Was bombing Japan the right thing? (For Americans)

[The LOLer]

Of course we didnt have much of a choice. But so many innocent people died. What if we had not bombed them? What if we went on with the war? What are your thoughts?

[SkatingHero]

Well, we would have spared the enemy, but thousands of American soldiers would have died. The families of those soldiers probably would go into poverty, and America would be a much sadder place. Of course, I can't predict exactly what would happen, but this is my guess.

[tovaris]

Conpletly unecesery the Japenies were going to surender anyway as soon as rhe Soviets invaded and th nuke bonbing caused unecesery lives.

[Jean Poutine]

Considering all the atrocities they committed in Korea and China, not to mention Southeast Asia, and considering how revisionist their outlook on history is (the Americans were the aggressors in Japan, nevermind Pearl Harbor), they got what was coming to them.

[Stronger]

Conpletly unecesery the Japenies were going to surender anyway as soon as rhe Soviets invaded and th nuke bonbing caused unecesery lives.

Oh it was necessary, had we not done this, what other choice would we have? More Americans would have died, as well as those from other nations who were on the same side as us. Look at Pearl Harbor, that caused the loss of lives, they defiantly had this coming at them.

[tovaris]

Oh it was necessary, had we not done this, what other choice would we have? More Americans would have died, as well as those from other nations who were on the same side as us. Look at Pearl Harbor, that caused the loss of lives, they defiantly had this coming at them.

they would hve surenderd max10days lates without the nukes they fered the soviets much more than the nukes

[Taryn98]

people die in war
like the saying goes, war is hell
I don't feal bad for the enemy who died
they attacked us first, maybe they should have thought about that before hand
some people learn their lesson's the hard way

[Sir Suomi]

they would hve surenderd max10days lates without the nukes they fered the soviets much more than the nukes

The only Russian involvement in the Pacific war was at the last month of the war. They only invaded a few of the smaller northern islands in Japan. Japan was ready to fight to the death against both Russian and Allied troops. Russians did little to help the United States, like they always have.

Damn right it was a good idea. The Japanese government was planning on fighting to the death. They armed civilians with spears, sharpened bamboo stakes, and small arms, instructing each and every one to ensure that they take at least one Allied soldier down. They still had a massive fleet of planes, armed with explosives, ready to ram into our ships when we invaded. Even if we'd made it through, they would have ended up repeating Saipan, where hundreds of them chose to jump off a cliff, thus killing themselves, over surrender to American troops.

[Horizon]

people die in war
like the saying goes, war is hell
I don't feal bad for the enemy who died
they attacked us first, maybe they should have thought about that before hand
some people learn their lesson's the hard way

I agree with you completely on this
We were offhandedly attacked, we had no participation in the war up until that point, we were neutral. Innocent lives of our own country were lost, so I find it only fair to show Japan what we were capable of.
I couldn't feel bad for the people in Japan who lost their lives, their leader made a huge mistake and that's how he had to pay for it.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

It was necessary. But a LITTLE excessive.

[PinkFloyd]

I know this is going to sound cold, but they did it first. They should have thought of what would happen before the fucked with us... Either way it was a horrible thing.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

It's sad to think about all those innocent people that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention the hundreds of thousands that died in various other firebombings all over Japan. But then you think about the millions of people they killed for no good reason and think maybe they had it coming.

Surrender was from the minds of the Japanese even after Berlin fell and the Allied forces were closing in on Japan itself. They still had millions of soldiers and were even training the civilians to fight the invaders. We had to show them that unless they surrender, they'll all die. That's what the bombings were for. To show superiority.

If we hadn't done that, hundreds of thousands Americans would have died trying to take Japan, and the war would have dragged on for months.

So in the end, it was us or them.

[Korashk]

Well, we would have spared the enemy,
Yeah, all those factory workers, their families and the people that lived in those cities were totally "the enemy" and completely deserved to have a bomb dropped on them.

but thousands of American soldiers would have died.
Better soldiers who volunteered than innocent civilians.

The families of those soldiers probably would go into poverty,
Baseless assertion, plus it's not like all that many Americans actually died in WWII comparatively.

Plus, as others have mentioned the Japanese were planning to surrender.

Considering all the atrocities they committed in Korea and China, not to mention Southeast Asia,
I doubt that many people living in those cities at the time had committed any atrocities against anyone, considering they were living in those cities at the time.

and considering how revisionist their outlook on history is (the Americans were the aggressors in Japan, nevermind Pearl Harbor), they got what was coming to them.
America's government WAS the aggressor. (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930) Unjust economic sanctions were crippling their economy. Did you think they attacked Pearl Harbor for shits and giggles?

[Southside]

I think dropping a nuke was a little too much, they should have just bombed them with conventional weapons until the Japs eventually called it quits. We were already successful in air raids against Tokyo and other major Japanese cities..

[Sugaree]

Of course we didnt have much of a choice.

Yes we did. You'll never learn it from a history book, but Japan DID offer terms of surrender multiple times in 1945 before the bombings. All they asked was that the Emperor not be dethroned, yet the United States ignored the requests.

[Jean Poutine]

I doubt that many people living in those cities at the time had committed any atrocities against anyone, considering they were living in those cities at the time.

Nope, but when you push a little too hard on the door, it should not be a surprise if it hits you on the ass back out.

America's government WAS the aggressor. Unjust economic sanctions were crippling their economy. Did you think they attacked Pearl Harbor for shits and giggles?

Unjust? Are we talking about the same Japan?

[Korashk]

Nope, but when you push a little too hard on the door, it should not be a surprise if it hits you on the ass back out.
So let's just kill everyone because some people that look like them killed some people that look like us?

Unjust? Are we talking about the same Japan?
There is no such thing as a just economic sanction.

[Jean Poutine]

So let's just kill everyone because some people that look like them killed some people that look like us?

Aux grands maux, les grands moyens. It got a quick surrender when an American invasion of Japan would have been extremely costly.

There is no such thing as a just economic sanction.

How much more disastrous would the Pacific theater have been if it weren't for the fact America starved Japan of oil, among other things? That economic sanctions also affect the population's quality of life is not debatable but there are some cases where it just has to be done. Even with an embargo, Japan turned into a military juggernaut.

[The LOLer]

Conpletly unecesery the Japenies were going to surender anyway as soon as rhe Soviets invaded and th nuke bonbing caused unecesery lives.

Then why didnt they surrender after the first nuke?

[The LOLer]

Yes we did. You'll never learn it from a history book, but Japan DID offer terms of surrender multiple times in 1945 before the bombings. All they asked was that the Emperor not be dethroned, yet the United States ignored the requests.

