What is your take on the A-bomb droppings on Japan?

[Fisherking]

Answering terror with terror is not the way to fight against these things though, so I think that argument is flawed from the outset.

I am not trying to justify my actions you know. I am just trying to put the decision within the context of the times.

[CountArach]

I am not trying to justify my actions you know. I am just trying to put the decision within the context of the times.

Yes I understand, but the argument that you laid out is a flawed one, even if it is not an opinion that you hold yourself.

[Fisherking]

Yes I understand, but the argument that you laid out is a flawed one, even if it is not an opinion that you hold yourself.

An when was there a decision involving the killing of thousands not flawed in some way?

By our standards there is no justification. By theirs there seemingly were.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am not trying to justify my actions you know. I am just trying to put the decision within the context of the times.

Don't be too timid, or intimidated. Reading the internets nowadays, one starts to feel America and the allies have to justify their many WWII war crimes to their poor victims.

Pft.

I say, tell me why Germany and Japan should not have been bombed into defeat as soon as possible. Why not every means should've been used to win and end this war. I wish I would've had two hundred A-bombs in 1942. Or in 1937. I would've dropped them too.

Soul searching is good. So are humanitarian values. But there is such a thing as right and wrong. Even allowing for blurred lines and grey areas.
The - what's the proverb - the proof of the pudding is in the eating. How did Germany and Japan treat the peoples whom they defeated? And how, by comparison, did the (western) allies treat Germany and Japan after 1945? There is such a thing as good and bad, and good is justified in defeating bad.



On another level, I will shed a tear as much for the Germans and the Japanese as I do for everybody else. A lot of people suffered, died, who didn't deserve that. And many of those who did deserve it, would under other circumstances simply have lived out a peaceful life. But the ultimate responsibility lies not in Washington or London, but in Tokyo and Berlin.

[Beefy187]

I'm going to quote wiki and I know what happens when I do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_..._War_II#Canada

This is what quick search got me. I won't say they are worse then axis. Surely we did awful things too. But allies weren't that different.

[al Roumi]

I'm going to quote wiki and I know what happens when I do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_..._War_II#Canada

This is what quick search got me. I won't say they are worse then axis. Surely we did awful things too. But allies weren't that different.

From the above link:

Unrestricted submarine warfare
In the Nuremberg Trial, German Admiral Karl Dönitz was tried, among other crimes, for issuing orders to target Allied civilians, a policy known as unrestricted submarine warfare. Dönitz was found guilty, but no sentence was imposed, because of evidence presented to the the Tribunal that the Royal Navy and the United States Navy had issued similar orders.

The US Navy applied the same policy to operations in the Pacific. According to Gary E. Weir of the US Naval Historical Center, because of the way war was waged in the Atlantic, "when Admiral Thomas C. Hart proclaimed unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan on 8 December 1941, it came as no surprise".

This provides an insight on how some war crimes have been judged, e.g.: a defendant can only really be punished if their opponent was not also utilising (or permiting) the same tactic.

[Andres]

Don't be too timid, or intimidated. Reading the internets nowadays, one starts to feel America and the allies have to justify their many WWII war crimes to their poor victims.

There's no such thing as not enough information.

It's good to know as much as possible.

OTOH, it's difficult to know which sources are trustworthy and which aren't. But it's healthy to keep an open mind when studying history and to try to get information from as many sides as possible.

If the Allies have committed attrocities during WWII, then that knowledge should be available. I don't see nothing wrong with that.

Should we try to find out why those attrocities have been committed? Of course we should. Why would you want to avoid the inconvenient parts of the subject? Why should some things remain unsaid?

It's nonsensic to limit it to "teh Axis, teh bad, teh Allies, teh Good".

That would imply that there is such a thing as "a just war".

There isn't.

I wish I would've had two hundred A-bombs in 1942. Or in 1937. I would've dropped them too.

I think that's a nonsensical statement. Wouldn't your dropping of 200 atomic bombs have caused as many deads as the whole W.W. II event itself? Plus of course damage during centuries because of radiation?

***

As for the droppings of the bombs. No it wasn't "justified". War and acts of war can never be "justified", in my humble opinion. War is failure. But that viewpoint is all nice and good sitting in a comfortable chair when there's no actual war going on at your doorstep.

