The Decision to Drop: WWII Atomic Bomb

Was it the right decision?

Yes, it was a neccessity.	31.4%	[ 38 ]
No, it was immoral.	26.4%	[ 32 ]
It was immoral BUT a neccesity.	31.4%	[ 38 ]
On the fence.	10.7%	[ 13 ]
Total Votes:			[ 121 ]

[Asher Kingsley]

FRF_Hentai_Heitai_Reborn

Asher Kingsley

FRF_Hentai_Heitai_Reborn

Asher Kingsley

It's not as simple as a lot of people in this thread are making it. "We needed to drop the bomb to save our troops. Period." I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding in our country about what was going in Japan leading up to the war, the kind of arguments that were going on inside of the country, etc etc. We oversimplify constantly. How many times have you heard this story: "All the Japanese wanted to go to war, because they were following their great Emperor, and so that's just how it was." Do you think that was actually how it was? .. Really? You honestly believe that? Because I can tell you right now, you're dead friggen wrong. Painting the conflict in such black and white terms is just plain misguided, and that's what people are doing here when it comes to the bomb.

Even if you think you needed to drop a single bomb, and I'm not sure we did, why 2? Contrary to popular belief, many, many Japanese wanted to surrender before the dropping of the first bomb, and they *definitely* wanted to after the first attack. Why drop another? Don't you suppose there was maybe an ulterior motive? I'm sure if you think about it long enough you can think of a few.

Evidence?

The Japanese people wanted to continue the war, it was only because the Emperor himself announced the surrender that the majority accepted it, although many proceded to commit suicide. Also it was a matter of national pride and values, Japan throughout history has never lost a war to a foreign power, and surrender throughout its history was treated as the worst sin imaginable, death was preferrable to any sort of surrender is ingrained in the culture.

No, the Japanese were not peaceful, freedom loving Americans, which is pretty arrogant of you to claim. They were militaristic, patriotic, and believed they were winning.

Um.. okay, you have Takejima Ken, the Minister of Railways and Minister of Communications in the lead up to world war II, who literally *fainted* in terror and shock and anguish when the Toujou cabinet declared they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor, because he didn't believe the Japanese should start a war with the west they weren't going to be able to win. There was his colleague Inoue Shigeyoshi, who was a *naval general*, who was steadfastly opposed to the growing movement within the Japanese Naval General Staff to increase their personal power and influence. And that's just two people high up in the decision making in Japan leading up to Pearl Harbor that I can think of off the top of my *head* who were opposed to the general trend of militarism.

No, the Japanese are not Americans. I've never claimed they were. And the general approach to the war was different, of course. But to lump every single Japanese person into a single category, and say they all felt a single way and acted as a single unit, because they all fit a single mold that you've cast for them.. I find that unbelievably arrogant of *you*.

Takejima Ken, not even noted as a sidenote in history, irrelevent.

It is Tojo, not Toujou, also it is the Kodoha Faction leading the government, Tojo was simply Prime Minister.

There is no such thing as a "navy general", did you mean Admiral? Regardless, it is one person against, how many who were for the war?


That is fascism, a nation is united under one common goal and belief, invididual dissent is not to be tolerated. The Japanese were indeed acting as a single unit, even the minority opposing the war did their duty.

Takejima's not noted in.. the American version of WWII history. Gee, what a surprise. Good thing I've read the Japanese version. It is Toujou, not Tojo, because that's how the Japanese pronounce it. We've transliterated it with short vowels, but the vowels are not short in reality. I'm sorry, I translated 海軍大将, which literally translates to "Navy General," directly, instead of properly changing it to 'Admiral' or whatever the proper English translation is.

Germany was fascist. Just as fascist as Japan ever was. Are you suggesting that people didn't hide Jews to protect them from the Holocaust? Did we just make that up?

[Alexandar Zivojinovich]

If I remember correctly, the first bomb was strategically aimed to take out an important military base that was in Hiroshima. So I don't think America was doing it 'just' to make Japan surrender. It could have simply been another war tactic to weaken Japan.

Besides, the powers always stack fancy new weapons during the World Wars. The stacks are always bound to topple sooner or later.

So if Little Boy was not dropped when it was, a bomb could have been dropped during the Cold War, and that would have turned out a whole lot worse.

[Emit Revid]

Ashler Kingsley

Good thing I've read the Japanese version

No wonder your sense of history is goddamn warped.

You're talking about the same version that's trying to downplay the horrible acts they've committed during WWII. Japan's notorious for historical revisionism. Rape of Nanking? Bataan Death March? Unit 731 (ugh)? Ever heard of these? Hell, even the current generation of Japanese themselves have probably never heard of it either seeing as they're not even mentioning a lick of it in their history books.

[Asher Kingsley]

Emit Revid

Ashler Kingsley

Good thing I've read the Japanese version

No wonder your sense of history is goddamn warped.

