Poll: You are President Harry S. Truman, do you drop the atomic bombs on Japan?

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

Well, I never heard of the US preparing to invade China or South East Asia with it's millitary and plans on killing millions. Yes, they were always aware of each other. It's hard to ignore when the Japanese was making a huge navy fleet and then when they start marching their armies throughout Asia.

So you think the Japanese didn't have degroagtory words for Americans? They already treated the Chinese like they were less than dogs.

As for your talks about bombing a forest in the middle of no where. How do you know that would been enough? The US didn't even know the full effectives of a nuclear blast.

The US also only had 2 nuclear warheads during this time. They estimated it would take another 6 months before they could produce another one. Of course they never said this to Japan. They told Japan they had 20 more and were going to use them unless they surrendered.

sleepingzzz

What is your point? Yes Japan was guilty of some of the worst crimes of the 20th century (I might go as far as to call the invasion of China genocide) but does that justify the use of nuclear weapons against its civilians, who had nothing to do with these crimes? The US stooped to their level by dropping atomic bombs, there is not other way to put it.

What does having a large military force have to do with anything? The US had a massive navy as well and controlled half of the pacific so you could use your same logic to accuse the US of being the aggressors.

A nuclear blast is a nuclear blast. It would be pretty damn easy for teh Japanese to realize that they had nothing to counter it. And yes, because the US didn't know the full affect of the bomb on human beings, it was tested on 200,000 innocent civilians. Yeah, sure sounds like the morally superior nation.

You are ignoring the fact that the bombs were not vital in bringing about Japan's surrender, however, so the justification of the bombs to end the war is a pretty weak one.

They only had 2 bombs. They were trying to break Japan's back as quickly as possible. They wanted to use the bombs to their greatest effect.

So in a fight to the death a guy pulls a knife and you have a gun. Do you not pull the gun because you feel that would be unfair? Do you then decide to risk your life even though the other guy charged at you with the knife first?

It's just common sense. The leaders of a country are going to do what it takes to defend their country. Yes, they need to try and be humane. But, in the end you do what it takes to save lives of your country and not the country that attacks you.

More like you have a guy tied up on the floor, and you decide how to kill him. Do you pull out that gun and shoot him behind both kneecaps until he begs for mercy or do you show him that you have a gun and will kill him if he dosn't surrender? There was no way that the pacific war was a fight to the death in 1945. Japan was defeated already.

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]

Its good to see that the correct answer has the majority of votes...

Anybody saying no must realize that the cost of American AND Japanese lives would be greater.

The Japanese had a no surrender mentality they were not going to give up no matter what. It is a shame it came down to it but it had to be done sadly

Chris_Williams

So the US continues it's air bombs. US main army comes in the main land and guess what. Millions of civilians still die painfully from weapons, diease, starvation, etc. Russia invades China and maybe even gets to Japan before the US can finish.

Hell yes, save American lives always comes first, why would I be worried about teh enemy when they are trying to kill us first?

Hell yes, save American lives always comes first, why would I be worried about teh enemy when they are trying to kill us first?

JigglyWiggly_

I just can't surmisewhyanyone would want to save 200,000 innocent lives. Can you?

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

Hell yes, save American lives always comes first, why would I be worried about teh enemy when they are trying to kill us first?

Tokugawa77

I just can't surmisewhyanyone would want to save 200,000 innocent lives. Can you?

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

Hell yes, save American lives always comes first, why would I be worried about teh enemy when they are trying to kill us first?

AgentA-Mi6

I just can't surmisewhyanyone would want to save 200,000 innocent lives. Can you?

What is your take on the bombs, then?

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

Hell yes, save American lives always comes first, why would I be worried about teh enemy when they are trying to kill us first?

Tokugawa77

I just can't surmisewhyanyone would want to save 200,000 innocent lives. Can you?

You keep bringing this up as if no one else would have died if they didn't drop the bombs. That everyone of these innocent 200k civilians would of been fine.

There were estimates to half a million casualties on allies if they were forced to invade Japan. What would be the cost on the Japanese side of that? Definitely in the millions. Plus some how you feel people living in Hiroshima are more worth saving. Is not all life important?

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

I just can't surmisewhyanyone would want to save 200,000 innocent lives. Can you?

Tokugawa77

What is your take on the bombs, then?

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

Hell yes, save American lives always comes first, why would I be worried about teh enemy when they are trying to kill us first?

sleepingzzz

I just can't surmisewhyanyone would want to save 200,000 innocent lives. Can you?

You keep bringing this up as if no one else would have died if they didn't drop the bombs. That everyone of these innocent 200k civilians would of been fine.

There were estimates to half a million casualties on allies if they were forced to invade Japan. What would be the cost on the Japanese side of that? Definitely in the millions. Plus some how you feel people living in Hiroshima are more worth saving. Is not all life important?

Yes an invasion would have been much worse and the bombs were preferable alternatives to millions of civilian dead. I have already stated this. But I have also already stated the alternative- bomb the countryside, show the power of the bombs. This coupled with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (which I maintain was a bigger factor in the Japanese surrender) would show the Japanese government that they had no chance.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"] We're talking about the use of a nuclear weapon on human beings, even if was a city comprised entirely of military facilities the matter still poses an ethical issue.AgentA-Mi6

What is your take on the bombs, then?

Japanese had a nuclear program going. There are claims that they were close to developing their own atom bomb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program

So you would rather wait for them to get nukes to use first? Now even if this would stop both sides from using the weapons which I highly doubt. Japan would keep control of all the Asian countries they have taken over. The murders and torture would continue for decades on these countries.

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

I just can't surmisewhyanyone would want to save 200,000 innocent lives. Can you?

Tokugawa77

You keep bringing this up as if no one else would have died if they didn't drop the bombs. That everyone of these innocent 200k civilians would of been fine.