I can understand that knowing their social class, but the emperor was crazy anyway. Why didnt they want him to go? The military and cigs might of wanted to stop, but if the emp didn't say so, to bad.

[riverboy]

Yes we did. You'll never learn it from a history book, but Japan DID offer terms of surrender multiple times in 1945 before the bombings. All they asked was that the Emperor not be dethroned, yet the United States ignored the requests.


Where did you learn this?

[Sugaree]

I can understand that knowing their social class, but the emperor was crazy anyway. Why didnt they want him to go? The military and cigs might of wanted to stop, but if the emp didn't say so, to bad.

They wanted their emperor to stay in power because that was tradition. Asian cultures are very much focused on keeping their traditions the same, and forcing them to stop recognizing the position of the Emperor would have been a disaster to the Japanese people.

Where did you learn this?

Try looking into alternative sources.

[naglfari]

I don't think it was the right thing to do

[Camazotz]

I agree with you completely on this
We were offhandedly attacked, we had no participation in the war up until that point, we were neutral.

Neutral in terms of fighting. In terms of assistance, trade, and rationing of food/weapons, America heavily favored the Allies.

Innocent lives of our own country were lost, so I find it only fair to show Japan what we were capable of.

I agree that the soldiers at Pearl Harbor didn't deserve to be attacked; however, a previous argument (that I think you may agree with) was that soldiers "get what's coming to them." Or does that only apply to the "bad guys?"

I couldn't feel bad for the people in Japan who lost their lives, their leader made a huge mistake and that's how he had to pay for it.

If Bush declared a War on Terror, and terrorists bombed and killed millions of Americans, does that mean we have to "pay for it" because he made a huge mistake?

It's sad to think about all those innocent people that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention the hundreds of thousands that died in various other firebombings all over Japan. But then you think about the millions of people they killed for no good reason and think maybe they had it coming.

What "millions of people" are you referring to? And do you think that there were no reasons as to why they attacked us? Because they had their reasons and only killed millions of people after we declared war on the Axis powers. Plus you're implying that Japanese civilians were somehow responsible for the war and the killing of American soldiers.

Surrender was from the minds of the Japanese even after Berlin fell and the Allied forces were closing in on Japan itself. They still had millions of soldiers and were even training the civilians to fight the invaders. We had to show them that unless they surrender, they'll all die. That's what the bombings were for. To show superiority.

If we hadn't done that, hundreds of thousands Americans would have died trying to take Japan, and the war would have dragged on for months.

So in the end, it was us or them.

Agreed. Except for the part where you said "us or them." There are always alternatives. The government could have organized a meeting with military officials to show them the effects of the atomic bomb by dropping it on an empty island where no one would be hurt. We could've said we had several more, and were prepared to drop it on major cities. That would've been intimidation. Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians isn't intimidation; that's a war attrocity.

Yes we did. You'll never learn it from a history book, but Japan DID offer terms of surrender multiple times in 1945 before the bombings. All they asked was that the Emperor not be dethroned, yet the United States ignored the requests.

This.

[Sir Suomi]

America's government WAS the aggressor.[/URL] Unjust economic sanctions were crippling their economy. Did you think they attacked Pearl Harbor for shits and giggles?


Unjust??? Sure, I mean, it's not like they didn't kill over 23 million Chinese citizens, along with 30 million other civilians, invade multiple peaceful countries, and completely ignore the Geneva Convention... Oh wait, my bad, they did. America put these economic sanctions on Japan as a warning, although they had already warned them that if they'd continued hostile actions we were going to put a sanction on them, they just continued on. While they sent embasadors to our capital, claiming peace, they were already planning on attempting to completely destroy our naval fleet, plus invade Bataan(Ever heard of the Bataan Death March?), the Philippines, and other neutral countries. Tell me, how America was the aggressor?

[Cicero]

they would hve surenderd max10days lates without the nukes they fered the soviets much more than the nukes

Russia wasn't involved with Asia. So it'd be impossible for Japan to fear the soviets as you think, because Japan had no real interaction with the soviets.


They deserved it. All.

They're the ones who attacked us, and they're the reason we got involved. We were moderately peaceful, we were not involved at all. Until they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Japan wasn't going to stop, they were probably planning on attacking us again. Our country needs to consider its citizens first, before considering another country's citizens. Japan should've considered its citizens, before stupidly getting us involved in WWII. They knew that there was a risk of their own citizens getting hurt, and they were alright with that.

I don't think it was the right thing to do

Figures youd be against the US ending the war with the nuke. You think violence is never the answer, which is why you'd be someone everyone would take advantage of and trample on. Your idea during that time would probably be "We should just continue asking them politely, but make sure we're a bit more stern! Regardless of the Japs killing more of our citizens and troops!"

[naglfari]

Figures your be against the US ending the war with the nuke. You think violence is never the answer, which is why you'd be someone everyone would take advantage of and trample on. Your idea during that time would probably be "We should just continue asking them politely, but make sure we're a bit more stern! Regardless of the Japs killing more of our citizens and troops!"

I just think the war was about to end anyway. I wouldn't be against it if it was the only way. sounds like Japan was looking to surrender regardless of the bombs

[britishboy]

it saved so many allies soilders from being killed and you must admit it was pretty cool.

[TheBassoonist]

The alternative would've been Allied forces invading Japan and continuing the Pacific War in Japan. If Operation Downfall was undertaken, millions of people would have been killed on both sides, and the war would've continued for several more years.

As to the Soviets, the USSR didn't declare war on Japan until a few days after the first bomb was dropped, and invaded Manchuria a few hours later. While the Soviet-Japanese War helped influence the Emperor's decision to force the Big Six to surrender, I think the bombs played a larger role.

I think that bombing Japan was the quickest and easiest way to force Japan to surrender, ending the war. Although, the use of atomic weapons may have also been a show of strength to a certain other superpower...

[Sugaree]

it saved so many allies soilders from being killed and you must admit it was pretty cool.

I bet it's also cool to you that hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens died in a nuclear holocaust.

[Lofiel]

The japanese were already retreating before the bomb was dropped; and it could have been shot at a much less populated area.
Sheer amount of innocent children, men and women that died from it is a crime against humanity, no matter the pretense. Seeing one in action would have scared them into submission, just in an underpopulated area.

