75 years today Hiroshima was nuked. Do you agree with it

No the war with Japan was not over by then. And the war would have cost more lives so while bombing is never good.......it saved lives. Also your choices in the poll suck.

Yes.

And no.

I've been to Hiroshima. They have a museum there. The Japanese don't defend themselves; they plainly say that Hiroshima was a valid military target that the US and allies had every right to attack. The schools were training young military officers, the agriculture was all being sent to the front lines...it was essentially a militarized city.

What they object to, obviously, was the use of atomic weapons.

However it's important to note that the US, prior to atomic weapons, were firebombing the everliving hell out of Japan, which is doubly bad considering every single building was more or less made out of wood and paper. Sidenote: prior to WWII, fire/arson was a really big deal in Japan, with huge punishments. Go watch Grave of the Fireflies; arguably the saddest anime ever created. Maybe even saddest movie ever created.

So while I don't want to diminish the severity of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, it is important to note that a.) it ended the war, b.) probably saved more Japanese lives than it killed, and c.) put an end to the firebombing.

Also, and just my personal opinion, but the two bombs established an important precedent. Sooner or later the world was going to use a nuke in wartime. I Think it is good that the US used two on Japan in 1945 as opposed to, I don't know, the US and Russia using them against eachother en masse in 1950, for example. It sucks Japan had to be the example, but better to burn something little that is already damaged than to burn the entire world later.

No one "deserves it". That's a stupid point. Civilians often have to suffer due to their governments poor choices.

As for the main point, I used to think that ending the war was a potential valid reason to use the atomic bomb, but over time, I've grown to disagree with that. It's a tough call. The allies needed the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers. An invasion of mainland japan would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Look at the civilian casualties on Iwo Jima and Okinawa for example. However, some people said Japan would have surrendered without an invasion of the mainland. Hard to say.

I say no, but not because the reason you listed. Of the 65+ million people who died in WWII, over 80% of them were civilians. Most of the deaths in WWII can be summed up as such: German soldiers killing Polish and Soviet civilians, and Japanese soldiers killing Chinese civilians. Whenever there are Germans or Japanese getting worked up about the civilian deaths in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, I have a microscopic violin for them.

I argue the bombing was simply ineffective. We would've been far better off putting more pressure on the Soviets to break their pact with Japan, and they did...eventually.

As useful as the Soviets were as an ally, they ended up breaking every single pact with the Allies, and upheld their pacts with the Axis.

The people above, should read the article!

The Bombing of Hiroshima was Germany

Then quote some of the text, or archive the link so I can read it.

Don't just post a link with no quotes and expect relevant discussion.

Yes but not because "they deserve it" they had not surrendered yet, they were warned to surrender and refused. It was a horrible thing that needed to happen to end the war. If we had done a ground war with japan it would have cost even more lives. On our side as well, which we had already lost plenty while fighting in Europe.

Hell we still lost plenty in Iwo Jima, thats where my great grandad fought.

I voted yes, but I don't think civilians 'deserved it'.

There was zero chance the Japanese surrender and incredibly detailed analysis exists of the planned US invasion locations, force dispositions, etc. and in the Japanese archives of their forces and locations. Far more people die in an invasion. Indeed, the Japanese predicted the exact location planned for invasion. Moreover, given what happened on Okinawa it is incredibly naive to believe otherwise, as more people would have died just through civilian suicides.

However, the foregoing is not the reason why I voted yes. Humans are curious, foolish, brazen, and stupid. If not used then, an alternate history would see bombs used later. Since every bomb made afterwards was more powerful the outcome would have been inevitable and worse. Imagine if the first use was a hydrogen bomb instead of an atomic bomb? Vastly more powerful than what was dropped on Japan. There's no way we humans invent/create nuclear weapons and not try them at some point. It is in our nature.

So, while the events were horrific I do believe they have saved humanity from something far worse. There is no either invasion or bomb Japan option. If you choose invasion you are getting that, plus a nuclear event later. It's only the horror of Hiroshima/Nagasaki recorded and understood that has stopped more usage.

Having been to Hiroshima and seeing the scale of the destruction and its immediate and lingering effects on those who survived...

You wouldn't wish that kind of pain and suffering on your worst enemy.

Maybe you could put some more effort in your thread and summarize some important bits in bullet points or something.

Anyways, I don't think Japan "deserved it", but I get that the Americans wanted to prevent more of their soldiers deaths. I voted yes. If the Americans had more nukes they would have probably used them. They could have just waited them out but they didn't want the Soviets to get a foothold. I also wouldn't be surprised if the Americans wanted to test the weapons in action even if they knew Japan was going to surrender, and to show the Soviets what they were capable of doing.

read article, it gives mixed opinions on whether or not japan was actually close to surrendering or not and if russia's decision alone to enter into the fight would have forced Japan's hand

"Historians are divided over whether the bombs or the Soviet declaration alone might have ended the war.