There were estimates to half a million casualties on allies if they were forced to invade Japan. What would be the cost on the Japanese side of that? Definitely in the millions. Plus some how you feel people living in Hiroshima are more worth saving. Is not all life important?

Yes an invasion would have been much worse and the bombs were preferable alternatives to millions of civilian dead. I have already stated this. But I have also already stated the alternative- bomb the countryside, show the power of the bombs. This coupled with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (which I maintain was a bigger factor in the Japanese surrender) would show the Japanese government that they had no chance.

Again you have no idea if having dropped these bombs in the wilderness would have cause the Japanese to surrender. The Japanese had already refused to surrender after the first bomb. The US only had 2 at the time. Why would they want to drag on the war and have more American casualties. Yes, civilian casualties are bad but, you protect the lives of your own country first. I don't see how that is a hard concept to grasp.

i dont get the people who think it would be necessary to invade japan to end the war, its an island and the country had originally no expansionism in their history.

HFkami

Your statement is utterly and completely false. As evidence, I point to the Imjin War from 1592 to 1598. History proves you wrong.

Take it for what it's worth. There were many in the higher positions of the US military who didn't believe the bombings were necessary to win the war, nor that their use was ethical.

Personally, I couldn't have brought myself to use the first one on a populated area. So I would have tried what others have suggested in dropping one as a demonstration on a thinly populated area after providing at least a week's warning, followed by a threat to nuke every major city in the country. Japan had no way of knowing the US had only two bombs, and it's not like they couldn't have built more in the unlikely event that dropping the first two hadn't been enough.

I'd also like to point out that Truman (and thus you) had NO WAY of knowing that dropping these bombs would have secured a surrender when he made the decision. People say the Japanese were all preparing to "fight to the death." If that's the case, why did they surrender at all? It shouldn't have mattered how many of their cities were destroyed and how many civilians were killed. If they were as fanatical and as lacking in a sense of self-preservation as the stereotypes would have us believe, logic would suggest that until every one of them was killed, there would be no surrender.

Clearly that wasn't the case. It makes you wonder.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

You keep bringing this up as if no one else would have died if they didn't drop the bombs. That everyone of these innocent 200k civilians would of been fine.

There were estimates to half a million casualties on allies if they were forced to invade Japan. What would be the cost on the Japanese side of that? Definitely in the millions. Plus some how you feel people living in Hiroshima are more worth saving. Is not all life important?

sleepingzzz

Yes an invasion would have been much worse and the bombs were preferable alternatives to millions of civilian dead. I have already stated this. But I have also already stated the alternative- bomb the countryside, show the power of the bombs. This coupled with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (which I maintain was a bigger factor in the Japanese surrender) would show the Japanese government that they had no chance.

Again you no idea if having dropped these bombs in the wilderness would have cause the Japanese to surrender. They already refuse to surrender after the first bomb. The US only had 2 at the time. Why would they want to drag on the war and have more American casualties. Yes, civilian casualties are bad but, you protect the lives of your own country first. I don't see how that is hard concept to grasp.

They refused to surrender after the first bomb (august 6) because the soviet declaration of war came on the 9nth. Hirohito broadcasted the surrender on August 15th. Coincidence? I don't think so. I also have a big problem with the "our country first, protect the lives of our civilians because we are more valuable" mentality, but that is irrlevent in this discussion. In any case, we seem to just be repeating our points over and over again so continued arguement is pointless. No, I do not know what would have happened should the bombs have been dropped on less populated areas, none of us do. However, I beleive that there is a very large chance that Japan would have surrendered anyway, a chance good enough to gamble saving 200,000 lives on.

Take it for what it's worth. There were many in the higher positions of the US military who didn't believe the bombings were necessary to win the war, nor that their use was ethical.

Personally, I couldn't have brought myself to use the first one on a populated area. So I would have tried what others have suggested in dropping one as a demonstration on a thinly populated area after providing at least a week's warning, followed by a threat to nuke every major city in the country. Japan had no way of knowing the US had only two bombs, and it's not like they couldn't have built more in the unlikely event that dropping the first two hadn't been enough.

I'd also like to point out that Truman (and thus you) had NO WAY of knowing that dropping these bombs would have secured a surrender when he made the decision. People say the Japanese were all preparing to "fight to the death." If that's the case, why did they surrender at all? It shouldn't have mattered how many of their cities were destroyed and how many civilians were killed. If they were as fanatical and as lacking in a sense of self-preservation as the stereotypes would have us believe, logic would suggest that until every one of them was killed, there would be no surrender.

Clearly that wasn't the case. It makes you wonder.

pianist

Well, that's the case. No one knows what would happen. Yes some of the generals didn't think it was needed. Others did. In the end they did what they thought would end the war the fastest without having more American casualties.

We had no way of knowing if it would secure a surrender but, it was the most effective way of using the bombs to show the Japanese leaders the worst of the of the nuclear weapons. It gave us the best odds of forcing them to surrender by hitting them the hardest. Now say if they dropped one bomb in the wilderness and then one on a city. What if Japan didn't surrender? You have 6 months of more fighting. Russia was also coming. They did what they felt gave them the best odds to force Japan to surrender immediately.

Hell yeahMgamerBD

Yeah I read Hiroshima and it was awful, but it ended the war and we were able to rebuild Japan to a better country.

Yup, less lives were lost by nuking them which outweighs the negatives.

I'd just send in ninjas to take out their leaders.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

Don't you think your info is a bit bias? It's not like the Japanese on going to show any of the things they did. I posted before about how none of the murders they did are recorded in their history books.

JasonDarksavior

Not at all. The japanese mentallity regarding WW2 is much different from that of the US. The Japanese feel remorse for the war, and pledged to never use war as a way of obtaining what they want. Why else do you think they have no standing army? In fact there is an entire floor in the museum devoted to showing the history behind world war 2. And what did I find? a picture of the Rape of Najing. And how can facts be biased? it is a fact that the atomic bombs took a horrendous human toll, and that is all that the museum tries to make you realize.