[MisterSix]

What a stupid thread. I can't think of a single reason why the bombing was bad for Americans

[Hunter_Steel]

When Little Boy was dropped, they had no idea it was such a powerful weapon. Not even Einstein and the man who actually built the nuke knew what devastating power it had. Einstein did say however that the bomb would be the most powerful bomb in history of mankind. But no one knew it had the potential to level half a city.

The Japanese surrendered after Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki. The only time Nukes were ever used in Warfare was WWII. That would be the first and last time they were used and if the universe allows, will stay like that.

It was necessary, if not WWII would've continued and it would've ended with the US vs the Soviets. Which would not have ended well for the world. The Soviets later built the Tzar Bomb which would have flattened NYC if not DC along with it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Tsar01.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Tsar_Bomba_Paris.png
Blast Radius of Tsar Bomb

http://www.blog.markloiseau.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/tsar_bomba.jpg
Mushroom cloud size comparison

http://amodestpublication.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/tsar-bomba-fireball-blast-scale-size2.png
Fireball size.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/x3pqSYAuy-A/hqdefault.jpg
Picture of actual mushroom.

Be happy this didn't happen which it would have if WWII became Russia vs America during the time when Nukes weren't restricted and mutual destruction wasn't a fear when only these two super powers were the ones to have Nukes.

I say, bombing the Japs was sad, but it ended the second world war. And for that I am happy because it stopped a show down with America and Russia during the time when Nukes were not restricted.

And I am happy the Japs surrendered coz we wouldn't have had any Anime/Manga today :D

~Hunter

[DerBear]

If I had to sum it up in a few words...Bombing Japan ended the war much faster because the bombings took place. If not, then it would have continued and thousands would have died needlessly. Now the bombings killed civilians but more civilians would have been killed if America invaded Japan as lets face it that Japanese were planning on fighting to the death, they had school children trained to run at the enemy with spears.

Nobody wins with war and that's why those who died in the 2 bombings were what would be considered a casualty of war.

it saved so many allies soilders from being killed and you must admit it was pretty cool.

Oh yes, a nuclear explosion that killed thousand, oh god it was amazing. Remember this was real life, no call of duty modern warfare: Where you see the nuke going off and think "WOW that looked Epic"

Real people died. War, death and destruction was never a "cool thing". Thousands of families were destroyed.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

What "millions of people" are you referring to? And do you think that there were no reasons as to why they attacked us? Because they had their reasons and only killed millions of people after we declared war on the Axis powers. Plus you're implying that Japanese civilians were somehow responsible for the war and the killing of American soldiers.



I wan't talking about their attack on Pearl Harbor or any other act of agression towards the United States. They didn't kill millions because we declared war on the Axis. The countries that they attacked had nothing to do with it, or the Allies in general. They were neutral.

I'm referring to the millions of innocent Chinese and Filipinos the Japan and it's puppet states killed for no good reasons. I'm talking about the Massacre of Nanjing and the Bataan Death March. What they did to the rest of Asia was just as bad as the Holocaust in Europe.

I'm not implying that the Japanese farmers were responsible for our losses at Okinawa, or what happened in China and the Philippines. But were the Chinese and Filipinos guilty of anything? Japan didn't even declare war on China, but marched in, unprovoked and killed millions.

The Allied Supreme Command didn't care how many civilians would die. Everyone thought it was payback for what the Japanese did during the war.



Agreed. Except for the part where you said "us or them." There are always alternatives. The government could have organized a meeting with military officials to show them the effects of the atomic bomb by dropping it on an empty island where no one would be hurt. We could've said we had several more, and were prepared to drop it on major cities. That would've been intimidation. Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians isn't intimidation; that's a war attrocity.



" We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight. "
-Japanese High Imperial Command

Japan wasn't willing to surrender. They had never lost a war in history, and they wanted to keep that achievement. They started arming people with sticks to fight invaders. They were ready to send 3.000 Kamikaze to stop the Allied amphibious assault on Kyushu.

Also, the bombing of Tokyo was far worse than the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's probably the most destructive air raid ever conducted. The Japanese kept fighting on for months after it happened. When we dropped Little Man on Hiroshima, the PM's cabinet still wanted to fight on, thinking that there's no way we have another weapon like that. We did. We proved it by dropping Fat Man on Nagasaki. And we told them there's more where that came from.

" We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war. It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth ...
-President Truman

That was an intimidation tactic, and it only succeeded because the Japanese knew that they couldn't let another bomb like that explode on their soil. A demonstration at some uninhabited island wouldn't have the same effect on morale. That's what it all comes down to in the end.

[britishboy]

If I had to sum it up in a few words...Bombing Japan ended the war much faster because the bombings took place. If not, then it would have continued and thousands would have died needlessly. Now the bombings killed civilians but more civilians would have been killed if America invaded Japan as lets face it that Japanese were planning on fighting to the death, they had school children trained to run at the enemy with spears.

Nobody wins with war and that's why those who died in the 2 bombings were what would be considered a casualty of war.



Oh yes, a nuclear explosion that killed thousand, oh god it was amazing. Remember this was real life, no call of duty modern warfare: Where you see the nuke going off and think "WOW that looked Epic"

Real people died. War, death and destruction was never a "cool thing". Thousands of families were destroyed.

I see that your british, right the Nazis bombed our civilians, we bombed there's, the Japanese tortured American soilders really bad and what are you Greenpeace? it is cool

I bet it's also cool to you that hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens died in a nuclear holocaust.

so it's ok to drop normal bombs on them just not big ones? and they tortured American soilders and they didn't bomb the capital city and it saved many more American lives


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Stronk Serb]

Russia wasn't involved with Asia. So it'd be impossible for Japan to fear the soviets as you think, because Japan had no real interaction with the soviets.


They deserved it. All.

They're the ones who attacked us, and they're the reason we got involved. We were moderately peaceful, we were not involved at all. Until they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Japan wasn't going to stop, they were probably planning on attacking us again. Our country needs to consider its citizens first, before considering another country's citizens. Japan should've considered its citizens, before stupidly getting us involved in WWII. They knew that there was a risk of their own citizens getting hurt, and they were alright with that.



Figures youd be against the US ending the war with the nuke. You think violence is never the answer, which is why you'd be someone everyone would take advantage of and trample on. Your idea during that time would probably be "We should just continue asking them politely, but make sure we're a bit more stern! Regardless of the Japs killing more of our citizens and troops!"