You're talking about the same version that's trying to downplay the horrible acts they've committed during WWII. Rape of Nanking? Bataan Death March? Unit 731 (ugh)? Ever heard of these? Hell, even the current generation of Japanese themselves have probably never heard of it either.

For my answer to that, please see: Previous page, final post on the page.

And yes, I've read the American version of it, too. I've had to sit through an entire education's worth of it. Do you suppose you might have a slightly warped version of history? Just a little? The kind that is written by the victors and ignores the point of view of the vanquished? No, I guess not.. if you don't agree with the interpretation, it's obviously warped..

[Emit Revid]

Asher Kingsley

Emit Revid

Ashler Kingsley

Good thing I've read the Japanese version

No wonder your sense of history is goddamn warped.

You're talking about the same version that's trying to downplay the horrible acts they've committed during WWII. Rape of Nanking? Bataan Death March? Unit 731 (ugh)? Ever heard of these? Hell, even the current generation of Japanese themselves have probably never heard of it either.

For my answer to that, please see: Previous page, final post on the page.

And yes, I've read the American version of it, too. I've had to sit through an entire education's worth of it. Do you suppose you might have a slightly warped version of history? Just a little? The kind that is written by the victors and ignores the point of view of the vanquished? No, I guess not.. if you don't agree with the interpretation, it's obviously warped..

I'm not the one who admitted reading a biased source.

[Asher Kingsley]

Emit Revid

Asher Kingsley

Emit Revid

Ashler Kingsley

Good thing I've read the Japanese version

No wonder your sense of history is goddamn warped.

You're talking about the same version that's trying to downplay the horrible acts they've committed during WWII. Rape of Nanking? Bataan Death March? Unit 731 (ugh)? Ever heard of these? Hell, even the current generation of Japanese themselves have probably never heard of it either.

For my answer to that, please see: Previous page, final post on the page.

And yes, I've read the American version of it, too. I've had to sit through an entire education's worth of it. Do you suppose you might have a slightly warped version of history? Just a little? The kind that is written by the victors and ignores the point of view of the vanquished? No, I guess not.. if you don't agree with the interpretation, it's obviously warped..

I'm not the one who admitted reading a biased source.

.. um... I don't understand what you're trying to get at here in the slightest. All history is biased. Every story ever written about the events of the world by any people ever had an agenda to it.You have to look at who's written the story to get an idea of the point of view of the person who wrote it.

The point I'm making here, or trying to anyway, is that I've read both sides. And I can, or at least, I've tried my damnedest to, see where both sides are coming from. And because apparently no one in this thread has ever even though about trying to think about this whole issue from the Japanese perspective, I'm trying my best here to present an alternative view of history. One that is equally valid, and is no doubt what would have been the "official" version of history had Japan won the war.

Can you honestly say you've tried to do this? To see the Japanese point of view, not as the Japanese themselves see it now, because, believe me, I've lived in Japan, I know they mostly don't give a s**t, but the Japanese point of view of what was going on *at the time*, what that looked like, what they wanted, how they perceived America? Because I get the feeling you haven't.

[Asher Kingsley]

Man, I seriously apologize to the OP right now.. this discussion totally hijacked his/her thread. I'm done with my crusade, I swear heart


In an attempt to repair the damage and steer the conversation back to questions of morality and the atom bomb, this is my challenge question, to anyone who wishes to try it:

Would the United States have dropped the atomic bomb somewhere in Germany, if it had been available before Germany surrendered? What if the Allies might have avoided the bloody mess that was the invasion of Germany's shores?

Bonus question: Why isn't Hirohito vilified in the same manner as Hitler in common American understanding of World War II?

I'm actually curious if anyone's got a good answer, because I'll be damned if I have a clue.

[Shou Eitoku]

Asher Kingsley

Man, I seriously apologize to the OP right now.. this discussion totally hijacked his/her thread. I'm done with my crusade, I swear heart


In an attempt to repair the damage and steer the conversation back to questions of morality and the atom bomb, this is my challenge question, to anyone who wishes to try it:

Would the United States have dropped the atomic bomb somewhere in Germany, if it had been available before Germany surrendered? What if the Allies might have avoided the bloody mess that was the invasion of Germany's shores?

Bonus question: Why isn't Hirohito vilified in the same manner as Hitler in common American understanding of World War II?

I'm actually curious if anyone's got a good answer, because I'll be damned if I have a clue.

They were planning on using it on Germany in the first place if it was needed during the war neutral , that's what the Manhattan Project was all about anyways.

Hirohoto, I suppose the Japanese people would go crazy if something were to happen to the emperor. In the words of the textbooks, they didn't want to upset the foundation of what Japan was based upon. Another reason why they didn't want to drop the atomic bomb Kyoto or Tokyo, because it was somewhat like holy grounds of Japan I suppose.

Look, I can see Japan's perspective. It is just that the perspective of China and Korea is often misunderstood, and in some cases ignored because apparently Korea doesn't have the right to be angry with the Japanese for annexing Korean lands.

