Bombing on Hiroshima

[Professional Russian]

Im pretty sure this goes here but if it doesnt feel free to move it.

What was the bombing for to end the war or terrorism.

[Genghis Khan]

comment removed

[Professional Russian]

Was the bombing Hiroshima to end the war. Or was it a terrorist act to force everyone to stop fighting. Either way it would if ended the war but was it an act of terrorism or was it to defend the U.S. against any other attacks by scareing the shit out of everybody.

[ImCoolBeans]

I'm going to go with it being a way to scare the living shit out of everybody so they don't fuck with 'Murricka. Was it right? Probably not. Was it payback? Oh yeah.

[Professional Russian]

I'm going to go with it being a way to scare the living shit out of everybody so they don't fuck with 'Murricka. Was it right? Probably not. Was it payback? Oh yeah.

They Bombed us First

[cadet199]

Gunna have to agree with ImCoolBeans... Did we scare the shit out of Japan? FUCK YES! Did they surrender? FUCK YES.

I would suggest changing your original question.. Maybe find a better word that "terrorism". Second, to back up my original claim, we dropped the bomb because we were the only ones to have it. We didn't just decide one day, "Oh, let's fuck with Japan." No, that's not what happened. We dropped the nuke on both cities because Japan would have never stopped. Ever. They would continue attacking. I mean, look at their pilots! They would dive-bomb everything! Do you think that a piece of paper would have stopped them? Hell no! They needed to be shown who was the boss. Then, we get into the arms race and..... The story ends there (:

[Professional Russian]

Gunna have to agree with ImCoolBeans... Did we scare the shit out of Japan? FUCK YES! Did they surrender? FUCK YES.

I would suggest changing your original question.. Maybe find a better word that "terrorism". Second, to back up my original claim, we dropped the bomb because we were the only ones to have it. We didn't just decide one day, "Oh, let's fuck with Japan." No, that's not what happened. We dropped the nuke on both cities because Japan would have never stopped. Ever. They would continue attacking. I mean, look at their pilots! They would dive-bomb everything! Do you think that a piece of paper would have stopped them? Hell no! They needed to be shown who was the boss. Then, we get into the arms race and..... The story ends there (:


I was right it was to end the war

[embers]

Sure it was to end the war, but it was fucking monstrous. I'd even say it was evil.

[Electra Heart]

"Hey! Pearl Harbor!" "That sucked!"

*bomb drops*
MURRICA! FUCK YEAH!

"YAYYYYY"

[Korashk]

The bombings were completely unnecessary for a large number of reasons:

1.) The number of American deaths in the result of an invasion were greatly exaggerated in official statements by the government. Most actual estimates put them at around 46,000 (http://hillyardhistory.net/uploads/Hiroshima_-_A_Postwar_Myth_-_500_000_U.S._Lives_Saved_-_1986-06-01_BAS__Bernstein_.pdf), which is much different than the 500,000 to 1,000,000 claimed by Truman. In fact, there was no US military planner then or since that would estimate more than 200,000 American deaths.

There are many quotes from high ranking government officials of the time lambasting the potential use of nuclear weapons:

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at the very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…" - Then General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different than what the general public supposed. When I asked MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn that he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed — as it did later anyway — to the retention of the institution of the emperor" - Norman Cousins; after an interview with General Douglas MacArthur

"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe that we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender that was satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs." - John McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War under President Truman

~~~~~

2.) The Potsdam Declaration (http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/P/o/Potsdam_Declaration.htm), which was basically a missive asking for and setting terms of Japan's surrender contained seemingly unreasonable demands and vaguely outlined consequences. Exemptions for important government leaders under the demands and explicit detailing of the consequences for not surrendering would have likely caused the Japanese government to accept the surrender. The exemptions should have been given to the Emperor (which is something that happened anyways) and other government leaders; the consequences should have been outlined better than "prompt and utter destruction", and instead included things such as how much nuclear weapons were going to fuck them up or how the Soviets would brutally destroy their country and people. The latter being guaranteed to happen in the result of an invasion.