Russia WAS involved in Asia. Although not as on a wide scale as the US. Heard of the Khalkin Gol incident? The Japanese Kwantung Army got owned. The Soviets invaded Manchuko, a Japanese puppet country in Manchuria, China during the summer of '45. The Kwantung Army got owned, again. The Soviets took the Kuril and Sakhalin Islands, and were ready to occupy Hokaido, but due to western opposition, Hokaido was never occupied. They could've made the Japs surrender, but the US nuked them first, and forced them to immidiately raise the white flag. The nuking was not he best solution. The US could've intimidated the Japanese in other ways. The Japanese terms of surrender in Potsdam were the same as the peace treaty signed, the only diference was that the emperor would keep his throne.

[tovaris]

Then why didnt they surrender after the first nuke?

They tried to surrender before with little success after the nukes they were willing to surrender unconditionally to the Americans, but their surrender was due mostly to the fact that the soviets started invading and the soviet ideals were simply not computable with the emperor they wanted to keep so badly.

[Stronk Serb]

I see that your british, right the Nazis bombed our civilians, we bombed there's, the Japanese tortured American soilders really bad and what are you Greenpeace? it is cool

Elderly, women and children dying in nuclear fire? That is not by any means cool.

[Sugaree]

so it's ok to drop normal bombs on them just not big ones? and they tortured American soilders and they didn't bomb the capital city and it saved many more American lives

No, it wasn't ok to drop bombs on any body. The firebombing of Dresden, Germany and every single other bombing in WWII, be it in the European Theater or Pacific Theater, was an unconventional way to try and weaken the other side. It doesn't matter if they tortured our soldiers, because we tortured theirs as well. The torturing of soldiers does not justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians at the hands of nuclear fire.

[britishboy]

No, it wasn't ok to drop bombs on any body. The firebombing of Dresden, Germany and every single other bombing in WWII, be it in the European Theater or Pacific Theater, was an unconventional way to try and weaken the other side. It doesn't matter if they tortured our soldiers, because we tortured theirs as well. The torturing of soldiers does not justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians at the hands of nuclear fire.

ow grow up are we ment to beg them to surrender? and what's your nationality?

[DerBear]

I see that your british, right the Nazis bombed our civilians, we bombed there's, the Japanese tortured American soilders really bad and what are you Greenpeace? it is cool

Actually a lot of the British bomb runs in WW2 were coordinated to attack certain buildings or targets of course innocent civilians were killed.

However that's not really the point. My point was you were basically saying that 70,000 innocent civilians dead in less than 5 minutes was cool.

That was the point I was getting at.

[britishboy]

Actually a lot of the British bomb runs in WW2 were coordinated to attack certain buildings or targets of course innocent civilians were killed.

However that's not really the point. My point was you were basically saying that 70,000 innocent civilians dead in less than 5 minutes was cool.

That was the point I was getting at.

no I was saying the massive mushroom cloud and that was killed and we killed more German civilians than they killed British civilians

[Sugaree]

ow grow up are we ment to beg them to surrender? and what's your nationality?

Says the 14 year old speaking to the 18 year old. If you think a massive explosion which kills thousands of people is "cool", I'm not the one who needs to grow up. And you have no right to know what my nationality is, so don't ask.

[DerBear]

no I was saying the massive mushroom cloud and that was killed and we killed more German civilians than they killed British civilians

So you get excited when there is a massive mushroom cloud that symbolizes death and destruction.

I don't actually think we have a stat for who killed more civilians in bomb runs because honestly, we can't evaluate that due to the fact that multiple nationalities were involved in bomb running's + we have to think of different population scales and the fact Germany only really attacked a few locations (which was often) within the United Kingdom. Whereas Britain was involved in all areas of the campaign fighting in multiple locations.

[Harry Smith]

Yes, it was justified. We were engaged in a state of Total war with Japan

[britishboy]

Says the 14 year old speaking to the 18 year old. If you think a massive explosion which kills thousands of people is "cool", I'm not the one who needs to grow up. And you have no right to know what my nationality is, so don't ask.

yeah cos your 18 you must know everything and nukes are cool they wiped out two massive cities! and theyre bigger and better now! what you like is a matter of opinion and this thread is 'were they good for the Americans' so yeah they were they saved loads of American lives

[britishboy]

So you get excited when there is a massive mushroom cloud that symbolizes death and destruction.

I don't actually think we have a stat for who killed more civilians in bomb runs because honestly, we can't evaluate that due to the fact that multiple nationalities were involved in bomb running's + we have to think of different population scales and the fact Germany only really attacked a few locations (which was often) within the United Kingdom. Whereas Britain was involved in all areas of the campaign fighting in multiple locations.

I learnt in school we killed more I don't know how they measured it and what you find cool is your own opinion and it was justified, they deserved it.

[Sugaree]

yeah cos your 18 you must know everything and nukes are cool they wiped out two massive cities! and theyre bigger and better now! what you like is a matter of opinion and this thread is 'were they good for the Americans' so yeah they were they saved loads of American lives

What right have you to talk about what can and can not save American lives? You're British, you have technically have no right to make any comments on shit you obviously know nothing about. And yes, I do know more than you because I've taken the time to study on subjects before I debate them. I'd love to see you caught at the apex of a nuclear detonation where you have no shelter. I'm sure you'll find it cool to have your eyeballs melt from their socket and your entire body to be vaporized within seconds.

[britishboy]

What right have you to talk about what can and can not save American lives? You're British, you have technically have no right to make any comments on shit you obviously know nothing about. And yes, I do know more than you because I've taken the time to study on subjects before I debate them. I'd love to see you caught at the apex of a nuclear detonation where you have no shelter. I'm sure you'll find it cool to have your eyeballs melt from their socket and your entire body to be vaporized within seconds.

I'm studying modern history, they nuked Japan for 4 reasons
1. millions in development
2. revenge for torture and pearl harbo
3. quick end to the war saving Americas lives
4. shows off America's power

and yes I am British, britian is very close to the USA and we have a 'special relationship' unlike the third world dump you live in.

[Sugaree]

I'm studying modern history, they nuked Japan for 4 reasons
1. millions in development
2. revenge for torture and pearl harbo
3. quick end to the war saving Americas lives
4. shows off America's power

and yes I am British, britian is very close to the USA and we have a 'special relationship' unlike the third world dump you live in.

I don't live in a third world country. I'm in a country strongly allied with Britain. And with how most of you act, I feel fine saying you have no right in voicing your opinions on issues affecting the United States because you never do your research. Seriously, you sound like Piers Morgan right now.

[britishboy]

I don't live in a third world country. I'm in a country strongly allied with Britain. And with how most of you act, I feel fine saying you have no right in voicing your opinions on issues affecting the United States because you never do your research. Seriously, you sound like Piers Morgan right now.

and what am I missing? and what country is that? the USA? commonwealth? France? Germany?