I don't know enough about the period, but are we 100 % that Japan was not on the edge of collapse and would have surrendered because they were already defeated? Wasn't it more of an honor thing that made it take so long before they agreed to surrender? How many diplomatic efforts have there been taken to come to an agreement with the Japanese before deciding to drop the bomb? Was Japan being unreasonably stubborn or was the US too impatient and in a hurry to drop the bomb? Was it an act of revenge or a necessity to end the conflict with as less victims as possible?

If it is true (which I don't know) that Japan was not going to surrender, under no circumstances, then I I agree most with Ser: it was probably necessary. The results were horrible, but maybe it was indeed better than a conventional invasion. I'm not sure if the second dropping was necessary though. Anyway, it ended the conflict and nobody can say what would have happened if Japan had been invaded.

Finding reliable and unbiased sources on the question if Japan was going to surrender or not, is probably crucial to answer the question whether it was necessary to drop the A-bombs.

Somebody has information on that?

[TinCow]

Wouldn't your dropping of 200 atomic bombs have caused as many deads as the whole W.W. II event itself? Plus of course damage during centuries because of radiation?

Radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons is nowhere near as bad as fallout from an accident like Chernobyl. Most estimate I have read on the subject indicate that most areas hit by nuclear weapons will no longer have significant radiation 1 year later, and definitely not longer than 5 years. The US government concedes exposure to ionizing radiation for soldiers who were stationed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki after the war, but only until July 1, 1946. Government estimates show no significant radiation risk after that date, and that's less than a year after the bombings.

That's not to say that radiation isn't a major side effect from nuclear weapons; it certainly is for anyone exposed to it. However, nuclear weapons definitely do not render an area radioactive for centuries.

If it is true (which I don't know) that Japan was not going to surrender, under no circumstances, then I I agree most with Ser: it was probably necessary. The results were horrible, but maybe it was indeed better than a conventional invasion. I'm not sure if the second dropping was necessary though. Anyway, it ended the conflict and nobody can say what would have happened if Japan had been invaded.

Finding reliable and unbiased sources on the question if Japan was going to surrender or not, is probably crucial to answer the question whether it was necessary to drop the A-bombs.

Somebody has information on that?

I have nothing to quote from at the moment, but I've done a lot of readings on the subject and my general impression is that the US believed Japan was not going to surrender, while it remains uncertain whether they actually would have. For the US, the decision was made after the language used by the Japanese to reject the Potsdam Declaration. Indications are that this was a language/cultural misunderstanding and that Japan was not quite as opposed to surrender as the direct translation of that term indicated.

There is decent evidence that Japan might have surrendered if the US had offered the same terms prior to the bombings (vague statements indicating the Emperor could remain on the throne) which they did after the bombings. At the same time, the situation prior to the bombings was vastly different than the situation after the bombings. Not only had the power of atomic weapons been demonstrated, but the Soviet Union had declared war and invaded the northern islands, and internal dissent within the Japanese government was becoming very serious.

Personally, I do not believe that the Japanese had any intention of surrendering prior to August 6th, at least not on any terms that were acceptable to the Allies. However, it is very difficult to tell whether they would eventually have made that decision without the atomic bombs and the Soviet attack. Maybe they would have reached the same agreement a month later, maybe longer, but it's far from certain. The Japanese DID reject the terms on July 27th. Even after the bombings and the Soviet attack on August 9th, the Japanese government was heavily divided on whether or not to surrender. A significant number wanted to continue fighting, and the pro-war faction even attempted a coup to keep the war going several days later.

IMO, while it was possible that the Japanese would have surrendered without the bomb, there was no way for the Allies to know that nor would it have been smart for them at the time to simply wait and see what was going to happen. I do not believe Truman can be fairly criticized for the decision, as it was right one to make at that time with the information available to him, even if the Japanese really would have surrendered later without the bombs.

[Vuk]

There's no such thing as not enough information.

It's good to know as much as possible.

OTOH, it's difficult to know which sources are trustworthy and which aren't. But it's healthy to keep an open mind when studying history and to try to get information from as many sides as possible.

If the Allies have committed attrocities during WWII, then that knowledge should be available. I don't see nothing wrong with that.

Should we try to find out why those attrocities have been committed? Of course we should. Why would you want to avoid the inconvenient parts of the subject? Why should some things remain unsaid?

It's nonsensic to limit it to "teh Axis, teh bad, teh Allies, teh Good".

That would imply that there is such a thing as "a just war".

There isn't.