~~~~~

3.) The bombs didn't have to be used on a populated area to get the point across. If the bombs even made an impact on the Japanese population, it wasn't the casualties that made an impact, it was the destructive power. I say this because Allied Forces had been bombing Japan for a while and the casualties of both the bombs are comparable to the regular firebombings of cities. An attack on an unpopulated area would have accomplished the exact same thing without the loss of life.

~~~~~

Lastly and most significant:
4.) The Japanese tried to surrender (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-diary/) before the bombings and the Potsdam Declaration. You might read how it wasn't the whole government, and you'll also read that it was more than six times. How able to fight do you think the non-surrendering parts of Japan would be after six major portions already laid down arms?

~~~~~

Therefore, the nuclear bombings are more accurately described as a kind of terrorism than a legitimate effort to end WWII in an efficient manner.

[Jupiter]

I'm going to go with it being a way to scare the living shit out of everybody so they don't fuck with 'Murricka. Was it right? Probably not. Was it payback? Oh yeah.

did it work?

yes.

[cadet199]

Look, Japan may have "tried" to surrender, but it WOULD NEVER HAVE FUCKING HAPPENED. Ever. They would not give up until America was dead. Because of the way they were trained.

[Lawliet]

I believe Austin above has it right. The main purpose was to end the war. However was the use of the bomb itself ethical? I don't think so. Based on what Austin has already stated, and other evidence that one may find when researching the subject.

[StoppingTime]

Was it to end the war? Probably.

Was it done in an absolutely ridiculous, overdone, unethical, unneeded, crazy way?


Just a little.

[Korashk]

Look, Japan may have "tried" to surrender, but it WOULD NEVER HAVE FUCKING HAPPENED. Ever. They would not give up until America was dead. Because of the way they were trained.
http://forum.nationstates.net/images/smilies/sm_facepalm.gif

The phrase "tried to surrender" means that parts of the Japanese government surrendered, but the people they were surrendering to ignored or rejected their offer and went ahead with plans. It doesn't mean that "they thought about surrendering but never got around to it".

I don't even know what the last portion of your post means. You think that Japan's military was trained to kill Americans rather than follow direct orders? Unlikely.

[Professional Russian]

I do think it was insane to drop a fucking atomic bomb on them but i think that if we didnt do it the war would have kept go on for a while more.

[ImCoolBeans]

They Bombed us First

Hence the "Was it payback? Oh yeah." ;)

[Sudds3]

AHHHH! Im doing my research paper on this! Well kinda....I have to prove that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was good for the US and Japan....which it was

[Korashk]

AHHHH! Im doing my research paper on this! Well kinda....I have to prove that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was good for the US and Japan....which it was
No. Stop that.

[Sugaree]

Terrorism? Are you kidding me?

[User_Does Not Exist]

Since when does America conduct in Terrorist activites... it was to show Japan and other countries not to fuck with us and that we were the the biggest most powerful world power as were other people trying to prove during that time.

[Professional Russian]

Terrorism? Are you kidding me?

And then someone on facebook said this:Around 3000 people died on the 9/11 attacks.

66,000 or more people died in 1945 of the Hiroshima Bombings.

Around 2400 people died in the attack of Pearl Harbor.

You tell me who's the terrorist

Thats why i asked

[Skeptical Bear]

It was an act of terrorism in a way but they attacked us first and there wasn't really anything else they could think of to make them surely surrender. Sad that the civilians had to suffer.

[Korashk]

It was an act of terrorism in a way but they attacked us first and there wasn't really anything else they could think of to make them surely surrender. Sad that the civilians had to suffer.
You people and your ignorance makes me sad. All you had to do was read the thread before you posted and you'd know that the Japanese tried to surrender on many occasions before we dropped nukes on them.

[Skeptical Bear]

You people and your ignorance makes me sad. All you had to do was read the thread before you posted and you'd know that the Japanese tried to surrender on many occasions before we dropped nukes on them.


Okay. I'm sorry for my ignorance on this topic but it seems that the U.S. has done a lot of crap through out the years that just isn't necessary.