[Harry Smith]

I'm studying modern history, they nuked Japan for 4 reasons
1. millions in development
2. revenge for torture and pearl harbo
3. quick end to the war saving Americas lives
4. shows off America's power

and yes I am British, britian is very close to the USA and we have a 'special relationship' unlike the third world dump you live in.

Revenge for Pearl Harbour? Wasn't that the whole point of the war. Pearly Harbour wasn't an attack on a city, it was an attack on a naval base.

[Sugaree]

and what am I missing? and what country is that? the USA? commonwealth? France? Germany?

Well shit son, you finally show some intelligence. Good job guessing my nationality. I'm from the United States, so you actually get points for that.

[britishboy]

Well shit son, you finally show some intelligence. Good job guessing my nationality. I'm from the United States, so you actually get points for that.

haha Americans are awesome but this confuses me more? it saved so many of your troops? AND THE UK AND USA ARE BEST FRIENDS!:) IM SORRY FOR BEING A BITCH MY FRIEND FROM ACROSS THE POND!:')

Revenge for Pearl Harbour? Wasn't that the whole point of the war. Pearly Harbour wasn't an attack on a city, it was an attack on a naval base.

I know that and it was what sparked the war there were other things that helped just like most things in history.

-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Sugaree]

haha Americans are awesome but this confuses me more? it saved so many of your troops? AND THE UK AND USA ARE BEST FRIENDS!:) IM SORRY FOR BEING A BITCH MY FRIEND FROM ACROSS THE POND!:')

It didn't save any more of our troops. Japan was ready to give up anyway, we just didn't listen to their concession requests. Also, don't suck my dick because I'm an American; we're not buddies.

[britishboy]

It didn't save any more of our troops. Japan was ready to give up anyway, we just didn't listen to their concession requests. Also, don't suck my dick because I'm an American; we're not buddies.

well most Americans are cool 2 of my best friends are American and you wouldnt you have had to send in troops? and didn't you nuke them then they said they wont surrender then you nuked them again?

[Sugaree]

well most Americans are cool 2 of my best friends are American and you wouldnt you have had to send in troops? and didn't you nuke them then they said they wont surrender then you nuked them again?

Yes, that's exactly what we did. And it was misleading to the entire world and the American people.

[britishboy]

Yes, that's exactly what we did. And it was misleading to the entire world and the American people.

how was it misleading?

[Sugaree]

how was it misleading?

It was misleading because Japan had already offered conditions for surrender. Do you not see the problem with this?

[britishboy]

It was misleading because Japan had already offered conditions for surrender. Do you not see the problem with this?

I didnt know that I thought it was only after the second nuke they accepted the surrender offer

[tovaris]

I didnt know that I thought it was only after the second nuke they accepted the surrender offer

No no the two parties have been arguing about surender and producing surender terms for a while before the bombs but th usa wanted unconditional surender.

[britishboy]

No no the two parties have been arguing about surender and producing surender terms for a while before the bombs but th usa wanted unconditional surender.

fair enough they should have given it the second they found out they were gonna be nuked, so many unnessacery deaths.

[tovaris]

fair enough they should have given it the second they found out they were gonna be nuked, so many unnessacery deaths.

They dident know about the nuking until 6 houers after it happend and they couldent care less theyr wories were with the soviets „taking care” of their emparor and sistem.

[LunarScorpio]

Atomic may have taken it a level too far, but the bombs did end the war in the Pacific. (It could be argued saving more life that fighting for longer)

[britishboy]

They dident know about the nuking until 6 houers after it happend and they couldent care less theyr wories were with the soviets „taking care” of their emparor and sistem.

that's a bit unfair haha and yeah I think most wurry about the soviets taking over

[Camazotz]

I wan't talking about their attack on Pearl Harbor or any other act of agression towards the United States. They didn't kill millions because we declared war on the Axis. The countries that they attacked had nothing to do with it, or the Allies in general. They were neutral.

I'm referring to the millions of innocent Chinese and Filipinos the Japan and it's puppet states killed for no good reasons. I'm talking about the Massacre of Nanjing and the Bataan Death March. What they did to the rest of Asia was just as bad as the Holocaust in Europe.

I'm not implying that the Japanese farmers were responsible for our losses at Okinawa, or what happened in China and the Philippines. But were the Chinese and Filipinos guilty of anything? Japan didn't even declare war on China, but marched in, unprovoked and killed millions.

The Allied Supreme Command didn't care how many civilians would die. Everyone thought it was payback for what the Japanese did during the war.

I agree that the Japanese government and military committed war atrocities against other nations that were not the United States. I agree that they should've been punished. I don't see why the US nuked civilian cities as opposed to the several military bases that were considered in the initial planning of the bombings.

Japan wasn't willing to surrender. They had never lost a war in history, and they wanted to keep that achievement. They started arming people with sticks to fight invaders. They were ready to send 3.000 Kamikaze to stop the Allied amphibious assault on Kyushu.

Also, the bombing of Tokyo was far worse than the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's probably the most destructive air raid ever conducted. The Japanese kept fighting on for months after it happened. When we dropped Little Man on Hiroshima, the PM's cabinet still wanted to fight on, thinking that there's no way we have another weapon like that. We did. We proved it by dropping Fat Man on Nagasaki. And we told them there's more where that came from.

" We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war. It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth ...
-President Truman

That was an intimidation tactic, and it only succeeded because the Japanese knew that they couldn't let another bomb like that explode on their soil. A demonstration at some uninhabited island wouldn't have the same effect on morale. That's what it all comes down to in the end.

I don't know about that, I think if someone brought me to a testing sight to show me the intensity of a nuke and what it could do to a major city, I would most certainly think twice about refusing to surrender, especially if they said they had several more. But you have valid points and made a great argument.


Also, as a general statement (not to Taylor), the use of the word "Jap" is a racist and derogatory. It's been used several time in this thread, and has the same connotation as using the word "nigger" or "spic" or "gook" or "chink". Yes, that's what American soldiers referred to Japanese soldiers in WWII; it has now come to mean something extremely offensive. I ask that if you choose to use it, you know what it means today and understand that it is a racial slur.

