralize

but were Japanese lives less valuable than western lives? or was this an accounting problem

so many Japanese lives for so many European lives

Not only European lives but Chinese, Thai, IndoChinese, New Guinean, Malay, Singapore and ALL the other occupied territories.

[billd766]

Those who voted that it was NOT justified are no doubt ignorant of the Barbaric Sadistic Cruelty

which the PoW's where subjected to by the Japanese until they died of Starvation, Illness and Beatings building the Burma Death Railway.

Go to Kantanaburi and in the Commonwealth War Grave cemeteries you will see the ages of those poor souls starting at .....18 Years.

Remember that the war cemetary at Kanchanaburi contains the bodies of many FEPOWs. What it does not contain is the estimated 100,000 civilian slaves from Singapore, Malaysia, French Indochina, Indonesia and yes, Thailand too, who were also employed on the Rialway and who had no support and hadve no known graves.

Also remember that that was only a small part of what the Japanese did during the war. How many Chinese civilians were slaughtered nationwide or even just during the Rape of Nanking.

Compare those casualties with Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[lostoday]

They did not surrender after the first one. Aug, 6th first bomb. Aug 9th second bomb. I guess they might have dropped three if they had three but they only had two bombs. Surrender Aug 15th.

I think you need to go back and study the facts. The Japanese were desperate to surrender before the first bomb was dropped but the bombs were dropped to prove a point.

Peace by superior firepower is misguided and makes the world a more dangerous not safer place.

Nobody condones what the Japanese did. I visited Kanchanaburi last year and once you get passed the tourist rubbish you don't have to look far to see the atrocities of war.

It should be mentioned as this is a Thai based forum that the peace loving buddhist Thais were treated even worse by the Jap's than the PoW's.

But the bombs were not dropped on the solders. One was actually dropped on a buddhist temple. The bombs killed thousands on innocent civilians and left many thousands more with life changing medical conditions and scars.

All just to prove a point.

The more you dig into the history the murkier it get's.

You wrote, " I think you need to go back and study the facts. The Japanese were desperate to surrender before the first bomb was dropped but the bombs were dropped to prove a point." On August 6, 1945, the United States detonated an atomic bombover the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Late in the evening of August 8, 1945, in accordance with the Yalta agreements, but in violation of theSoviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, and soon after midnight on August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union invaded the Imperial Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. Later that same day, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb, this time on the Japanese city of Nagasaki.

Following these events,Emperor Hirohito intervened and ordered the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War to accept the terms the Allies had set down in the Potsdam Declaration for ending the war. After several more days of behind-the-scenes negotiations and a failed coup d'état, Emperor Hirohito gave a recorded radio address across the Empire on August 15. In the radio address, called the Gyokuon-hōsō ("Jewel Voice Broadcast"), he announced the surrender of Japan to the Allies.

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

Sorry can't rewrite history. Bombs first - surrender 2nd.

Edited August 17, 2015 by lostoday

[billd766]

Too bad they did not take out the aggressive leadership both of Japan and Germany before and during ww2.

A civilian population without any defence was taken out in stead.

Thus NO.

Take out the aggressive leadership before the war? Have you not heard of the Gestapo and the Kempei Tai?

Civilian population with no defences.

Tell that to the bomber crews who went out night after night and faced anti aircraft flak and night fighters, or American daylight bombing with the chance of being shot down and slaughtered by civilians as young as 12 years old.

[billd766]

70 years after the event. As they say, hindsight is a wonderful thing; and hindsight might still favour the A-bomb's use in 1945. But whether it does or not, few people alive today are in a position to say what they would have done (given the opportunity) then; and none alive today suffered under Japanese brutality.

There are still MANY people alive today fortunately who lived under Japanese brutality.

Just look at the BBC news or Google for survivors of the Japanese.

My neighbour when I was a young boy growing up was a FEPOW and he NEVER talked about it to anybody in his family.

[Basil B]

70 years after the event. As they say, hindsight is a wonderful thing; and hindsight might still favour the A-bomb's use in 1945. But whether it does or not, few people alive today are in a position to say what they would have done (given the opportunity) then; and none alive today suffered under Japanese brutality.

There are still MANY people alive today fortunately who lived under Japanese brutality.

Just look at the BBC news or Google for survivors of the Japanese.

My neighbour when I was a young boy growing up was a FEPOW and he NEVER talked about it to anybody in his family.

Very true, few ex POW's of the Japanese ever talked of their captivity, many probably ashamed of what they had to do to survive.

Many were to endure ill health for the rest of their lives which on average were shorter than for most people of their age.

A quote from some Japanese last week asking why every generation should apologise for things done by previous generations? my views are they should not, unfortunately most of those around at the time of WWII who should have apologised or been executed as war criminals are no longer around, the only crime I see today with the Japanese society is their continued denial of the monstrosities carried out by their forefathers in WWII.

[BadBouy]

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.

In that sense then perhaps it was still justified.

I see your rationale, but think a bit deeper......if it was indeed a demonstration to deter the Russians, then it was despicable and the worst war crime in history.

It's like I have a feud with the guy across the street. It could get nasty, and a lot of people will get killed, so I deter him by killing my next door neighbours, just to show him that I'm a badass.

You mean the next door neighbors that were robing, raping, and pillaging? I suppose a slap on the hand would have been enough for you. Doubtful you have any family or close relatives that served in that part of WWII, because being there they were quite clear on the situation and all for the quick solution to end the savagery.

[chuckd]

My junior high PE teacher was a member of Easy Company, 101st Airborne.

When the HBO series first came out, Band of Brothers, I was watching it when his face suddenly appeared on the screen. I immediately recognized him, picked up my phone and called some friends in the US.

They had seen the series earlier and acknowledged what I thought.

It was Earl McClung.

We never knew anything about it and he never talked about it. He just did it because it needed to be done.

[CarolJadzia]

You wrote, " I think you need to go back and study the facts. The Japanese were desperate to surrender before the first bomb was dropped but the bombs were dropped to prove a point." On August 6, 1945, the United States detonated an atomic bombover the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Late in the evening of August 8, 1945, in accordance with the Yalta agreements, but in violation of theSoviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, and soon after midnight on August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union invaded the Imperial Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. Later that same day, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb, this time on the Japanese city of Nagasaki.

Following these events,Emperor Hirohito intervened and ordered the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War to accept the terms the Allies had set down in the Potsdam Declaration for ending the war. After several more days of behind-the-scenes negotiations and a failed coup d'état, Emperor Hirohito gave a recorded radio address across the Empire on August 15. In the radio address, called the Gyokuon-hōsō ("Jewel Voice Broadcast"), he announced the surrender of Japan to the Allies.

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

Sorry can't rewrite history. Bombs first - surrender 2nd.

Well sorry but yes history does get rewritten to favour the victors side of events.

Wikipedia is not a reliable place to quote facts from.

Did you know that the terms of surrender were the same post A-bombs as the Japanese had offered pre bombing?

But the Americans don't want everyone thinking it was unjustified so these little points are left out.

The complexities of the situation are far murkier than those being discussed here.

May I suggest you read Paul Hams Hiroshima Nagasaki account of events for a more balanced fact based view of what happened.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hiroshima-Nagasaki-Paul-Ham/dp/0552778508

[jtTamad]

From a review of the book by Ham: Readers who are not familiar with the mountains of research on the decision to attack Hiroshima and Nagasaki should treat this book with caution. The author is clearly one who knows little of the actualities of war or warfare. He has little understanding of the context in which decisions like Hiroshima were made.The context is crucial. In 1945 Europe was in ruins and chaos. We were revolted by the the horror of Hitler's death camps. There was growing fear for the safety of thousands of Allied prisoners in Japanese hands. The world was beginning to learn that the behaviour of the Japanese military was depraved and bestial.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jtTamad]

More on Ham: Despite what Ham says the evidence makes clear that using the bomb made a very bloody invasion of Japan redundant.Such an invasion would have faced a well-prepared enemy that include thousands of fanatical civilians armed with weapons who had made it clear that they would willingly die defending their country. Remember that by 1945 the Americans had already fought some of the bloodiest battles of the war against a fanatical enemy entrenched on heavily fortified Pacific Islands. They had no illusions about what faced them if they invaded the Japanese homeland.The evidence is overwhelming that by 1945 the American people would not have accepted the horrendous cost of invasion.The intercept of Magic codes made it clear that the Japanese were willing to commit mass suicide if invasion took place.

Ham like so many people fails to understand that with hindsight what is very apparent today was in 1945 opaque.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[brain150]

What sort of nonsense is this. As if anybody's opinion is going to change history.

Some of us are interested in history and some of us are interested in other peoples opinions on history, if you're not interested in either you don't have to play.

BTW I'm pretty sure that anyone who says it was mass murder and innocents etc., is likely to be aged under 30, people who have not studied WWII in any way and who don't have near relatives that fought in it.

It was mass murder !

You might want to read the momoires of Admiral Nimitz who actually states that the Bombs had nothing to do with the end of the war !

You might also look into recent declassified documents from the British Foreign Ministry to find out who actually had the major interest in turning

the war in europe into a global war [short answer: the BRITISH Government !]

You might also not know anything about the 25 (!!!) peace offers in 1939 and 1940 from the GERMAN Government to the BRITISH Government.

WWI and WWII were VERY different from what you learn in school or hear in the mainstream media.

The brainwash sits deep ... but the information is available [even if it might not fit your view of history as you want it to have happened !!!]

[lostoday]

You wrote, " I think you need to go back and study the facts. The Japanese were desperate to surrender before the first bomb was dropped but the bombs were dropped to prove a point." On August 6, 1945, the United States detonated an atomic bombover the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Late in the evening of August 8, 1945, in accordance with the Yalta agreements, but in violation of theSoviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, and soon after midnight on August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union invaded the Imperial Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. Later that same day, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb, this time on the Japanese city of Nagasaki.

Following these events,Emperor Hirohito intervened and ordered the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War to accept the terms the Allies had set down in the Potsdam Declaration for ending the war. After several more days of behind-the-scenes negotiations and a failed coup d'état, Emperor Hirohito gave a recorded radio address across the Empire on August 15. In the radio address, called the Gyokuon-hōsō ("Jewel Voice Broadcast"), he announced the surrender of Japan to the Allies.

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

Sorry can't rewrite history. Bombs first - surrender 2nd.

Well sorry but yes history does get rewritten to favour the victors side of events.

Wikipedia is not a reliable place to quote facts from.

Did you know that the terms of surrender were the same post A-bombs as the Japanese had offered pre bombing?

But the Americans don't want everyone thinking it was unjustified so these little points are left out.

The complexities of the situation are far murkier than those being discussed here.

May I suggest you read Paul Hams Hiroshima Nagasaki account of events for a more balanced fact based view of what happened.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hiroshima-Nagasaki-Paul-Ham/dp/0552778508

I knew, learned it in college. No the little points are not left out. What changed before and after the bombs and the Russian invasion? Did the bombs stop the war? No. Did the Russians stop the war? No. The Americans said the Emperor could live and Japan surrendered. Emperor not a dummy. He held out till they guaranteed his survival.

You have to think war. Generals in a bunker knew cities destroyed but since Tokyo was also destroyed who cared what kind of bomb?

[Ulysses G.]

It was mass murder !

ALL war is mass murder, but it does not seem like it is going away.

[Grouse]

The two bombs were different. Nobody knew if either would work

The timing leads me to believe that a demonstration for Soviets was a key point

At the time, Japan had suffered their greatest ever land defeat at the hands of general Slim ( look it up )

Also there seems to have been an overwhelming urge to defeat colonialism and have economic hegemony

However, on balance, dropping the bombs was justified as it certainly shortened the war

[ebriemer]

The USA should pay compansation to Japan for their arrogant dead for the rest of their existance, (same as Germany has to pay compansation to Israel)

[jtTamad]

We won. Germany lost.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[lostoday]

The USA should pay compansation to Japan for their arrogant dead for the rest of their existance, (same as Germany has to pay compansation to Israel)

Yes of course.

[lostoday]

The two bombs were different. Nobody knew if either would work

The timing leads me to believe that a demonstration for Soviets was a key point

At the time, Japan had suffered their greatest ever land defeat at the hands of general Slim ( look it up )

Also there seems to have been an overwhelming urge to defeat colonialism and have economic hegemony

However, on balance, dropping the bombs was justified as it certainly shortened the war

Japan was a colonial power but I don't see that as being really relevant and economic hegemony was decided at some conference called United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference in 1944,

[Credo]

I would like to introduce a slightly different angle to the results of voting.

At present the figures are 132 "yes" against 54 "no".

I hope our esteemed Mods will not hold against me the following question:

" Would you hold on to your opinion if the question was about using A-bomb today on the enemy of your country?"

I am a very old man. And my heart is bleeding for the Homo Sapiens.

I don't think we can really compare today's technology with what was available at the time. We have drones and pinpoint accuracy in choosing a target. We have satellites and reasonably sophisticated intelligence. Even so, it's frequent that it's not fully accurate. A small number of innocents creates a lot of controversy.

I can't imagine a scenario where a nuclear bomb would be necessary given the present technology. It doesn't mean that someone wouldn't use one, but it's no longer necessary.

As we can see, there isn't even agreement that it was needed then. It may have been justified, but it may not have been necessary.

[btunes]

<deleted>#k no. For great insight on this loaded topic watch Oliver Stones, "The Untold History of the United States" for a reality check. Case closed.

Edited August 17, 2015 by btunes

[ebriemer]

Typical American arrogance, remember what havoc they have created in their own country, South America and the rest of the world, they always have to mingle in other countries business for their own interest, it would be a better world if they keep to their own devices