Does that in any way make a difference? I am not too familiar with the Japanese government's histpry about admitting to war crimes, but the Hiroshima museum certainly did. In any case, it's not as if they explicitly deny it, they just gloss over it like all countries do. Example- Mexican-American war which was an outright unprovoked war of imperialism against Mexico is never talked about in depth, niether is the internmnet of Japanese Americans, genocide of native americans, the actual horrible effects of the atomic bombs- Every country is guilty of this, you have to dig really deep in order to find some of this information.

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"][QUOTE="fueled-system"]

Its good to see that the correct answer has the majority of votes...

Anybody saying no must realize that the cost of American AND Japanese lives would be greater.

The Japanese had a no surrender mentality they were not going to give up no matter what. It is a shame it came down to it but it had to be done sadly

Iffy350

I love the part about your version of history where the marines invade the southern part of the Japanese mainland and we decided to drop an abomb on the invasion beach prior to sending our invasion forces in.

Well, that's the case. No one knows what would happen. Yes some of the generals didn't think it was needed. Others did. In the end they did what they thought would end the war the fastest without having more American casualties.

We had no way of knowing if it would secure a surrender but, it was the most effective way of using the bombs to show the Japanese leaders the worst of the of the nuclear weapons. It gave us the best odds of forcing them to surrender by hitting them the hardest. Now say if they dropped one bomb in the wilderness and then one on a city. What if Japan didn't surrender? You have 6 months of more fighting. Russia was also coming. They did what they felt gave them the best odds to force Japan to surrender immediately.

sleepingzzz

I firmly believe it was a decision borne of politics and a desire for revenge, not of military necessity, and that the people who made the decision knew it. If they wanted Japan to surrender quickly, they could very well have accomplished that months before had they been willing to compromise on their unconditional surrender terms - something that they ultimately ended up doing anyways. Maybe a mutually acceptable peace couldn't have been arrived at, but the point is they didn't even try. That bothers me even more than the decision to use the bombs.

More good reading.

[QUOTE="JasonDarksavior"][QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Not at all. The japanese mentallity regarding WW2 is much different from that of the US. The Japanese feel remorse for the war, and pledged to never use war as a way of obtaining what they want. Why else do you think they have no standing army? In fact there is an entire floor in the museum devoted to showing the history behind world war 2. And what did I find? a picture of the Rape of Najing. And how can facts be biased? it is a fact that the atomic bombs took a horrendous human toll, and that is all that the museum tries to make you realize.

Tokugawa77

Does that in any way make a difference? I am not too familiar with the Japanese government's histpry about admitting to war crimes, but the Hiroshima museum certainly did. In any case, it's not as if they explicitly deny it, they just gloss over it like all countries do. Example- Mexican-American war which was an outright unprovoked war of imperialism against Mexico is never talked about in depth, niether is the internmnet of Japanese Americans, genocide of native americans, the actual horrible effects of the atomic bombs- Every country is guilty of this, you have to dig really deep in order to find some of this information.

Were you able to read what it said about Japanese war crimes at the musem? Because I highly doubt it said much of what happen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies

Link shows a 2005 edition of their text book at the very bottom.

This is the translation about Nanking

• Nanking Massacre:

"In August 1937, two Japanese soldiers, one an officer, were shot to death inShanghai(the hub of foreign interests). After this incident, the hostilities between Japan and China escalated. Japanese military officials thoughtChiang Kai-shekwould surrender if they capturedNanking, the Nationalist capital; they occupied that city in December. *But Chiang Kai-shek had moved his capital to the remote city of Chongqing. The conflict continued. Note *At this time, many Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed or wounded by Japanese troops (theNanking Incident). Documentary evidence has raised doubts about the actual number of victims claimed by the incident. The debate continues even today" (p. 49).

This was also in the same Text book.

"Japanese soldiers drove out the forces of Western Europe, which had colonized the nations of Asia for many years. They surprised us, because we didn't think we could possibly beat the white man, and they inspired us with confidence. They awakened us from our long slumber, and convinced us to make the nation of our ancestors our own nation once again. We cheered the Japanese soldiers as they marched through theMalay Peninsula. When we saw the defeated British troops fleeing, we felt an excitement we had never experienced before. (Excerpt from the writings ofRaja Dato Nong Chik, leader of the Malaysian independence movement and former member of the Malaysian House of Representatives)" (p. 54)

As for American schools not teaching about native Americans and the effects of the atomic bomb you're wrong. My teachers went over the death marches the Native Americans were forced to walk. English **** had us reading a book on Hiroshima. Fully describing how the skin of victims would rip right off because of radiation when people would try to help survivors.

I been to Germany and they are well aware of what their people did under Hitler It helps to know the horrors of the war so that history does not repeat itself. Japan seems to think other wise.

You always bring up the innocent civilians of Hiroshima. Why don't you have any ideas how it might of been possible to save the millions of people that the Japanese tortured and killed? Whats makes the people of Hiroshima so much more innocent then all of the other victims? Better yet what makes them so innocent?

Edit: Put the wrong link in. Here is the correct link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies

a million times NO.

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

Well, that's the case. No one knows what would happen. Yes some of the generals didn't think it was needed. Others did. In the end they did what they thought would end the war the fastest without having more American casualties.

We had no way of knowing if it would secure a surrender but, it was the most effective way of using the bombs to show the Japanese leaders the worst of the of the nuclear weapons. It gave us the best odds of forcing them to surrender by hitting them the hardest. Now say if they dropped one bomb in the wilderness and then one on a city. What if Japan didn't surrender? You have 6 months of more fighting. Russia was also coming. They did what they felt gave them the best odds to force Japan to surrender immediately.

pianist

I firmly believe it was a decision borne of politics and a desire for revenge, not of military necessity, and that the people who made the decision knew it. If they wanted Japan to surrender quickly, they could very well have accomplished that months before had they been willing to compromise on their unconditional surrender terms - something that they ultimately ended up doing anyways. Maybe a mutually acceptable peace couldn't have been arrived at, but the point is they didn't even try. That bothers me even more than the decision to use the bombs.