[britishboy]

Also, as a general statement (not to Taylor), the use of the word "Jap" is a racist and derogatory. It's been used several time in this thread, and has the same connotation as using the word "nigger" or "spic" or "gook" or "chink". Yes, that's what American soldiers referred to Japanese soldiers in WWII; it has now come to mean something extremely offensive. I ask that if you choose to use it, you know what it means today and understand that it is a racial slur.

jap is not racist it's the sane as calling me a brit or a Jewish a Jew it's the exact same thing

[Stronk Serb]

jap is not racist it's the sane as calling me a brit or a Jewish a Jew it's the exact same thing




Idk. Google if it is lol.

[The LOLer]

jap is not racist it's the sane as calling me a brit or a Jewish a Jew it's the exact same thing

Lol your right. Who thinks its racist?

[Harry Smith]

Lol your right. Who thinks its racist?

Jap is racist, just like it is racist to call a Pakistani a paki, I'm not saying this is morally correct but I'm sure Japanese people would take it offensively

[The LOLer]

Jap is racist, just like it is racist to call a Pakistani a paki, I'm not saying this is morally correct but I'm sure Japanese people would take it offensively

How is it racist? It's jus describing someone with abbreviated words. It would be like saying black. It's justDESCRIBING. Where's the PC police?! Calling you a Brit isn't racist. Calling me American isn't racist. If I said "Japs are really annoying, they should die." That's racist.

[britishboy]

Lol your right. Who thinks its racist?

Camazotz lol

[randomnessqueen]

they absolutely had a choice, and they made the wrong one.
the only thing they accomplished was killing countless japanese citizens, which forced japan to submit because they dont want to see there innocent people die.

[Stronk Serb]

Camazotz lol



And me.

[britishboy]

Jap is racist, just like it is racist to call a Pakistani a paki, I'm not saying this is morally correct but I'm sure Japanese people would take it offensively

it's just the same as calling us brits

[Emerald Dream]

This thread is about the bombings in Japan, not whether or not certain names are racist.

Cut it out, and stay on topic.

[britishboy]

the title of this thread is ' Was bombing Japan the right
thing? (For Americans) ' remember the FOR AMERICANS obviously it wasnt better for the japs but it was better for the Americans it saved many American soilders

[The LOLer]

the title of this thread is ' Was bombing Japan the right
thing? (For Americans) ' remember the FOR AMERICANS obviously it wasnt better for the japs but it was better for the Americans it saved many American soilders

No I meant that this thread was for Americans. But that obviously didnt happen.

[britishboy]

No I meant that this thread was for Americans. But that obviously didnt happen.

I'm British but have the same views as mist Americans our countries are practicaly the same and lol it didn't really work haha most people have never even been to the USA

[Hunter_Steel]

Some of us have never been to the US, but we seem to know a little more about it. America and England are two VERY different countries. But a new thread can be made to debate that.

It was the right choice to make. The Japanese may have offered up surrender, and while they did that during the last year of the war, they still kept fighting, even though American and Japanese diplomats were talking. The only way to end their war crimes and the war was to either beat them into submission or make them submit with a weapon more powerful than any other.

America took the one where the least amount of Americans would die, and that was play Duke Nuke 'em. A little saying comes to mind especially since humanitarian laws were almost non-existant in WWII.

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."

In other words, 50,000 Japanese or nearly 1 million Americans? Which one, if you were the president, would you choose to sacrifice to end the war? War is a very harsh creature. It preys on the weak, devours them and craps them out, and leaves the strong to survive. Do you think, it was an easy decision to make to deploy an untested weapon that could potentially kill alot of innocent people for the sake of ending the war?

The pilots that dropped both bombs, the guys who developed the bombs and the guys who ordered the drop, all said that they hope a time will never come again when Nukes will ever be needed.

~Hunter

[chrisf55]

And you don't think bombing Pearl Harbor killed innocents? It had to be done, unless we just wanted to sit there and look weak and not do anything about it. We needed to bomb them back, not only to retaliate on them, but to show other countries that yes, we are capable of devastating places with using our Atomic bombs. We showed Japan that we weren't as weak as they thought too, because the death toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together was up to 246,000, while Pearl Harbor was only about 2,403.

[AlexBarrett]

The Japs devised ways of torture to American POW's. God only knows what went on behind enemy lines. I say give 'em hell.

[HunterBlue]

Even after the first bomb was dropped, the Japanese still resolved to continue fighting. And the death toll from that bomb was less than the fire bombings.

It wasn't until the second bomb was dropped that they decided to surrender, and only because after the second one they assumed the US had more of them.

As for bombing innocent factory workers, by all means look up what the Japanese did the the Koreans and Chinese. Look what they did to American British and Canadian POW's. freaking brutal! It rivalled the Nazis. Guys walking around acting they were samurais, publicly beheading families and factory workers and anyone they didn't like in front of crowds forced to watch. If they decided to wage war so violently and ruthlessly there's no excuse for phony outrage when the type of war they raged came back at them. And they're we're no smart bombs back them.

Also, the US dropped papers saying they planned to bomb this area to warn civilians to get the hell out.

Anytime I hear someone say how brutal the is was (and I'm Canadian) I always ask the. To show me as example of a country that waged war more humanly.

They never have an answer.

[Sharona]

It was a show of force that may not have been necessary and it's tragic that it wiped out so many civilians but no one really started anything of that scale against the west since

At least there has been great reconciliation between Japan and the USA

[TheStarsShadow]

Whether or not it's "right" is REALLY hard to sat cause it's so opinionated. Truman knew that Japan wasn't going to give up any time soon, our military was tired and exhausted from the Eastern front, and he didn't want to lose hundreds if not thousands more soldiers. So he made what was probably one of the hardest decisions I can think of, and dropped the two bombs on them.
Whether that was right or not. I think it was a right decision, but...war isn't right, so yes and no.

[britishboy]

it actually saved more lives, American soilders would have died and more civilians in bombings

[Harry Smith]

The Japs devised ways of torture to American POW's. God only knows what went on behind enemy lines. I say give 'em hell.

As much as I agree with you about Japanese war crimes, you can't justify it by saying you did it first, it wasn't anything to do with the war crimes committed by Japan. If you enter the attitude that reprisals are okay then the cycle of war crimes will never end

[Los Frijoles]

When it comes down to it, we really didn't have much if any other choice. Alternate option 1 was to invade Japan by ourselves, which would have killed millions of our own, and generated intense opposition at home. Our other option was to invade with the soviets. Doing that would have caused less of our own losses, but possibly would have given the soviets much more leverage in Asia than they actually did get. This would have resulted in a soviet-do inated Asia, a very, very scary idea to most Americans at the time. In the end, the bomb brought things to a close the quickest.

[chargersfan]

Yes, it was necessary, Japan would have fought until the death, it is part of their culture after all.

