Can the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be Justified

Was it Justified


  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, it wasn't justifiable to bomb non-combatants. It is not their job to die. It's a soldier's job to die.

And I'm sure that would be a massive comfort to the millions of people who would have died in an invasion, the civilians who would have starved to death, the Chinese civilians being actively slaughtered by the Japanese army, the Allied POWs still in Japanese prison camps... need I go on?

The use of the atomic bombs was most assuredly justified.
 
No, it wasn't justifiable to bomb non-combatants. It is not their job to die. It's a soldier's job to die.

Wrong. A soldiers job is not to die for for his nation. It is to help others do that for theirs. And is the officer's to kill as many of the enemy with as few causilites as possible. If the enemy citizens get in the way then they must die, if it means keeping your men alive. Now that is my understanding of it and I am not in the military so if I am wrong I immediately apologize
 
The very neat 'the invasion would've killed more' argument doggedly defended by everyone on this site is attractive, I admit. Generally I favour it. But I do feel that there's a nagging flaw that perhaps derives from the differences in the British and American history curricula.

In Britain, we're taught that there's a possibility that the Japanese were considering surrender before the bomb was dropped. The war was de facto over for them. In America, from what I can gather, this doesn't seem to be taught, with an apocalyptic vision of Operation Downfall being the preferred picture that is painted.

As counterfactualists, we have an interest and perhaps a duty to consider what might have been - therefore, in the absence of decisive proof that the Japanese would not have surrendered without Hiroshima or Downfall (and how can that ever exist, given that it is the proof of a speculative negative?), I can't conclude with certainty that the bombings were justified.

Do I believe that Harry Truman's decision, given the information available to him, was the right one? Yes. But to say something is 'justified' suggests a longer view of history than that, and I can't therefore in good conscience say that the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima, much less Nagasaki, was justified.
 
In Britain, we're taught that there's a possibility that the Japanese were considering surrender before the bomb was dropped. The war was de facto over for them. In America, from what I can gather, this doesn't seem to be taught, with an apocalyptic vision of Operation Downfall being the preferred picture that is painted.

When the Emperor tried to surrender there was an attempted coup against him, after both atomic bombs were dropped. Sure the war lost for Japan, but that doesn't mean the Japanese leadership was willing to accept that fact.

In other words, the people in charge weren't just not considering surrender before the bombs were dropped, they actively fought against the thought even after they were dropped.
 
Nagasaki, while less justified than Hiroshima, was still useful in ending the war quicker. I do believe that if we had waited another couple of days before Nagasaki that Japan would have surrendered.
 
When the Emperor tried to surrender there was an attempted coup against him, after both atomic bombs were dropped. Sure the war lost for Japan, but that doesn't mean the Japanese leadership was willing to accept that fact.

In other words, the people in charge weren't just not considering surrender before the bombs were dropped, they actively fought against the thought even after they were dropped.

I don't know that that's conclusive enough for me, I'm afraid. The anti-surrender coup, after all, failed. We cannot know it would have succeeded before the bombs were dropped.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
Considering Japan's food situation, it was probably necessary to end the war as quickly as possible. Had the war continued into the 45-46 winter we'd see a famine that dwarfed the bomb's death toll.
 
I don't know that that's conclusive enough for me, I'm afraid. The anti-surrender coup, after all, failed. We cannot know it would have succeeded before the bombs were dropped.

The coup failed largely because one man refused to go along with it. It is far more likely a coup before the second bomb was dropped would have succeeded than that it would fail again.
 
The very neat 'the invasion would've killed more' argument doggedly defended by everyone on this site is attractive, I admit. Generally I favour it. But I do feel that there's a nagging flaw that perhaps derives from the differences in the British and American history curricula.

It's not a question of whether the invasion would have killed more. The question is whether there was sufficient cause to believe on 9 August 1945 that any further A-bombing of Japan was necessary to achieve capitulation. As there was no pressing need demonstrated as of that day, the case for Nagasaki is lacking.
 
It's not a question of whether the invasion would have killed more. The question is whether there was sufficient cause to believe on 9 August 1945 that any further A-bombing of Japan was necessary to achieve capitulation. As there was no pressing need demonstrated as of that day, the case for Nagasaki is lacking.

Did you read the rest of my post?

(Not intended to sound pejorative, I am making a short post because I have a short question.)
 