More good reading.

It's possible. But, there is no way to be sure.

Here are some quotes by Truman.

"We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans" (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945)

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

"Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'." (John Blum, ed., "The Price of Vision: the Diary of Henry A. Wallace, 1942-1946", pg. 473-474)

To me it sounds like someone that picked the option with the best probability to end the war immediately though I could be wrong. Even if it was to show Russia that the US had a very powerful weapon that may in turn have saved another war with them.

Now if you say it was out of anger and revenge that I find hard to believe. Truman definitely didn't like the idea of droping the bomb. I would say FDR felt the same way but he still ordered the scientist to start the project to create one.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="JasonDarksavior"] They haven't even admitted to their war crimes against the Chinese . . .sleepingzzz

Does that in any way make a difference? I am not too familiar with the Japanese government's histpry about admitting to war crimes, but the Hiroshima museum certainly did. In any case, it's not as if they explicitly deny it, they just gloss over it like all countries do. Example- Mexican-American war which was an outright unprovoked war of imperialism against Mexico is never talked about in depth, niether is the internmnet of Japanese Americans, genocide of native americans, the actual horrible effects of the atomic bombs- Every country is guilty of this, you have to dig really deep in order to find some of this information.

Were you able to read what it said about Japanese war crimes at the musem? Because I highly doubt it said much of what happen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program

Link shows a 2005 edition of their text book at the very bottom.

This is the translation about Nanking

• Nanking Massacre:

"In August 1937, two Japanese soldiers, one an officer, were shot to death inShanghai(the hub of foreign interests). After this incident, the hostilities between Japan and China escalated. Japanese military officials thoughtChiang Kai-shekwould surrender if they capturedNanking, the Nationalist capital; they occupied that city in December. *But Chiang Kai-shek had moved his capital to the remote city of Chongqing. The conflict continued. Note *At this time, many Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed or wounded by Japanese troops (theNanking Incident). Documentary evidence has raised doubts about the actual number of victims claimed by the incident. The debate continues even today" (p. 49).

This was also in the same Text book.

"Japanese soldiers drove out the forces of Western Europe, which had colonized the nations of Asia for many years. They surprised us, because we didn't think we could possibly beat the white man, and they inspired us with confidence. They awakened us from our long slumber, and convinced us to make the nation of our ancestors our own nation once again. We cheered the Japanese soldiers as they marched through theMalay Peninsula. When we saw the defeated British troops fleeing, we felt an excitement we had never experienced before. (Excerpt from the writings ofRaja Dato Nong Chik, leader of the Malaysian independence movement and former member of the Malaysian House of Representatives)" (p. 54)

As for American schools not teaching about native Americans and the effects of the atomic bomb you're wrong. My teachers went over the death marches the Native Americans were forced to walk. English **** had us reading a book on Hiroshima. Fully describing how the skin of victims would rip right off because of radiation when people would try to help survivors.

I been to Germany and they are well aware of what there people did under Hitler It helps to know so that history does not repeat itself. Japan seems to think other wise.

You always bring up the innocent civilians of Hiroshima. Why don't you have any ideas how it might of been possible to save the millions of people that the Japanese tortured and killed? Whats makes the people of Hiroshima so much more innocent then all of the other victims? Better yet what makes them so innocent?

Yes and since I was there and you weren't, you'll just have to take my word for it. And since you have never been to Japan, how could you have any idea about the mindset of the Japanese? For the record, they do not condem the US at all, if anything they blame themselves for the war. History not repeating itself, that is theexact purpose ofthe museum and also why Japan has no army.And you just proved what I have been saying- the Japanese don't deny what they did in China, they just gloss over it. Tell me- can you say the date that the mexican-American war started off the top of your head? or how many American citizens were interned in the 1940s? No, but we all have the "day of infamy" ingrained in our minds. Our schools gloss over things as well, the only way you will get the full truth is if you take a course devoted to it, which you probably did as I am sure you didn't learn about any of that in middle school. Why don't I have any ideas as to how to save the lives of Chinese? well maybe because this threat is called "do you drop the atomic bombs on Japan" not "Do you order your soldiers to go on a killing spree through Nanjing", obviously. What so your logic is that since innocent Chinese were killed, innocent Japanese should be? Give me a break. That is the logic of Al Qaeda. What makes the civilians of Hiroshima so innocent? Well obviosuly because they had no part in the attrocities in China. Should I be blamed for the US propping up dictators and denying democracy around the world just because I am a citizen? Do the actions of my government jeopardize my innocence? You are so detirmined to justify the bombings that you are accusing the entire Japanese populace of crimes.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

Well, that's the case. No one knows what would happen. Yes some of the generals didn't think it was needed. Others did. In the end they did what they thought would end the war the fastest without having more American casualties.

We had no way of knowing if it would secure a surrender but, it was the most effective way of using the bombs to show the Japanese leaders the worst of the of the nuclear weapons. It gave us the best odds of forcing them to surrender by hitting them the hardest. Now say if they dropped one bomb in the wilderness and then one on a city. What if Japan didn't surrender? You have 6 months of more fighting. Russia was also coming. They did what they felt gave them the best odds to force Japan to surrender immediately.

sleepingzzz

I firmly believe it was a decision borne of politics and a desire for revenge, not of military necessity, and that the people who made the decision knew it. If they wanted Japan to surrender quickly, they could very well have accomplished that months before had they been willing to compromise on their unconditional surrender terms - something that they ultimately ended up doing anyways. Maybe a mutually acceptable peace couldn't have been arrived at, but the point is they didn't even try. That bothers me even more than the decision to use the bombs.

More good reading.

It's possible. But, there is no way to be sure.

Here are some quotes by Truman.