“Despite the Hiroshima bomb, the Japanese government still continued to seek the termination of the war through Moscow’s mediation,” said Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, former research professor at the University of California in Santa Barbara, and an expert on Soviet-Japanese diplomacy at the time.

“I would say that the Soviet entry into the war had a more decisive impact on the decision to surrender than the atomic bombs.”

That view is disputed by the Rev Wilson Miscamble, a history professor at the University of Notre Dame.

“Even after the Soviet entry into the war, certain elements of the Japanese military wanted to continue fighting. But it was Hirohito’s motivation, brought on by his recognition of the damage of the bombs, that brought him to engage directly with his government, and to order the surrender,” Miscamble said.

“So, if the bomb was most decisive on Hirohito, and if Hirohito was the most decisive figure in ordering surrender, I think we can conclude that the bombs were the decisive element in bringing about Japan’s surrender." "


personally I think despite being a horrific act against civilians it may have cost less lives than a full invasion, but what do i know?

in any case, we shouldn't be using them again.

@comp_atkins: Finally someone bothered to read it. It’s a good read.

But in my opinion, no they did not deserve to be nuked.

It really depends on your country’s perspective and education.

My mother who was educated in Hong Kong said she was taught the war was over and the bomb was unnecessary.

I was educated in the UK, I remember a brief mention of this event and did not particularly have a view.

But if you do some searching on YouTube there is a BBC report made 75 years ago, which opined that the war was already over and the bomb was used recklessly.

It takes quite a low human being to agree that innocent civilians "deserved it".

It ended something which needed ending though, whether it was necessary or not is another story.

Key word opined. You really need to understand the culture of the Japanese at that time to understand why they weren't going to surrender. And had war dragged on more lives would have been lost.

It was an attack against civil targets, it's indefensible. Maybe if a bomb was first detonated over sea as a display of power and Japan still didn't surrender, then maybe yes.

There have been literal thousands of articles about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and I am sure I've read dozens of them through my education and life.

I'll go back and read the article out of curiosity (I didn't before because I had to go to work) but man I don't think it is essential to contributing to the conversation.

I like to think we haven't because we did use them against Japan.

Sort of like the US (and the world) was like "OK, just this one time...holy shit that was bad, OK never again. Nope."

Probably giving our leaders too much credit, though.

Wow, no one mentioned Pearl Harbour? Quite possibly the sleaziest sneak attack ever?

Yes and no. It’s a shame so many civilians had to die, but the bombing was justified and necessary.

Both targets had military importance and civilians were warned. If you're going to opine at least do some research first. Also kill sea life? Were we at war with the dolphins?

The hell's with the poll choice? No they didn't "deserve it," most of the people hit were civilians, but in the choice of lives cost by a mainland invasion vs lives cost by a show of nuclear power, it was probably the better option. Sure, with the benefit of hindsight we can see there might have been alternatives that may not have required either outcome, but we didn't really have the luxury of toying around while still actively engaged in war.

@LJS9502_basic: Well everything can be a military target, doesn't change the fact that it affected civilians much more than military targets. Of course you can defend it like terrorist do their own terror attacks.

So I'll say it again. If they had displayed the unimaginable power of nuclear power first by making a detonation for Japanese people to witness, I would be less opposed. As things happened, it was a terror attack.

I see you ignored the facts and the warning they were given. Again.

@LJS9502_basic: Don't be an idiot. I established on my first post what I would consider a valid warning, you even gave me a stupid reply of "what about the dolphins?". For you some fliers were enough? That's fine, but that's just not my opinion as I expressed clearly twice already.

I have a hard time believing that the Japanese were ready to surrender given their response at Okinawa, along with the fact that they didn't immediately after the first bomb was dropped. Any land invasion would have undoubtedly cost more lives on both sides. Truman had a tool at his disposal to end the bloodiest war in the history of the world. I don't blame him for using it given the circumstances. Arguments indicating we shouldn't have dropped the bombs rely heavily on historical hindsight and distortions IMO. Make no mistake though, dropping these bombs was horrific but it should be measured against alternatives. There is no joy in saying they were used.

I can’t put a vote for either. I strongly disagree with killing civilians, but the number of dead would have been far higher with a ground invasion of the island. I believe it was necessary to bring a swift and less bloody end to the war.

Amen, it was only done to save lives, which is weird but true.

These poll options are pure troll.

The only reason it's not considered an egregious war crime is because the US 'won'. A truly fucked up act.

You want to see hell? Look at the videos of the aftermath.

What's done is done, but there is always more than one option - always.

Frankly I'm amazed that half of the people voted 'they deserved it'. No one deserves that.

We do not often agree, but this is an excellent post, and I completely agree with what you said.

