OK, was it wrong to bomb Japan?

They were also industrial centers producing war goods, HQ's and garrisons for major Japanese Army commands and Nagasaki was a major military port.

The cities were military targets by the standards of the day.

 

It was done because the Japanese were not willing to surrender after Hiroshima. In fact, they were not willing to surrender after Nagasaki. A military coup was staged to seize the Emperor's recorded surrender message before it could be broadcast - the stormed the Imperial Palace to capture the Emperor and the recording. The Emperor eluded capture. Determined to stop the surrender the radio station was assaulted to prevent the broadcast.

The surrender was a very close thing. Google the advanced weapons systems that Japan was manufacturing even as the surrender took place.

 

`
While there were individual actions taken by the allies that were immoral, World War II followed all the precepts of a "just war."

 

Good post. Beyond that the mobilization of the civilian population to meet any invasion on the beaches involved far more that "spears". The resistance would have been at least as tenacious and deadly as what the Russians encountered in Berlin.

 

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, reflected this reality when he wrote, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, said the same thing: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

- - - Updated - - -

Major General Curtis LeMay commented on the bomb's use: "The War would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the War at all."

 

Was the failure of the British and French to push the Germans out of the Sudetenland in 1936 evidence of their thirst for war - or their stupidity?

 

There never would have been an invasion.

Hell, even the assault on Berlin was unnecessary. That was a political call by Stalin.

 

I see.

 

Morally yes.But then Priests and Rabbi and Pastors aren't charged with
the outcome of a World War.If what Truman called for spared possible
millions of lives,then it was prudent to drop the A-bombs.
But then one could make the case that In war,anything goes.
There has to be some rules of engagement.Like a Geneva Convention.
Then the true victors shall rise to the occasion.
It'd be like cheating on one's SAT test to get into Harvard or Yale.
I'm sure it happens and maybe more than occasionally.What that does is
lowers the standard of education for all at Harvard and Yale.
Because now you have some students who aren't capable and may tend
to cheat more.That degrades a student body.It could spread and make for
overall bad students.
Like this movement by blacks to insist they need to have segregated housing
and cafeteria on some college campus'.That's just totally ignurnt.
It's a form of Jim Crow segregation.It's moving backward.To a less civil and
intolerant mindset.

 

Berlin was totally surrounded and had no means to grow food. Assaulting it was 100% unecessary.

The same applies to Japan.

 

You can make a legitimate argument that the development of nuclear weapons, and the accompanying mutually assured destruction, has effectively ended the chances of another true world war taking place. If not for nuclear weapons, it is reasonable to assume that in the 70 or so years since WW2, we would have otherwise already had WW3. While nuclear weapons do pose a specific danger, they also probably have already saved millions of lives.

On top of that, the world is fortunate that a magnanimous power such as the United States was the first to make this technological beakthrough, as opposed to a Stalin or Hitler like figure whom would have likely used it for world domination prior to the rest of the world obtaining the technology.

 

There is a lot of truth to this Amerocentric view.

However, it should be noted that every school child everywhere else in the world will tell you without prompting that the only country on earth to ever USE nuclear weapons is the United States, something our history books don't heavily emphasize at all.

 

I am not aware of anyone that has ANY knowledge of nuclear weapons, that doesn't realize that the only times nuclear weapons have been used were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This tidbit that you felt compelled to add has absolutely nothing to do with the notion that the development of nuclear weapons, and the accompanying mutually assured destruction, has effectively ended the chances of another true world war taking place.

 

It is very easy to sit back at a computer desk and second guess as well as condemn the million= American soldiers to a grisly death while ignoring the FACT that invading Japan would have killed many more Japanese through suicide and slaughter than any bomb could have. We even gave them the warnings and chance to save themselves that they denied us at Pearl Harbor.

How ignorant to forget all the carnage and brutality that led to us having a base close enough to even drop the bombs.

 

Where do you get this idea that the only options were invasion or nukes?

 

Why do you think you know more about what should have been done then the joint chiefs at the time? Such arrogance

 

What, in your obviously vast military experience would you submit as another option....keeping in mind the context of the times?

This should be interesting.

 

Accepting the conditional surrender they offered....and the concessions were minor

 

Whether or not the bombings saved lives and shortened the war is something that can be debated. Whether or not the bombings forced Soviet armies to stop their conquests is not up for debate. The bombings were, at least in part, a message to Stalin.

The USA is more powerful than the USSR.
Capitalism beats Communism.

Back off, or we'll do you like you did Germany without losing 20 million lives.

 

I do not, nor have I indicated such. Why do you think placing your own rather pathetic words into my mouth in ay way improves the flavor of my commentary?

I am thinking any ignorance would be found in whatever misinterpretation your "Mind" has created concerning me post...obviously the Joint Chiefs agreed with our use of these bombs.

 

Blockade and continued bombing until Japan was starved into submission.

Targeted strikes on Japanese leadership using radio guided bombs (which were in development at the time) to eliminate those leaders still hostile to surrender.

Allowing a conditional surrender with the one conditions Japan cared about and that we gave to them anyways: immunity for and preservation of the Japanese Imperial Household.

There are three more options.

 

I posted their quotes....have you even read the thread? Lol

 

Except Stalin knew very well we couldn't follow up on a threat like that. They were perfectly aware that we emptied our quiver with the attacks on Japan and the next bomb wouldn't be ready for months.

Plus, unlike Japan, the Soviets has fighters capable of intercepting B-29's.

 

...uh...you might want to review a history book and understand the conditional surrender came AFTER we dropped the bombs. Actually we told them a second was coming if the did not do so and they did not reply...thus were there two destroyed cities.

 

No all they wanted was to keep their emperor. Bottom line the military experts at the time were all against it