"We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans" (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945)

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

"Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'." (John Blum, ed., "The Price of Vision: the Diary of Henry A. Wallace, 1942-1946", pg. 473-474)

To me it sounds like someone that picked the option with the best probability to end the war immediately though I could be wrong. Even if it was to show Russia that the US had a very powerful weapon that may in turn have saved another war with them.

Now if you say it was out of anger and revenge that I find hard to believe. Truman definitely didn't like the idea of droping the bomb. I would say FDR felt the same way but he still ordered the scientist to start the project to create one.

Of course it was out of a desire for revenge. In 1945 13% of Americans were in favor of completely exterminating the Japanese race, men, women, and children. Hatred towards Japanese Americans continued on into the 1950s.

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Does that in any way make a difference? I am not too familiar with the Japanese government's histpry about admitting to war crimes, but the Hiroshima museum certainly did. In any case, it's not as if they explicitly deny it, they just gloss over it like all countries do. Example- Mexican-American war which was an outright unprovoked war of imperialism against Mexico is never talked about in depth, niether is the internmnet of Japanese Americans, genocide of native americans, the actual horrible effects of the atomic bombs- Every country is guilty of this, you have to dig really deep in order to find some of this information.

Tokugawa77

Were you able to read what it said about Japanese war crimes at the musem? Because I highly doubt it said much of what happen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program

Link shows a 2005 edition of their text book at the very bottom.

This is the translation about Nanking

• Nanking Massacre:

"In August 1937, two Japanese soldiers, one an officer, were shot to death inShanghai(the hub of foreign interests). After this incident, the hostilities between Japan and China escalated. Japanese military officials thoughtChiang Kai-shekwould surrender if they capturedNanking, the Nationalist capital; they occupied that city in December. *But Chiang Kai-shek had moved his capital to the remote city of Chongqing. The conflict continued. Note *At this time, many Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed or wounded by Japanese troops (theNanking Incident). Documentary evidence has raised doubts about the actual number of victims claimed by the incident. The debate continues even today" (p. 49).

This was also in the same Text book.

"Japanese soldiers drove out the forces of Western Europe, which had colonized the nations of Asia for many years. They surprised us, because we didn't think we could possibly beat the white man, and they inspired us with confidence. They awakened us from our long slumber, and convinced us to make the nation of our ancestors our own nation once again. We cheered the Japanese soldiers as they marched through theMalay Peninsula. When we saw the defeated British troops fleeing, we felt an excitement we had never experienced before. (Excerpt from the writings ofRaja Dato Nong Chik, leader of the Malaysian independence movement and former member of the Malaysian House of Representatives)" (p. 54)

As for American schools not teaching about native Americans and the effects of the atomic bomb you're wrong. My teachers went over the death marches the Native Americans were forced to walk. English **** had us reading a book on Hiroshima. Fully describing how the skin of victims would rip right off because of radiation when people would try to help survivors.

I been to Germany and they are well aware of what there people did under Hitler It helps to know so that history does not repeat itself. Japan seems to think other wise.

You always bring up the innocent civilians of Hiroshima. Why don't you have any ideas how it might of been possible to save the millions of people that the Japanese tortured and killed? Whats makes the people of Hiroshima so much more innocent then all of the other victims? Better yet what makes them so innocent?

Yes and since I was there and you weren't, you'll just have to take my word for it. And since you have never been to Japan, how could you have any idea about the mindset of the Japanese? For the record, they do not condem the US at all, if anything they blame themselves for the war. History not repeating itself, that is theexact purpose ofthe museum and also why Japan has no army.And you just proved what I have been saying- the Japanese don't deny what they did in China, they just gloss over it. Tell me- can you say the date that the mexican-American war started off the top of your head? or how many American citizens were interned in the 1940s? No, but we all have the "day of infamy" ingrained in our minds. Our schools gloss over things as well, the only way you will get the full truth is if you take a course devoted to it, which you probably did as I am sure you didn't learn about any of that in middle school. Why don't I have any ideas as to how to save the lives of Chinese? well maybe because this threat is called "do you drop the atomic bombs on Japan" not "Do you order your soldiers to go on a killing spree through Nanjing", obviously. What so your logic is that since innocent Chinese were killed, innocent Japanese should be? Give me a break. That is the logic of Al Qaeda. What makes the civilians of Hiroshima so innocent? Well obviosuly because they had no part in the attrocities in China. Should I be blamed for the US propping up dictators and denying democracy around the world just because I am a citizen? Do the actions of my government jeopardize my innocence? You are so detirmined to justify the bombings that you are accusing the entire Japanese populace of crimes.

Your asking for dates? I barely have any idea of the dates for WW2 without looking them up. You bring in the Mexican-American war that happen even before WW2. 9/11 will be fresh in most people's mind because it's very recent and we have video footage of it.

I already told you that we had to read a book in high school about Hiroshima from the perspective of someone living there during the days right before and after the bomb hit.

The Japanese should be more aware because it involves them and there neighbor while I'm half a world away. You say they gloss over their text books so they won't care. I already pointed out that their text books don't correctly explain what happened. The text book itself says it is still being debated and gives next to no information. So there is no way for them to know what happened. Can't have questions on something you know nothing about.

Now your putting words into my mouth saying that since Chinese innocents were killed and so Japanese innocents should be killed. Where did I even come close to saying that? It just seems to me that you feel the innocents in Hiroshima suffered more than all the other victims in the war. That's the impression I get from your posts. That they are some how more of a victim than the rest.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

Were you able to read what it said about Japanese war crimes at the musem? Because I highly doubt it said much of what happen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program

Link shows a 2005 edition of their text book at the very bottom.