I think that's a nonsensical statement. Wouldn't your dropping of 200 atomic bombs have caused as many deads as the whole W.W. II event itself? Plus of course damage during centuries because of radiation?

***

As for the droppings of the bombs. No it wasn't "justified". War and acts of war can never be "justified", in my humble opinion. War is failure. But that viewpoint is all nice and good sitting in a comfortable chair when there's no actual war going on at your doorstep.

I don't know enough about the period, but are we 100 % that Japan was not on the edge of collapse and would have surrendered because they were already defeated? Wasn't it more of an honor thing that made it take so long before they agreed to surrender? How many diplomatic efforts have there been taken to come to an agreement with the Japanese before deciding to drop the bomb? Was Japan being unreasonably stubborn or was the US too impatient and in a hurry to drop the bomb? Was it an act of revenge or a necessity to end the conflict with as less victims as possible?

If it is true (which I don't know) that Japan was not going to surrender, under no circumstances, then I I agree most with Ser: it was probably necessary. The results were horrible, but maybe it was indeed better than a conventional invasion. I'm not sure if the second dropping was necessary though. Anyway, it ended the conflict and nobody can say what would have happened if Japan had been invaded.

Finding reliable and unbiased sources on the question if Japan was going to surrender or not, is probably crucial to answer the question whether it was necessary to drop the A-bombs.

Somebody has information on that?

Japan had agreed to our surrender terms, but insisted they had to keep their emperor. We denied them that, massacred their populace, and then agreed to the exact same terms anyway! There was absolutely no need to drop those bombs.

As far as war goes, I disagree that there is no such thing as a just war. Defending yourself is justified. War (and killing in general) is loathsome, but unfortunately some times it is necessary. That does not make it good, but it certainly makes it just.

As to Louis, I am appalled at your attitude. It is very much akin to the attitude of a feuding redneck family. You cannot say, they started it, so we can do anything we want to them! Many of the bombings in Germany were simply Britain's way of getting revenge, and a way for the Allied Air Command to show the world (one country in particular) what they could do with a strategic bombing campaign. Do what you need to win the war being unjustly waged against you? Sure, absolutely. The thing is though, that the murder of millions of civilians has nothing to do with your effort to win the war, only with your efforts to subjugate a populace or wipe out a race.
You have to keep things in perspective and realize why you are doing what you are doing. You are fighting an enemies soldiers because they seek to take your country over. So you regrettably then kill the enemy soldiers to stop them. If you enemies are barbaric and kill, rape, enslave civilian populace, then you have a very real moral responsibility to bring the war to an end as soon as possible. Now you are fighting to stop the killing, raping, and enslaving of civilians, as well as to defend the integrity of your country. You cannot kill, rape, and enslave civilians to prevent the killing, raping, and enslaving of civilians! You are no longer preventing it, you are perpetrating it! You have now lost any moral justification, and because as base and inhumane as your enemy. Now any other country would have a legitimate reason to claim moral justification in attacking you. How does that help you?
You cannot say you are fighting to stop something evil, while you are using that something evil as a weapon!
The German and Japanese governments were without a doubt guilty of war crimes of the highest order, as were many soldiers. The governments and those soldiers who it could be fully proved played a part in this should have been executed after the war. By the same token though, we had a number of individual soldiers who also should have answered for their crimes. You cannot say that because there is the confusion of a war that the rape, torture, and murder of men, women, and children is justified. It is not, for anyone, anywhere, at any time.
Did the US commit war crimes? No, individuals soldiers did, against orders. That is what seperates them from the Japanese and Germans who acted on orders. (While that does not lessent he guilt of Japanese or German soldiers who commited such horrors, it does increase the guilt of the Americans IMO) I think it is stupid to condemn the allies for their involvement in WWII, but the individuals who commit crimes should have to accept punishment for them. It is something that happened a long time ago, and any facts are sure to be obscured, so I do not agree with the idea of capturing and trying German, Japanese, American, etc supposed war criminals, as it is impossible to give them a fair trial after all this time. (I think it is rather appalling that they did it to two Germans not to recently.)

[TinCow]

Japan had agreed to our surrender terms, but insisted they had to keep their emperor. We denied them that, massacred their populace, and then agreed to the exact same terms anyway!

That's not quite accurate. The Allies demanded unconditional surrender at Potsdam. The Japanese refused because they wanted to ensure that the Emperor remained on the throne (amongst other conditions, many of which were also unacceptable to the Allies). After the bombs and the Soviet declaration of war, the Japanese agreed to the unconditional surrender. The decision to allow the Emperor to remain was made by the Allies after the surrender, it was not part of the surrender agreement. The Japanese did indeed change their minds about unconditional surrender between July 27th and August 15th. The fact that the Allies later decided it was in everyone's best interests to keep the Imperial system intact does not change the fact that Japan did not agree to unconditional surrender prior to the bombs and the Soviet invasion, and did agree to it afterwards.

[Vuk]

That's not quite accurate. The Allies demanded unconditional surrender at Potsdam. The Japanese refused because they wanted to ensure that the Emperor remained on the throne (amongst other conditions, many of which were also unacceptable to the Allies). After the bombs and the Soviet declaration of war, the Japanese agreed to the unconditional surrender. The decision to allow the Emperor to remain was made by the Allies after the surrender, it was not part of the surrender agreement. The Japanese did indeed change their minds about unconditional surrender between July 27th and August 15th. The fact that the Allies later decided it was in everyone's best interests to keep the Imperial system intact does not change the fact that Japan did not agree to unconditional surrender prior to the bombs and the Soviet invasion, and did agree to it afterwards.

Yes, but we nonetheless, after dropping the bombs agreed to the terms they asked for before the bombs were dropped.

As far as war crimes, one of the reasons we let most of their war criminals off scot-free (or just about) is because they gave us their research in return. That is something else I highly disagree with the US for doing. I think the attitude was that most of it was done to the Chinese, not us, and who cares about the Chinese.

[TinCow]

Yes, but we nonetheless, after dropping the bombs agreed to the terms they asked for before the bombs were dropped.

Not quite, in the sense that Japan never asked for those terms before August 10th. Prior offers from Japan earlier in the year had included more provisions than just the retention of the Emperor. Simply put, the Japanese did not give their counter-offer of unconditional surrender, with the Imperial exception, until the day after Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion. Their only reply to the terms prior to the bombings was a total snub of the terms. If the Japanese had been prepared to accept unconditional surrender, with the Imperial exception, between July 26th and August 6th, they never communicated that to the Allies.

[Louis VI the Fat]

As to Louis, I am appalled at your attitude.

And I, for one, will uncork a fine bottle of champagne tonight and raise a glass to the fine men who made an allied victory possible.

the murder of millions of civilians has nothing to do with your effort to win the war, only with your efforts to subjugate a populace or wipe out a race.

See, this sort of nonsense passing for history is what I mean when I say that revisionist history is in the process of replacing proper historical knowledge about WWII on the internet.

Too much exploration of the allied bombing campaigns, of allied war crimes. Apparantly, 'Versailles' and 'resources' left Germany and Japan respectively no choice but to wage war. The allies, in turn, fought to show off, to subjugate peoples, or to wipe out foreign races, committing many horrid atrocities along the way.
The impression exists that Japan and Germany suffered horrendously in a war they had no choice but to fight, all in an atmosphere of moral equivalence.

In reality, allied bombings caused not more than a few hundred thousand deaths. Three to four hundred thousand in both Japan and Germany. Well below a million for all the axis powers combined, for all of the war, for all theaters combined. About what Germany and Japan managed every few months in their camps alone.
By comparison, the Japanese death toll in French Indochina alone, a relative footnote of WWII, is 1,5 million. Triple the total amount of Japanese civilian casualties of any kind.



I'll raise one more glass to the hundreds of thousands of brave allied pilots who gave their lives in the bombing and air campaigns.

There's no such thing as not enough information.

It's good to know as much as possible.


It's nonsensic to limit it to "teh Axis, teh bad, teh Allies, teh Good".

It is possible to have an open mind, to know a lot about WWII, and to reach the conclusion that the Axis were the bad, and the allies the good side.

[Vuk]

And I, for one, will uncork a fine bottle of champagne tonight and raise a glass to the fine men who made an allied victory possible.


See, this sort of nonsense passing for history is what I mean when I say that revisionist history is in the process of replacing proper historical knowledge about WWII on the internet.

Too much exploration of the allied bombing campaigns, of allied war crimes. Apparantly, 'Versailles' and 'resources' left Germany and Japan respectively no choice but to wage war. The allies, in turn, fought to show off, to subjugate peoples, or to wipe out foreign races, committing many horrid atrocities along the way.
The impression exists that Japan and Germany suffered horrendously in a war they had no choice but to fight, all in an atmosphere of moral equivalence.