[cadet199]

Since when does America conduct in Terrorist activites... it was to show Japan and other countries not to fuck with us and that we were the the biggest most powerful world power as were other people trying to prove during that time.

This just basically backs up every claim I, and others agreeing with me have made. Japan was a threat to freedom, and we said, "Shut the fuck up, and sit down, or we will sit you down forcefully".

[Sugaree]

And then someone on facebook said this:

Thats why i asked

I was just dumbfounded that someone could think the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to stop terrorism. I would say it was an ACT of terrorism on our part and it certainly was not to stop terrorism. You also must remember that this was a period where America was somewhat insecure because of the War and rise of the U.S.S.R.

[Professional Russian]

I was just dumbfounded that someone could think the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to stop terrorism. I would say it was an ACT of terrorism on our part and it certainly was not to stop terrorism. You also must remember that this was a period where America was somewhat insecure because of the War and rise of the U.S.S.R.

It wasnt necessarily an act of terrorism though. If we didnt do it the war would have ended later and we wanted over then.

[Mortal Coil]

They dropped the bomb in a hurried attempt to end the war before the USSR started fighting as well and spread soviet influence into the east.
Didn't work, obviously, but it was not terrorism.

[MisterSix]

The word 'terrorism' has lost its meaning thanks to you yanks.

But the atomic bombings were necessary.
The japs were never going to surrender. Surrender wasn't part of their culture.
Hell, it even took two nukes to change their culture

Edit: I would call it an act of war

[Jess]

not an act of terrorism. it was an obvious act to end the war.

[Korashk]

The japs were never going to surrender.
The "japs" DID surrender. We rejected the offer. How many fucking times am I going to have to point this out?

[ImCoolBeans]

The "japs" DID surrender. We rejected the offer. How many fucking times am I going to have to point this out?

Seriously. Read up a bit, guys :P

[double r]

Terrorism is not a word that should be used to describe WWII it showed up in the late 60's early 70's, it was an act of war ,we will never now what any thought back then in the 40's.


Please don't double post, use the edit button - Kaius

[Erasmus]

I'm going to go with it being a way to scare the living shit out of everybody so they don't fuck with 'Murricka. Was it right? Probably not. Was it payback? Oh yeah.

exactly my opinion

[StoppingTime]

Terrorism is not a word that you can use to describe WWII it showed up in the late 60's early 70's, it was an act of war get your facts striated we will never now what any thought back then in the 40's.

It is an act of war and etc get your facts striated terrorism bloom was in the late 60's early 70's

????????????????

ter·ror·ism/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun:
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Regardless of the fact that early 60's late 70's are almost twenty years apart, this still makes no sense.

This has been around for hunderds, thousands of years. Basically, (once again, basic definition), anytime many people are killed during a certain event (not a war), is terrorism.

[double r]

First I have to work on English second you have to read more closely It looks like they are referring as if it was sabotage and that was what I meant in the post above not anything else. And just to let you know I said we will never know and that was including me to so don't make accusations so quickly. And I meant also with terrorism is not the correct word to be using.

[jackson94]

The bombings were completely unnecessary for a large number of reasons:

......

Lastly and most significant:
4.) The Japanese tried to surrender (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-diary/) before the bombings and the Potsdam Declaration. You might read how it wasn't the whole government, and you'll also read that it was more than six times. How able to fight do you think the non-surrendering parts of Japan would be after six major portions already laid down arms?

~~~~~

Therefore, the nuclear bombings are more accurately described as a kind of terrorism than a legitimate effort to end WWII in an efficient manner.

The message Truman cited did not refer to anything even remotely resembling surrender. It referred instead to the Japanese foreign office's attempt (under the suspicious eyes of the military) to persuade the Soviet Union to broker a negotiated peace that would have permitted the Japanese to retain their prewar empire and their imperial system (not just the emperor) intact. No American president could have accepted such a settlement, as it would have meant abandoning the United States' most basic war aims.

[tHe_Jester1080]

If I was president then I would have sent twice as many nukes, and bombed tokyo. I would have flattened Japan... SCREW THE JAPS!!!!!

[StoppingTime]

If I was president then I would have sent twice as many nukes, and bombed tokyo. I would have flattened Japan... SCREW THE JAPS!!!!!

Lets just kill as many innocent people as possible!!!11!!!!111!!11!!1111oneone!

[Korashk]

It referred instead to the Japanese foreign office's attempt (under the suspicious eyes of the military) to persuade the Soviet Union to broker a negotiated peace
Brokering a negotiated peace is surrendering. In a nation-to-nation context the word and phrase mean the same thing.

that would have permitted the Japanese to retain their prewar empire and their imperial system (not just the emperor) intact.
Terms that could be negotiated away or met in a compromise. By this time Japan was pretty much the only Axis power, hardly in a position to hold and leverage in peace talks.

No American president could have accepted such a settlement, as it would have meant abandoning the United States' most basic war aims.
So the next best solution was to murder a few hundred thousand civilians to make a point?

[jackson94]

Brokering a negotiated peace is surrendering. In a nation-to-nation context the word and phrase mean the same thing.

I think it is a leap to go from asking the Soviet Union for peace in very lenient terms, to surrendering to the Allies, especially considering there is not a bit of evidence from a Japanese source even mentioning an attempt at surrender. Seems Japan would be quite outspoken if hundreds of thousands of citizens had needlessly died, no?

Terms that could be negotiated away or met in a compromise. By this time Japan was pretty much the only Axis power, hardly in a position to hold and leverage in peace talks.
They had been the only axis power fighting in that region since the start. Knowing Japanese culture of the time, I doubt they would have surrendered under much less of a display. Most of the 'revisionist' minded people site Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's book Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan as evidence. However, although he agrees with many of these ideas, he clearly states ""Without the twin shocks of the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war, the Japanese never would have surrendered in August."


So the next best solution was to murder a few hundred thousand civilians to make a point?

Well that's a differant question entirely :D And I'm sure one that was debated and thought over long and hard both by FDR and then Truman.

[double r]

Back then they would not even consider this an act of terrorism , they would think of it as war.

[Korashk]

I think it is a leap to go from asking the Soviet Union for peace in very lenient terms, to surrendering to the Allies,
The Soviet Union was the second most powerful Allied power and their leaders were not keeping the offer quiet, as the source given shows that both Truman and Churchill knew about it.

They had been the only axis power fighting in that region since the start.
But they'd been largely unopposed because most of the powers were fighting in Europe. By this time in the war the fighting in Europe was pretty much over and the full force of the Allies could be directed at Japan.

Knowing Japanese culture of the time, I doubt they would have surrendered under much less of a display. Most of the 'revisionist' minded people site Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's book Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan as evidence. However, although he agrees with many of these ideas, he clearly states ""Without the twin shocks of the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war, the Japanese never would have surrendered in August."
The shock of the bomb could just as easily have been demonstrated on an uninhabited part of Japan while having the exact same effect.

[Genghis Khan]

Seems Japan would be quite outspoken if hundreds of thousands of citizens had needlessly died, no?

That's an assumption on a shaky basis. There have been several massacres that aren't talked about much relative to less-intense incidents like 9/11; namely the Nanking massacre in China, the 22 million Russians, Ukrainians and Poles that were killed during Stalin's political tyranny, the crimes in British-India by the British/Amritsar Macabre, Warsaw/Polish massacre, native-Indian genocide.

[zuhvi113an]

In my opinion i think it was a desperate attempt to end fighting but if you think about it the US prbbly just wanted to try out der new "toy"

[double r]

Genghis just to let you know about your fact about Stalin you need to add one more million and a bunch of more nationalities, you missed. But who cares.

[StoppingTime]

Genghis just to let you know about your fact about Stalin you need to add one more million and a bunch of more nationalities, you missed. But who cares.

I'm sure the millions of families that lost people he killed do.

[double r]

My family came from the Soviet Union, I lost one of my Great Uncles do to him, he died in a work camp in eastern Siberia , you do not no half the shit as many Russians know about Stalin. Add a million because they have not record all deaths. They are still missing a million people.

But lets stay on topic about the war.