This is the translation about Nanking

• Nanking Massacre:

"In August 1937, two Japanese soldiers, one an officer, were shot to death inShanghai(the hub of foreign interests). After this incident, the hostilities between Japan and China escalated. Japanese military officials thoughtChiang Kai-shekwould surrender if they capturedNanking, the Nationalist capital; they occupied that city in December. *But Chiang Kai-shek had moved his capital to the remote city of Chongqing. The conflict continued. Note *At this time, many Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed or wounded by Japanese troops (theNanking Incident). Documentary evidence has raised doubts about the actual number of victims claimed by the incident. The debate continues even today" (p. 49).

This was also in the same Text book.

"Japanese soldiers drove out the forces of Western Europe, which had colonized the nations of Asia for many years. They surprised us, because we didn't think we could possibly beat the white man, and they inspired us with confidence. They awakened us from our long slumber, and convinced us to make the nation of our ancestors our own nation once again. We cheered the Japanese soldiers as they marched through theMalay Peninsula. When we saw the defeated British troops fleeing, we felt an excitement we had never experienced before. (Excerpt from the writings ofRaja Dato Nong Chik, leader of the Malaysian independence movement and former member of the Malaysian House of Representatives)" (p. 54)

As for American schools not teaching about native Americans and the effects of the atomic bomb you're wrong. My teachers went over the death marches the Native Americans were forced to walk. English **** had us reading a book on Hiroshima. Fully describing how the skin of victims would rip right off because of radiation when people would try to help survivors.

I been to Germany and they are well aware of what there people did under Hitler It helps to know so that history does not repeat itself. Japan seems to think other wise.

You always bring up the innocent civilians of Hiroshima. Why don't you have any ideas how it might of been possible to save the millions of people that the Japanese tortured and killed? Whats makes the people of Hiroshima so much more innocent then all of the other victims? Better yet what makes them so innocent?

sleepingzzz

Yes and since I was there and you weren't, you'll just have to take my word for it. And since you have never been to Japan, how could you have any idea about the mindset of the Japanese? For the record, they do not condem the US at all, if anything they blame themselves for the war. History not repeating itself, that is theexact purpose ofthe museum and also why Japan has no army.And you just proved what I have been saying- the Japanese don't deny what they did in China, they just gloss over it. Tell me- can you say the date that the mexican-American war started off the top of your head? or how many American citizens were interned in the 1940s? No, but we all have the "day of infamy" ingrained in our minds. Our schools gloss over things as well, the only way you will get the full truth is if you take a course devoted to it, which you probably did as I am sure you didn't learn about any of that in middle school. Why don't I have any ideas as to how to save the lives of Chinese? well maybe because this threat is called "do you drop the atomic bombs on Japan" not "Do you order your soldiers to go on a killing spree through Nanjing", obviously. What so your logic is that since innocent Chinese were killed, innocent Japanese should be? Give me a break. That is the logic of Al Qaeda. What makes the civilians of Hiroshima so innocent? Well obviosuly because they had no part in the attrocities in China. Should I be blamed for the US propping up dictators and denying democracy around the world just because I am a citizen? Do the actions of my government jeopardize my innocence? You are so detirmined to justify the bombings that you are accusing the entire Japanese populace of crimes.

Your asking for dates? I barely have any idea of the dates for WW2 without looking them up. You bring in the Mexican-American war that happen even before WW2. 9/11 will be fresh in most people's mind because it's very recent and we have video footage of it.

I already told you that we had to read a book in high school about Hiroshima from the perspective of someone living there during the days right before and after the bomb hit.

The Japanese should be more aware because it involves them and there neighbor while I'm half a world away. You say they gloss over their text books so they won't care. I already pointed out that their text books don't correctly explain what happened. The text book itself says it is still being debated and gives next to no information. So there is no way for them to know what happened. Can't have questions on something you know nothing about.

Now your putting words into my mouth saying that since Chinese innocents were killed and so Japanese innocents should be killed. Where did I even come close to saying that? It just seems to me that you feel the innocents in Hiroshima suffered more than all the other victims in the war. That's the impression I get from your posts. That they are some how more of a victim than the rest.

What makes the people of Hiroshima so much more innocent then all the other victims? Better yet what makes them so innocent?

This statement made by you implies that the Japanese civilians killed in the atomic bombings are somehow less innocent than the Chinese. No, the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not suffer more, perhaps more painfully than others, but all loss of human life is a tradgedy. Thus, we should take all possible measures to prevent more loss of life, including not using the atomic bombs. You keep bringing up Japanese war crimes yet these have nothing to do with whether or not we should have used the bombs. It is a typical reaction that most people have- The Japanese army slaughtered millions of Chinese so thus the Japanese civilians deserve to be bombed- that is the most immoral and simple-minded arguement I have ever heard in any debate. Ever.

What makes the people of Hiroshima so much more innocent then all the other victims? Better yet what makes them so innocent?

This statement made by you implies that the Japanese civilians killed in the atomic bombings are somehow less innocent than the Chinese. No, the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not suffer more, perhaps more painfully than others, but all loss of human life is a tradgedy. Thus, we should take all possible measures to prevent more loss of life, including not using the atomic bombs. You keep bringing up Japanese war crimes yet these have nothing to do with whether or not we should have used the bombs. It is a typical reaction that most people have- The Japanese army slaughtered millions of Chinese so thus the Japanese civilians deserve to be bombed- that is the most immoral and simple-minded arguement I have ever heard in any debate. Ever.

Tokugawa77

Oh please the question was because you put those 200K over ending the war. Yes, its a tragedy but, it brought about the end of the war. People can argue the what ifs but, Japan clearly surrended after the bombs drop. That is FACT. You can debate all day about what so and so could of happen. As for the Japanese war crimes I bought that up because people here were saying how the US should of waited. How both sides were building up. BS. The Japanese were moving 1000 of miles accross Asia and destorying everything they touch and needed to be stopped as soon as possible.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

What makes the people of Hiroshima so much more innocent then all the other victims? Better yet what makes them so innocent?