In reality, allied bombings caused not more than a few hundred thousand deaths. Three to four hundred thousand in both Japan and Germany. Well below a million for all the axis powers combined, for all of the war, for all theaters combined. About what Germany and Japan managed every few months in their camps alone.
By comparison, the Japanese death toll in French Indochina alone, a relative footnote of WWII, is 1,5 million. Triple the total amount of Japanese civilian casualties of any kind.

I'll raise one more glass to the hundreds of thousands of brave allied pilots who gave their lives in the bombing and air campaigns.

Nonsense. No one said that the war against the axis was not justified, or that we were not in the right for fighting them. I believe this completely, but that does not mean that I am going to blind myself to crimes commited by our side with your child's book version of history. People on the good side can take advantage of that and do bad things. Unfortunately it happened. You are simply trying to ignore that and rewrite history as a nursery rhyme.

[Andres]

It is possible to have an open mind, to know a lot about WWII, and to reach the conclusion that the Axis were the bad, and the allies the good side.

Maybe it's such lack of nuance that causes the progress of the opposite opinion on the internet.

[Fisherking]

It has become popular to take the side of the underdog and in their defeat the Axis Powers became the underdog.

Some people will gladly choose not to know what horrors their heroes have done or to blithely say it was justifies via moral relativism.

It seems to have escaped most of them that the Axis all started unprovoked wars of aggression on their neighboring states. Even that war is a glorious pursuit.

It is what they wish to believe to be the truth. However, in many cases belief has nothing to do with truth.

Given current moral values, justifying the bomb is a hard sell, but in the light of the times it was not the most difficult of choices.

If you took the moral view of say two or three hundred years before it would be difficult to justify not wiping them from the face of the earth for all eternity.

Or does no one see cannibalism as an abomination?

[Viking]

It is possible to have an open mind, to know a lot about WWII, and to reach the conclusion that the Axis were the bad, and the allies the good side.

Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in 1955. I tend to pick the better side, because the good side I've yet to encounter.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I really don't understand why people keep saying you can't judge the event with "today's" morality or whatever. How can we have a discussion on history (besides dates of events) if we can't say "well that seemed like a pretty mean thing to do" or "that was probably the right thing"? How can we judge the Holocaust today if we don't use "today's" morality? Obviously plenty of people (at least German-occupied Europe) thought it was perfectly fine to murder the Jews and other minorities - or they wouldn't have done it! Similarly, obviously people thought strategic bombing was fine - because they did it!

I think the atomic bombings of Japan were a terrible crime, because they killed thousands of individuals who may or may not have been responsible for the Japanese aggression. Ditto all strategic bombing, and all total war. The only thing really to be gained out of a discussion on morality in WW2 in my opinion is the US should've left the Euros to kill each other in WW1, and maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't have come to this.

[Beefy187]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I can only take that truly insulting remark as someone absurdly ignorant of the facts of history.

Perhaps you are not acquainted with the brutal murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children perpetrated by the Japanese.

It surpassed the Germans in shear brutality and carelessness of human life if it did not surpass it in numbers.


I don’t believe that any of the allied nations ever had a massive campaign of rape, murder, torture, and extermination of civilians as part of their policies.

Start here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Likely only the cannibalism had it happened 200 years earlier, would have been of note, but to say it was only wrong because they lost is a bit disgusting.


One crime does not excuse another but still with the scope and magnitude you can see why they had less qualms on using such a weapon on that particular enemy.

I interpreted it as an observation that the winner writes history. Had Germany and Japan won, no doubt we would be discussing allied atrocities and barbarism. At least, that's what I thought beefy was on about.

Surely there would have been war crimes trials for all RAF bomber command staff and pilots? -assuming they had somehow been able to bomb Germany as they did, and then lose the war.

I meant what alh_p said. If I didn't get the message across that clearly, I apologize.
I have no intention of justifying what the Japanese did. But I'm saying... Things are not only black and white. Every country did something smiler in the past. Don't say Germans were the only Jewish hating country. Don't say Japan was the only imperialistic country who wanted to conquer everything in the world.

Some people even thank the Japanese for what they did. Starting with Republic of Palau.

[spmetla]

Well in abomb related news:

Japanese survivor of both atomic bombs dies
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...-survivor-dies