In addition, there is some evidence that the emperor intervened because he believed the US had a warehouse full of these bombs, and would just continue to devastate one city after another. If he had realized we only had two, and it was going to take us months to build any more, he might not have told his generals to surrender.

@phbz: it wasn’t a terrorist attack. It was an attack with forewarning to stop an enemy that was ready to have millions more lives lost.

Plus we got pokemon out of it.

@n64dd: "Plus we got pokemon out of it."

So maybe two was just not enough, I see it now.

I know this is a serious topic, but this gave me a flashback to Archer.

This is getting dark ;)

@pyro1245: Much better then the videos would of been if the US invaded the mainland. 200kish died from the bombs. Death toll of the invasion was projected in the MILLIONS. Most of which would of been Japanese. Fact is there would probably not be a Japan today without the bombs.

But I agree the options on this poll are not fair. Was not a matter of if they deserved it or not, was a matter if it was necessary or not. I would vote yes myself if it was not worded that way.

I find it difficult to sympathize with all the articles coming out of this 75th anniversary, especially the ones written by Japanese authors lamenting the dropping of the bomb, when these same people give no heed or even deny the atrocities Japan committed against humanity for years.

When you can excuse and overlook that horror, don't ask me to feel bad about ending a war.

I by default hate the use of nuclear weapons.

Momentarily recreating the heart of a star on Earth (in the case of hydrogen weapons). How can that go wrong?

are fire bombing of them was far worse.

the issue here was the mind set of both sides back then. their a reason why the king was still around after it.

The issue is it was a complex series of events leading to the bombs dropping. It wasn't a decision made lightly. I'm not defending the bombs being dropped, but it is always easier to see the bigger picture when they couldn't have. To note, this was before they fully understood the realities of fallout, so highlighting that is a hindsight view in every way.

To also note, the nuking absolutely should not be celebrated. They were controversial decisions made by people trying to choose between what they viewed as the lesser of multiple evils, as Japanese resistance in the Philippines, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima convinced a massive portion of the American military and civilian leadership that the Japanese would fight to the near last if they invaded. Some did not believe this, but enough did. Japan was never going to surrender without drastic action, and going through another D-day style invasion would have taken a long to plan and complete.

I do agree with it. It was a necessary action to end a war with a country who clearly did not want it to end. They started the fight, We finished it. It's as simple as that.

@redviperofdorne: Even though I agree with you on agreeing with bombing them. I do not agree to your reasoning. First off they did not start it. We were going to attack them they knew it and acted. Yeah it was sneaky and underhanded but this is war. Why the bombs were necessary was because we had already finished it and they were not going to quit. An invasion of the mainland of Japan would of had heavy tolls on the US but it would effectively exterminated the Japanese and their culture. It was an act of mercy not revenge.

For anyone still in doubt as to whether Japan would have surrendered without the use of Nuclear weapons, I urge you to watch this video.

https://youtu.be/I34pxr23Nhw

It's widely forgotten that Japan intended to use 28 million civilians as defenders of the mainland, and that as a conventional military force Japan amassed 990,000 soldiers, 10,000 aircraft as well as over a 1000 suicide pilots and planes to defend Kyushu island in the case of an American invasion.

Upon Hirohito's declaration of surrender, there a´was an attempted coup by Generals who were determined to fight on even after the second bomb.

Horrific as the bombings were, and as insane as it sounds...they actually saved lives. Japanese as well as Allied.

Why do you say America was going to attack Japan first? Nothing I have read anywhere suggests this....
America imposed an embargo on Japan after they invaded Manchuria....but at no time was an attack on the Japanese planned before Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.

@gaeandilth: If we finished it and they weren't going to quit then it wasn't finished. And they attacked us first, Not the other way around. Japan wanted to die by the sword and by dropping those two bombs, We crushed their spirit and made them realize just how much worst it could have been if they didn't give up.

And as you said, If we did invade Japan, It would have extended a brutal war, cost millions of lives and would have essentially wiped Japan off the map.

No I do not like or agree that things escalated to that point, and of course the civilians didn't "deserve" it, but I do think it was better than the alternative plans of invasion.

it was war and actually the chinese would probably thank the US for nuking the sht out of Japan. The crimes the Japanese committed against the chinese aren't forgiven easily even today

The Japanese weren't victims, they weren't innocent, or even good. On top of that, it was war. You cant paint it with morals, its just a time for survival.

@sealionact: FDR actually had a declaration of War already prepared to send to congress. It was clear we was going to war and it would of been historical because prior to that the US had never attacked anyone that had not fired the first shot. Was actually debated for quite awhile which was an uphill battle being that congress was in majority control by isolationists.

It shouldn't have happened. All this was due to a misunderstanding. Basically, the Japanese side said they were "reserving comment" about the Allies' call to surrender. The Allies understood the translation as ignoring it.