[britishboy]

As much as I agree with you about Japanese war crimes, you can't justify it by saying you did it first, it wasn't anything to do with the war crimes committed by Japan. If you enter the attitude that reprisals are okay then the cycle of war crimes will never end

I personnly think it saved lives, soilders and civilians as it would have been a long long battle and no one could have avoided it but by nuking them only 2 small cities get flattened

[Harry Smith]

I personnly think it saved lives, soilders and civilians as it would have been a long long battle and no one could have avoided it but by nuking them only 2 small cities get flattened

the Problem with saying that is whilst from a military point of view I believe it was a good idea you can't be certain that it saved lives. You can make predictions but you can't be certain that less soldiers would of died in the Invasion can you?

I also think it's unfair to simply dismiss them as two small cities, Nagasaki was one of Japans major ports, and if even you want to claim that only two got 'flattened' it presents a very cavalier attitude of 'oh yeah it didn't matter that 200,000 people died, it was just a couple of cities'

[britishboy]

the Problem with saying that is whilst from a military point of view I believe it was a good idea you can't be certain that it saved lives. You can make predictions but you can't be certain that less soldiers would of died in the Invasion can you?

I also think it's unfair to simply dismiss them as two small cities, Nagasaki was one of Japans major ports, and if even you want to claim that only two got 'flattened' it presents a very cavalier attitude of 'oh yeah it didn't matter that 200,000 people died, it was just a couple of cities'

well they didnt bomb the capital city and yeah its just a prodiction that lives were saved bur it also saved money and after europe we were all poor

[Harry Smith]

well they didnt bomb the capital city and yeah its just a prodiction that lives were saved bur it also saved money and after europe we were all poor

well that's great isn't it, they didn't destroy Tokyo. It didn't really save money at all, I mean in WW2 the whole concept of money became so inflated. I mean we were virtually bankrupt from 1940, we had all the vehicles to land on the beaches, we had enough ships and we had enough infantry.

How would you of felt if say the Germans nuked London?

[britishboy]

well that's great isn't it, they didn't destroy Tokyo. It didn't really save money at all, I mean in WW2 the whole concept of money became so inflated. I mean we were virtually bankrupt from 1940, we had all the vehicles to land on the beaches, we had enough ships and we had enough infantry.

How would you of felt if say the Germans nuked London?

your geting confused, its NEVER a good thing but it can (and in my opinion was) better than the alternative of a long war

[Harry Smith]

your geting confused, its NEVER a good thing but it can (and in my opinion was) better than the alternative of a long war

I'm not getting confused...

How do you know there was going to be a long war? Your throwing out all these grand predictions about what would of happened. You can't be certain that the war would have lasted for long can you? You have no solid guarantee of that. It's just a prediction

[britishboy]

I'm not getting confused...

How do you know there was going to be a long war? Your throwing out all these grand predictions about what would of happened. You can't be certain that the war would have lasted for long can you? You have no solid guarantee of that. It's just a prediction

yes it is a prediction but in my opinion the Japanese had balls they wasnt gonna surrender and two cities is better than bombing the entire country but yeah it is just my prediction

[Harry Smith]

yes it is a prediction but in my opinion the Japanese had balls they wasnt gonna surrender and two cities is better than bombing the entire country but yeah it is just my prediction

America would have had to wait until 1947 to bomb the whole country with atomic bombs, they were very hard to produce back then. Also try and use normal language when talking about war rather than saying a country had balls

[britishboy]

America would have had to wait until 1947 to bomb the whole country with atomic bombs, they were very hard to produce back then. Also try and use normal language when talking about war rather than saying a country had balls

I mean normal bombs and if you could have instantly made Germany surrender would you have?

[Harry Smith]

I mean normal bombs and if you could have instantly made Germany surrender would you have?

But that's going into the realms of fantasy, Germany wasn't going to surrender until Hitler was dead. You can't talk about alternative history or make assumptions e.g casualties ratios and then presume that they are correct

[britishboy]

But that's going into the realms of fantasy, Germany wasn't going to surrender until Hitler was dead. You can't talk about alternative history or make assumptions e.g casualties ratios and then presume that they are correct

I was presuming nothing its my opinion(and many others) I think your getting confused again

[Harry Smith]

I was presuming nothing its my opinion(and many others) I think your getting confused again

Just because the masses hold an opinion doesn't mean it's correct.

I'll use maths to help you on this

We did X because if we didn't Y would of happened.

You stated ealier that it would of been a long battle for Japan. That's an absolute.

You keep talking about what could of happened, asking hypotheical questions about Germany when in fact your trying to review an Historical event. You need to have solid facts

[britishboy]

Just because the masses hold an opinion doesn't mean it's correct.

I'll use maths to help you on this

We did X because if we didn't Y would of happened.

You stated ealier that it would of been a long battle for Japan. That's an absolute.

You keep talking about what could of happened, asking hypotheical questions about Germany when in fact your trying to review an Historical event. You need to have solid facts

you cant review something that didn't happen, thats impossible, what people do is review the facts and draw a conclusion but of course this is nothing more than opinion, I dont see your point of view, all your saying is that I dont know what would have happened of course I dont, because it didnt so no one knows

[Harry Smith]

you cant review something that didn't happen, thats impossible, what people do is review the facts and draw a conclusion but of course this is nothing more than opinion, I dont see your point of view, all your saying is that I dont know what would have happened of course I dont, because it didnt so no one knows

Your just repeated what I said.

You were talking as if your opinion was fact, and that you could guarantee what would OF happened.

My Point of view is that one can't justify it by saying x amount of US soldiers would of died if we invaded because you don't know how many would of died. You can't be certain

[Harry Smith]

you cant review something that didn't happen, thats impossible, what people do is review the facts and draw a conclusion but of course this is nothing more than opinion, I dont see your point of view, all your saying is that I dont know what would have happened of course I dont, because it didnt so no one knows

I think it saved lives, soilders and civilians as it would have been a long long battle

This is shows that you were dealing in absolute's,

[britishboy]

This is shows that you were dealing in absolute's,

I THINK do you know what that mean? its not I KNOW its not IT IS its just my opinion

[Harry Smith]

I THINK do you know what that mean? its not I KNOW its not IT IS its just my opinion

You said it WOULD OF BEEN A LONG BATTLE

You can't be certain of that, would is an absolute. I believe could is more correct in this context. And don't insult my intelligence by asking rhetorical questions we both know the answer to, and if you do at least do it with correct grammar

[britishboy]

You said it WOULD OF BEEN A LONG BATTLE

You can't be certain of that, would is an absolute. I believe could is more correct in this context. And don't insult my intelligence by asking rhetorical questions we both know the answer to, and if you do at least do it with correct grammar

I said: I THINK it saved lives, soilders and
civilians as it would have been a long
long battle... whats your oobsession with this anyway?