[Blue Rosetta Stone]

Xiao Yong De

Here is the deal. I see it as immoral, but that is really what war IS to me.

I have been reading up on relations between China and Korea with Japan. It turns out from many recent happenings in both China and Korea is that they share this hate against Japan. For what reason? Japan has use the Korean's as experiments during WWII. Japan has raped many as well as killed many in China (AKA Nanking.) Japan has also killed many Koreans and Chinese civilians as well as military personnel. Both countries feel that Japan hasn't personally apologized to them. Is this immoral in Japan's fault? YES!

Germany and the Holocaust, enough said.

Now, lets fast-forward to the atomic bomb. Yes, many agreed that if it wasn't used, Japan will keep going on. I mean seriously suicide bombers. I do have sympathy for those who were caught in the atomic bomb though. The horror stories of burnt flesh, no one except you of your classmates survive, being separated from your love since you were younger. The U.S. used it to show the rising Soviet Union that U.S. is still in power and at the same time deal a blow to Japan so that they'll stop the war.

Aside from what is done is done, relations between Japan to Korea and China is still horrible. This whole issue of WWII is creating riots in Korea and China and cause some dramatic happenings in Japan as well.

I agree that it was a necessity. It was the only way to end the war as they are combating Japanese mentality. I mean the Rape of Nanking was as brutal and horrific as the holohaust. The Germans accepts responsibility and try to make amends. The Japanese denies that it happened in the first place. With that sort of mentality, you need a horrific show of strength to end it!

[holdingontobelieve]

Asher Kingsley

Man, I seriously apologize to the OP right now.. this discussion totally hijacked his/her thread. I'm done with my crusade, I swear heart


In an attempt to repair the damage and steer the conversation back to questions of morality and the atom bomb, this is my challenge question, to anyone who wishes to try it:

Would the United States have dropped the atomic bomb somewhere in Germany, if it had been available before Germany surrendered? What if the Allies might have avoided the bloody mess that was the invasion of Germany's shores?

Bonus question: Why isn't Hirohito vilified in the same manner as Hitler in common American understanding of World War II?

I'm actually curious if anyone's got a good answer, because I'll be damned if I have a clue.

Geez, don't apologize. rofl Honest truth? You're probably my favorite person writing on this thread right now. At least you're trying to be objective. * cough, cough * And you're defending a side that's pretty much been left out to dry.
And anyway threads are for discussing and debating. I'm actually kind of enjoying this. wink
Okay, time to fade into the background now. I'm trying really hard here to refrain from commenting to others on my own thread. xp

[CaptJoe]

My friend and I were having this discussion earlier this week. We both came to the conclusion that it was the right thing to do, as it saved more lives then it had taken. Generally speaking, when this argument comes up, my main statement is this.....

Say you are the head of a country's war department, and your country finds itself in one of the worst war's it has ever seen. Your adviser comes to you and says, "Sir, we can end this war early on, but we'll have to bomb two innocent cities, possibly killing over ten thousand innocents." What would you do?

You'd be astounded at how many people say that they would never do that. And then they get this response,

Now say that you are five years into this war, and the death toll on both sides are in the hundreds of thousands. You find out that both of those cities were leveled in the past month. What now? You're act of morality has cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives, all because you couldn't destroy two innocent cities to save those people.

"All is fair in love and War." I believe the quote is. In war, all rules go out the window, and acts of kindness are usually never rewarded.

But this comes back to my original point. The bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were needed to end the war. Sure, over 200,000 innocents lost their lives, but their deaths saved the lives of American and Japanese soldiers who might have been lost in the invasion of Japan.

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

[Jed Dye]

to be honest. i think we did the right thing, my grandpa was a marine in the pacific region during wwii and he was told by his superior officers that there would be 1 miliion american lives lost in the invasion alone. so lets see thats 1million to 220thousand, a pretty safe ratio if you ask me.

[A Bright Eyes Album]

I appose the bombs because creating them was like opening pandoras box.

Now everyone has the capability of blowing the world to kingdom come. rolleyes

Im sure it would have been dragged out. Im sure it would have sucked. But i dont know if it was worth it. Just to win a stupid war...

[PhantomWalrus]

I think they picked Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they needed someone to negotiate the surrender with. If they bombed the government in entirety, they would have no one to negotiate with who would have the right to surrender.

I fail to see how it was a stupid war, it protected millions more from dying under Japan's domination of Asia that would not stop.

It was necessary. Japan refuses to say it happened, they are as biased as Holocaust deniers.

[Tettsure]

I already have an opinion in that being teleological, it seems the bombing was more beneficial rather than if not dropped, IMHO (unless of course swapped with bat bombs).

However, I have some questions.

Was japan a one party dictatorship? Much like the Nazis in Germany where no other party was allowed?

Can I have a sources or evidence the Japanese brainwashing and almost complete support of war?

Can I have sources or evidence of Japan prepared to surrender before the bombs?

And finally, FRF, can I have sources of 90% of Japan's military capability being in their homeland and the areas near by?