It's not a question of whether the invasion would have killed more. The question is whether there was sufficient cause to believe on 9 August 1945 that any further A-bombing of Japan was necessary to achieve capitulation. As there was no pressing need demonstrated as of that day, the case for Nagasaki is lacking.

I think you are forgetting the ongoing Japanese war crimes in China and against Allied POWs. In addition, what the Americans knew was the following: a. the first atomic bomb failed to achieve Japanese surrender, b. the Soviet invasion of Manchuria failed to achieve Japanese surrender, c. an invasion of the islands would result in millions of dead if casualty ratios in previous attacks held true, and d. the a blockade would achieve millions more dead. So, based on that information, why exactly is the case for a second bomb lacking?
 
As counterfactualists, we have an interest and perhaps a duty to consider what might have been - therefore, in the absence of decisive proof that the Japanese would not have surrendered without Hiroshima or Downfall (and how can that ever exist, given that it is the proof of a speculative negative?), I can't conclude with certainty that the bombings were justified.

The 'terrible shock' of the Soviet entry into the war, and the very real threat that they would have landed on Hokkaido, would have ended the war in itself. Of course that isn't taught in schools because History Needs To Be Simple at Secondary level apparently. Downfall in all likelihood would have been Armageddon however. The Japanese knew where the Americans would land on Kyushu and they at least had numerical parity on the island, meanwhile the American invasion would have to face wave after wave of suicide planes and boats, not to mention a literal Typhoon. The Soviet invasion would have prevented the need for this but Truman didn't have the hindsight we had, his fear of American having to go through such an ordeal is thus just if incorrect.
 
To add to this, while yes there was interest by the Japanese leaders in surrendering, it should be mentioned that all the way up til the very end, none of them were willing to accept any peace that was unconditional.

To give an idea of what they wanted at the very least, would have included Japan retaining all it's pre-war colonies such as Taiwan, Korea and I believe allowing Japan to resume fighting for it's Chinese possesions such as retaining Manchuria at the very least off the top of my head.

Point is, the Japanese leadership were run by a bunch of violent maniacs on par with the worst of Nazi Germany's who would have gladly sacrificed their nation's very existence and people to preserve their own honor and authority. The terms they were asking for would have been as if Germany had gone "Okay, we're willing to end the war and accept peace but only if we get to keep all the territory we fought over and Der Furher remains in power." While the WAllies and Soviets were just outside Berlin. That is how delusional and stubborn they were.
 
The very neat 'the invasion would've killed more' argument doggedly defended by everyone on this site is attractive, I admit. Generally I favour it. But I do feel that there's a nagging flaw that perhaps derives from the differences in the British and American history curricula.

In Britain, we're taught that there's a possibility that the Japanese were considering surrender before the bomb was dropped. The war was de facto over for them. In America, from what I can gather, this doesn't seem to be taught, with an apocalyptic vision of Operation Downfall being the preferred picture that is painted.

As counterfactualists, we have an interest and perhaps a duty to consider what might have been - therefore, in the absence of decisive proof that the Japanese would not have surrendered without Hiroshima or Downfall (and how can that ever exist, given that it is the proof of a speculative negative?), I can't conclude with certainty that the bombings were justified.

Do I believe that Harry Truman's decision, given the information available to him, was the right one? Yes. But to say something is 'justified' suggests a longer view of history than that, and I can't therefore in good conscience say that the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima, much less Nagasaki, was justified.

Good points. However I think that the only way to keep some of the die hard Japanese nationalists from doing something incredibly stupid would be to lay siege to the entire island. Given how long the negotiations potentially gone on and the supply shortage that was going on at the time in Japan, I think that more people would have died from starvation
 
I think you are forgetting the ongoing Japanese war crimes in China and against Allied POWs. In addition, what the Americans knew was the following: a. the first atomic bomb failed to achieve Japanese surrender, b. the Soviet invasion of Manchuria failed to achieve Japanese surrender, c. an invasion of the islands would result in millions of dead if casualty ratios in previous attacks held true, and d. the a blockade would achieve millions more dead. So, based on that information, why exactly is the case for a second bomb lacking?

Because there was no evidence when it was dropped that it was required.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Nice try on evading the "no polls in Chat" rule by putting this here but no dice.

Don't try it again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top