This statement made by you implies that the Japanese civilians killed in the atomic bombings are somehow less innocent than the Chinese. No, the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not suffer more, perhaps more painfully than others, but all loss of human life is a tradgedy. Thus, we should take all possible measures to prevent more loss of life, including not using the atomic bombs. You keep bringing up Japanese war crimes yet these have nothing to do with whether or not we should have used the bombs. It is a typical reaction that most people have- The Japanese army slaughtered millions of Chinese so thus the Japanese civilians deserve to be bombed- that is the most immoral and simple-minded arguement I have ever heard in any debate. Ever.

sleepingzzz

Oh please the question was because you put those 200K over ending the war. Yes, its a tragedy but, it brought about the end of the war. People can argue the what ifs but, Japan clearly surrended after the bombs drop. That is FACT. You can debate all day about what so and so could of happen. As for the Japanese war crimes I bought that up because people here were saying how the US should of waited. How both sides were building up. BS. The Japanese were moving 1000 of miles accross Asia and destorying everything they touch and needed to be stopped as soon as possible.

1000 miles accross Asia? no, not at all. At the empire's hight Japan was only able to go a hundred miles or so from the coast before the supply lines got too thin. In any case it is irrelevent because in 1945 Japan had lost the war. That is a FACT. Do you really think that Japanese divisions continued to advance through China when the home islands were threatened? No, they were being pulled back to take part in the defense. And as I said earlier in an attempt to end this debate, no I do not know what would have happened had the bombs been dropped on less populated areas but I think there was a very high chance of Japan surrendering anyway. But then again the bombs were not dropped solely for strategic reasons, were they.

I can't believe any American would second guess this decision. Everyone should understand that Japan attacked the USA with absolutely no justifiable provocation.

This poll is missing what I would do in Truman's place. I would have dropped the first atomic bomb on Kyoto. I would have dropped the second on Hiroshima. After their surrender, I would have had the entire imperial family rounded up, taken to the US, and publicly executed. I would have then imposed a practically unpayable reparations bill on the Japanese people that would have placed them in servitude to the USA for generations.

We were too soft.

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

What makes the people of Hiroshima so much more innocent then all the other victims? Better yet what makes them so innocent?

This statement made by you implies that the Japanese civilians killed in the atomic bombings are somehow less innocent than the Chinese. No, the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not suffer more, perhaps more painfully than others, but all loss of human life is a tradgedy. Thus, we should take all possible measures to prevent more loss of life, including not using the atomic bombs. You keep bringing up Japanese war crimes yet these have nothing to do with whether or not we should have used the bombs. It is a typical reaction that most people have- The Japanese army slaughtered millions of Chinese so thus the Japanese civilians deserve to be bombed- that is the most immoral and simple-minded arguement I have ever heard in any debate. Ever.

Tokugawa77

Oh please the question was because you put those 200K over ending the war. Yes, its a tragedy but, it brought about the end of the war. People can argue the what ifs but, Japan clearly surrended after the bombs drop. That is FACT. You can debate all day about what so and so could of happen. As for the Japanese war crimes I bought that up because people here were saying how the US should of waited. How both sides were building up. BS. The Japanese were moving 1000 of miles accross Asia and destorying everything they touch and needed to be stopped as soon as possible.

1000 miles accross Asia? no, not at all. At the empire's hight Japan was only able to go a hundred miles or so from the coast before the supply lines got too thin. In any case it is irrelevent because in 1945 Japan had lost the war. That is a FACT. Do you really think that Japanese divisions continued to advance through China when the home islands were threatened? No, they were being pulled back to take part in the defense. And as I said earlier in an attempt to end this debate, no I do not know what would have happened had the bombs been dropped on less populated areas but I think there was a very high chance of Japan surrendering anyway. But then again the bombs were not dropped solely for strategic reasons, were they.

Looks like more than a few hundred miles to me. Yes some of their troops were being pulled back but, they are not just going to abandon all their lands. Especially the rich areas with resources like Manchuria? The quicker they surrendered the quicker those countires had their freedom.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

Oh please the question was because you put those 200K over ending the war. Yes, its a tragedy but, it brought about the end of the war. People can argue the what ifs but, Japan clearly surrended after the bombs drop. That is FACT. You can debate all day about what so and so could of happen. As for the Japanese war crimes I bought that up because people here were saying how the US should of waited. How both sides were building up. BS. The Japanese were moving 1000 of miles accross Asia and destorying everything they touch and needed to be stopped as soon as possible.

sleepingzzz

1000 miles accross Asia? no, not at all. At the empire's hight Japan was only able to go a hundred miles or so from the coast before the supply lines got too thin. In any case it is irrelevent because in 1945 Japan had lost the war. That is a FACT. Do you really think that Japanese divisions continued to advance through China when the home islands were threatened? No, they were being pulled back to take part in the defense. And as I said earlier in an attempt to end this debate, no I do not know what would have happened had the bombs been dropped on less populated areas but I think there was a very high chance of Japan surrendering anyway. But then again the bombs were not dropped solely for strategic reasons, were they.

Looks like more than a few hundred miles to me. Yes some of their troops were being pulled back but, they are not just going to abandon all their lands. Especially the rich areas with resources like Manchuria? The quicker they surrendered the quicker those countires had their freedom.

That is a few hundred miles... And at the final stages of the war the Chinese and British were on the offensive. I am not arguing for a continuation of the war- the bombings would have been preferable, as I said earlier, especially if the Soviets invaded. I am saying that it is likely that Japan would have surrendered at the exact same time should the bombs have been dropped on less populated areas.

You bet. My grandfather is convinced they saved his life. He was sent to the Philippines and was told he was part of an invasion force to take Japan days before the atomic bombs were dropped.KC_Hokie

To this day, some of my wife's older family members still don't like Japanese people. My wife's grandparents told her stories about what life was like in the Philippines under Japanese occupation. I have no problems with the Japanese today but I can almost see how they would.

