Thoughts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was it the Right Call?

Given the mind set of the Japanese Military at the time I think a negotiated peace would have been highly unlikely.
Rather I think they would have preferred to go out in a blaze of so-called glory, taking everyone else with them.
Look at Okinawa, the Japanese army feed the civilian population with lies about how the Americans would treat them, then forced them to commit suicide.
I still think the bombs were justified.
As for the Dam-Buster raid, the civilian death toll was unfortunate but the dams were a legitimate target.
If fully successful the raid would have set back German Industry for some time.
However it did not take the Germans too long to repair them, and any follow up raid would have probable failed due to increased anti-aircraft guns.
 
As for the Dam-Buster raid, the civilian death toll was unfortunate but the dams were a legitimate target.
If fully successful the raid would have set back German Industry for some time.
However it did not take the Germans too long to repair them, and any follow up raid would have probable failed due to increased anti-aircraft guns.

Yes it took them about 6 months, I believe, to rebuild the dams - but it took a lot of manpower and concrete - and therefore helped slow down the construction of the Atlantic wall, so in that manner helped D-Day succeed.
 
BBC said:
The conventional wisdom in the United States is that the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war, and because of that it was justified - end of story.

Is that really the end of the story?

It's certainly a convenient one. But it is one that was constructed after the war, by America's leaders, to justify what they had done. And what they had done was, by any measure, horrendous.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33754931
 
The conventional wisdom in the United States is that the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war, and because of that it was justified
So are they saying that:
  1. It wasn't the atomic bombs that ended the war, but the firebombing that started months earlier?
  2. None of the city-wide destruction (atomic or otherwise) was necessary, because the war would have ended without a further, enormous loss of life?
  3. (Or are they simply saying that the war did not end for those who survived, but were injured in, the atomic-bomb raids, which would be truly pitiful, really, as no war comes to an end with all those still alive being no worse** off than they were before the war began.)
Given the statement I quoted, and the lack of any rational or logical explanation of why the conventional wisdom is not correct, I can only assume that the article wants to suggest that the dropping the atomic bombs was wrong, while accepting that it probably wasn't.


** - I often think, when we hear of another car bomb attack in Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere (or other acts of violence, or accidents, or natural disasters), that sometimes too much prominence is given to the death tolls, and not enough to the (perhaps lifelong) suffering of those who were not killed outright.
 
Of course dropping the bombs was a horrible act.
There's no such thing as a nice bomb.
But as I stated before it was the only way to quickly end the war.
If the Americans ect. had been forced to invade the following bloodbath on both sides would have been far, far worse.
 
And, as I've pointed out before, almost all the dead would have been citizens (including the conscripted/drafted soldiers/sailors/airmen) in the sort of conflict that would have been needed. Given the experiences on small and medium-sized islands, it's hard to imagine the US using anything other than overwhelming force (to the extent that they could organise this in a practical way) following a battle plan that would have put the lives of its own combatants above that of any of the inhabitants of Japan's four main islands.
 
If it had been nuclear weapons used against an allied nation instead of by one, the would have been many war crime trials carried out by now.

Tens of thousands of civillians killed - atrocity, no matter who committed it.
 
If it had been nuclear weapons used against an allied nation instead of by one, the would have been many war crime trials carried out by now.

Tens of thousands of civillians killed - atrocity, no matter who committed it.

Agree.
 
Of course dropping the bombs was a horrible act.
There's no such thing as a nice bomb.
But as I stated before it was the only way to quickly end the war.
If the Americans ect. had been forced to invade the following bloodbath on both sides would have been far, far worse.

The battle of Okinawa gave the US military an idea of just how bad it would have been had we gone the invasion route.
 
I'm sure the other sides in the war also justified their own atrocities as 'for the greater good'.
 
The fire-bombing of Tokyo (just for one example) caused more damage and killed more people than either atomic bomb did. The nukes were really just more of the same.
 
The fire-bombing of Tokyo (just for one example) caused more damage and killed more people than either atomic bomb did. The nukes were really just more of the same.

Except that the Tokyo firebombing used multiple conventional incendiary bombs.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki only one bomb each . The Idea two bombs destroyed two cities likely terrified the Japanese high command.
 
The list of acceptable atrocities commited 'for the greater good' is pretty long yes, but as long as its the 'good' guys doing it, it is fine.

History is written by the victorious, as we have seen.
 
If it had been nuclear weapons used against an allied nation instead of by one, the would have been many war crime trials carried out by now.

Tens of thousands of civillians killed - atrocity, no matter who committed it.

The Japanese started it, they reaped the whirlwind.
 
The list of acceptable atrocities commited 'for the greater good' is pretty long yes, but as long as its the 'good' guys doing it, it is fine.

History is written by the victorious, as we have seen.

Then the bad guys who started the war should have refined from starting a war.
 
There are no winners in war. But if you have to go to war, you attack their military machine. You take out the soldiers, the weapons, the command. You can't kill thousands of civillians and then try to claim the moral high ground, no matter what the enemy did to you.

The only way to be moraly superior to your enemy is to not sink to their level. Civillian casualties happen, we all know that, but knowingly drop a weapon of arbitrary death upon a civillian centre is unacceptable by any ethical outlook.
 
Does that figure include those who died long after or those affected in the next generations?

Not only that, but spent years studying the effects with no intention of helping the victims. The US used the aftermath as a clinical study long after the event, making no attempt to help the victims.
 
Not only that, but spent years studying the effects with no intention of helping the victims. The US used the aftermath as a clinical study long after the event, making no attempt to help the victims.

The japanese were working on their own bomb, given their conduct actions in China and other places , what do suppose they would have done had they gotten there first? 55 million people perished because of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan and had they won million more would have died.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top