[Harry Smith]

I would have been a long
long battle... whats your oobsession with this anyway?

I give up, I'm saying how the word WOULD not THINK shows that you thought that a long battle was certain where in fact it was a prediction. I'm just trying to show how stupid it is to justify killing 200,000 civilians based on an estimate

[ollyollyoxenfree]

The United States and Allied forces had plans to invade mainland Japan with an estimated 8 Million casualties. 8 Million being a conservative estimate. Without the use of atomic weapons the war would have dragged on costing hundreds of thousands of more lives on both sides due to prolonged fighting in civilian areas and combat forces lost to that fighting. It was an unfortunate situation in which the few were sacrificed to save the many.

[crepesuzette]

I don't know if you'll agree with me, but in class some of the students stated that we should have just dropped a bomb on a deserted area in japan to see if they would take it as a warning and if that did not work, then we would launch the bombing. some were like,"What about the children?!!!"

[brendacat]

maybe the war would have lasted alot longer

[Vladskie]

As stated a few times before, the Japanese did offer to surrender a few different times before the bombings and once more agreeing to a surrender after Hiroshima. We refused and dropped a second bomb and then accepted the surrender they had proposed after Hiroshima. It was not necessary to drop two bombs, but the most likely reason they were dropped was to show the Soviet Union and the world the power the US had. One of the major reasons for us accepting their surrender after Nagasaki was to prevent Soviet troops from advancing and claiming any more of Japan.

[Stronk Serb]

When the Soviets moved into the Kuril Islands and Manchuria, the Japanese knew it was over. They ordered their troops in China to stand down. Many did, but some continued to fight. The only diference between the terms of surrender the Japanese offered and the ones they agreed to was that the emperor would keep his throne. It was a ceremonial title, I think. So by saying that the Allies would suffer massive casualties if an invasion happened was not really possible since they offered to surrender several times before, and seeing the Soviets or Americans would be knocking on their doors in Tokyo was a good motivation to accept whatever has been offered.

[britishboy]

When the Soviets moved into the Kuril Islands and Manchuria, the Japanese knew it was over. They ordered their troops in China to stand down. Many did, but some continued to fight. The only diference between the terms of surrender the Japanese offered and the ones they agreed to was that the emperor would keep his throne. It was a ceremonial title, I think. So by saying that the Allies would suffer massive casualties if an invasion happened was not really possible since they offered to surrender several times before, and seeing the Soviets or Americans would be knocking on their doors in Tokyo was a good motivation to accept whatever has been offered.

they did not offer the unconditional surrender, and they was in no position of bargaining

[Stronk Serb]

they did not offer the unconditional surrender, and they was in no position of bargaining

Yet they offered to surrender. They were in position to bargain since, if an invasion took place, they could'we called millions of people to arms.

[britishboy]

Yet they offered to surrender. They were in position to bargain since, if an invasion took place, they could'we called millions of people to arms.

not unconditionaly and you just repeated what I said?

[Sugaree]

they did not offer the unconditional surrender, and they was in no position of bargaining

Keep redpilling yourself, Jack; it'll get you far.

[Stronk Serb]

not unconditionaly and you just repeated what I said?

So? They wanted primarily to stop losing lives. The emperor had the same rule in the state as your queen, none. It is not that big of a diference. If they wanted to, they could have called for millions of people to stand arms and face an invasion, but they did not. The diference of terms of surrender the Japanese offered in Potsdam and the terms they accepted were:

The emperor was to keep his throne, since his role in state was ceremonial.

It is not about unconditional surrender because of a small diference, it is about how many lives could have been saved by accepting the first terms offered. That one little thing which was not able to be accepted ruined the lives of 500,000 people, the initial casualties, people who died from radiation poisoning and their deformed children. Japanese babies were born without limbs, eyes, had shorter lifespans due to the bombs.

[acan1997]

Of course we didnt have much of a choice. But so many innocent people died. What if we had not bombed them? What if we went on with the war? What are your thoughts?

Uhhh duh. They were friends with the nazes

[Stronk Serb]

Since Japan was the aggressor, yes. If the Americans had opted for a land invasion of Imperialist Japan, there would have been an estimated 4 million deaths instead of 200 000. That being said, the bombings were by definition terrorist attacks, so I think it was wrong for the world to persecute Osama bin Laden and not the American generals who ordered the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Harry Truman gave the order to bomb Japan. The generals were following orders. They could'we dropped them on naval or military bases.

[britishboy]

Harry Truman gave the order to bomb Japan. The generals were following orders. They could'we dropped them on naval or military bases.

It lowered moral and made the public fear the Americans and not support the war

[Stronk Serb]

It lowered moral and made the public fear the Americans and not support the war

Did it? Due to sanctions, the Japanese public was wishing the war to be over. No matter if they won or lost. A bomb destroying two cities and killing 500,000 civilians is something comparable to what Hitler would do to London if he had the atomic bombs bombs.

[britishboy]

Did it? Due to sanctions, the Japanese public was wishing the war to be over. No matter if they won or lost. A bomb destroying two cities and killing 500,000 civilians is something comparable to what Hitler would do to London if he had the atomic bombs bombs.

Hitler virtualy flattened London with out nukes, them cities would have been heavily bombed anyway, and the British actually killed more German civilians by bombing than they killed British! it was a very bad war, them deaths were unavoidable

[Harry Smith]

Hitler virtualy flattened London with out nukes, them cities would have been heavily bombed anyway, and the British actually killed more German civilians by bombing than they killed British! it was a very bad war, them deaths were unavoidable

They weren't unavoidable, that's too much of a generalization.

The whole war could of been AVOIDED if Chamberlain and the tories hadn't let Hitler take Austria, the Rhineland and the Sudetenland whilst also breaking the treaty of Versailles

[britishboy]

They weren't unavoidable, that's too much of a generalization.

The whole war could of been AVOIDED if Chamberlain and the tories hadn't let Hitler take Austria, the Rhineland and the Sudetenland whilst also breaking the treaty of Versailles

I agree with this, Germany was weak, and in less than a week Germany could have been turned into a puppet state, I wish Winston Churchill had more support during this period. however once the war was in full fury the civilian deaths were unavoidable