In my opinion, the people who keep saying no are looking at it from the eyes of a pacifist who never had the lives of millions of Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines under them. I understand the people who don't feel that it's worth killing that many civilians for the sake of ending the war. But if you bring it closer to home, if you had the choice between letting your best friend die and letting some guy on the other side of the planet die you're probably going to let the guy on the other side of the planet die.

Most of the people here saying no are just civilians who are thinking with their hearts. The people who advised Truman in making the decision to drop the bombs are people who had years of military experience and schooling. They drew out the plans and determined that if Japan didn't surrender thousands, if not millions of troops would have died in the invasion. They determined that bombing Japan was the lesser of two evils and I'm pretty sure they knew some people would still be pissed regardless.

Even if you use the scenario that it was only to scare Russia you can say the bombs showed us the devastation it causes on people. Which I believe helps act as a huge deterrent in their use today. If we never used the bombs all we would do is guess what their effect is on a population. Going back to 1945, for all we know not using the bombs could have dragged the war out another year and an Russian invasion could have resulted in Japan being split like Korea was. Which might have held back technology since a lot of the best technology comes out of Japan today.

That is a few hundred miles... And at the final stages of the war the Chinese and British were on the offensive. I am not arguing for a continuation of the war- the bombings would have been preferable, as I said earlier, especially if the Soviets invaded. I am saying that it is likely that Japan would have surrendered at the exact same time should the bombs have been dropped on less populated areas.

Tokugawa77

Umm... no that is clearly more than a few hundred miles. That's a 1000 miles inland over 3-4 thousand miles of coast land. That's over 10 countries. Don't try to play that off like they didn't take over much. Their empire was huge.

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

1000 miles accross Asia? no, not at all. At the empire's hight Japan was only able to go a hundred miles or so from the coast before the supply lines got too thin. In any case it is irrelevent because in 1945 Japan had lost the war. That is a FACT. Do you really think that Japanese divisions continued to advance through China when the home islands were threatened? No, they were being pulled back to take part in the defense. And as I said earlier in an attempt to end this debate, no I do not know what would have happened had the bombs been dropped on less populated areas but I think there was a very high chance of Japan surrendering anyway. But then again the bombs were not dropped solely for strategic reasons, were they.

Tokugawa77

Looks like more than a few hundred miles to me. Yes some of their troops were being pulled back but, they are not just going to abandon all their lands. Especially the rich areas with resources like Manchuria? The quicker they surrendered the quicker those countires had their freedom.

That is a few hundred miles... And at the final stages of the war the Chinese and British were on the offensive. I am not arguing for a continuation of the war- the bombings would have been preferable, as I said earlier, especially if the Soviets invaded. I am saying that it is likely that Japan would have surrendered at the exact same time should the bombs have been dropped on less populated areas.

Your avatar reminds me of the movie Letters from Iwo Jima.

I can't believe any American would second guess this decision. Everyone should understand that Japan attacked the USA with absolutely no justifiable provocation.

This poll is missing what I would do in Truman's place. I would have dropped the first atomic bomb on Kyoto. I would have dropped the second on Hiroshima. After their surrender, I would have had the entire imperial family rounded up, taken to the US, and publicly executed. I would have then imposed a practically unpayable reparations bill on the Japanese people that would have placed them in servitude to the USA for generations.

We were too soft.

dkrustyklown

Except massive reparations were a primary cause of WW2 to begin with, at least in Europe. It wouldn't have done any good to put the Japanese in our debt indefinitely. HoolaHoopMan

The difference being that Japan, being resource deprived islands, could be kept in check more easily than a German state in the heart of Europe. Hunger and a lack of resources would have kept them docile. Even if that failed, the threat of a resumption of the atomic bombing campaign would have sealed the deal.

EDIT: It's really difficult to militarize on 500 calories per day.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

That is a few hundred miles... And at the final stages of the war the Chinese and British were on the offensive. I am not arguing for a continuation of the war- the bombings would have been preferable, as I said earlier, especially if the Soviets invaded. I am saying that it is likely that Japan would have surrendered at the exact same time should the bombs have been dropped on less populated areas.

sleepingzzz

Umm... no that is clearly more than a few hundred miles. That's a 1000 miles inland over 3-4 thousand miles of coast land. That's over 10 countries. Don't try to play that off like they didn't take over much. Their empire was huge.

I never said it wasn't. In fact it was the 12th largest in human history. I am just pointing out that they never did nor could have gone 1000 miles inland into China. They controlled most of the coast, but the vast Chinese interior was completely untouched say for occasional bombing. But the distance in inconsequential.

The whole situation is summarized by the following phrase:

You **** with the bull; you get the horns.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Except massive reparations were a primary cause of WW2 to begin with, at least in Europe. It wouldn't have done any good to put the Japanese in our debt indefinitely. dkrustyklown

The difference being that Japan, being resource deprived islands, could be kept in check more easily than a German state in the heart of Europe. Hunger and a lack of resources would have kept them docile. Even if that failed, the threat of a resumption of the atomic bombing campaign would have sealed the deal.

EDIT: It's really difficult to militarize on 500 calories per day.

The problem with you is that you are so blindly patriotic that you de-value the lives of those in other countries. Are you seriously ignorant enough to not know that today Japan is one of the US's strongest ally? What you propose would have condemed the nation to economic backwardness and it could never have recovered from the war to become one of the worlds strongest economies.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Except massive reparations were a primary cause of WW2 to begin with, at least in Europe. It wouldn't have done any good to put the Japanese in our debt indefinitely. dkrustyklown

The difference being that Japan, being resource deprived islands, could be kept in check more easily than a German state in the heart of Europe. Hunger and a lack of resources would have kept them docile. Even if that failed, the threat of a resumption of the atomic bombing campaign would have sealed the deal.

EDIT: It's really difficult to militarize on 500 calories per day.

What you propose would have condemed the nation to economic backwardness and it could never have recovered from the war to become one of the worlds strongest economies.

Tokugawa77

Which would have been an appropriate punishment for the cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor.