• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the US do the right thing in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII?

Did the US do the right thing in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan?

  • yes

    Votes: 72 69.9%
  • no

    Votes: 20 19.4%
  • not sure

    Votes: 11 10.7%

  • Total voters
    103
Re: The devil's in the details

I heard from the old timer's, first hand, just how bloody-cruel and evil the Japanese were.

I heard the propaganda and like a good little 'Merican I swallowed it whole.

The history of US troops abroad is one of pure evil.

Government-initiated dehumanizing campaigns during World War II were so successful that the conflict in the Pacific theater was one of the most vicious ever recorded in human history. American soldiers, taught to revile the Japanese, would not merely kill their enemies, but defile their corpses as well. They even kept “souvenirs,” particularly gold teeth and severed ears.

The Horrific American War Crimes Against WWII Japan - KnowledgeNuts
 
Re: The devil's in the details

I heard the propaganda and like a good little 'Merican I swallowed it whole.

The history of US troops abroad is one of pure evil.

You talk about 2 instances. How about the hyakunin-giri kyōsō?

This is a rather infamous incident that took place in 1937 between 2 Japanese soldiers. Toshiaki Mukai and Tsuyoshi Noda were both Lieutenants in the Imperial Japanese Army. And during the Rape of Nanking, they got into a bet with each other. Which could behead 100 people with a sword before the other.

This "battle" took place over 2 weeks, from 30 November to 13 December 1937.

And it was no secret, the newspapers in Japan carried the scores as if it was reporting a baseball game.

japan.png


And when each of them passed 100 people, the contest went into "extra innings" (the term the newspapers used:

tnn_a4_150.jpg


They said their next goal was to see who could reach 150 first. But the battle was winding down and the game was called.

Amazingly enough, both of these soldiers survived the war. They were tried in the International War Crimes Tribunal and executed in 1948.

So I see your 2 heads, and raise you over 200.

And do not even begin to blather about "American Propaganda". The stories were entirely taken from Japanese newspapers of the era. This was largely forgotten until a Japanese history professor came across the newspaper articles while researching the Second Sino-Japanese War and brought them back into the public eye.

And here, feel free to read a translation of the original articles, including photographs of them if you read Japanese:

https://sites.google.com/site/renemalenfant/hyakuningirikyousou
 
Last edited:
Re: The devil's in the details

This is a rather infamous incident that took place in 1937 between 2 Japanese soldiers. Toshiaki Mukai and Tsuyoshi Noda were both Lieutenants in the Imperial Japanese Army. And during the Rape of Nanking, they got into a bet with each other. Which could behead 100 people with a sword before the other.

The incident was actually a mass execution of prisoners of war or former combatants who had surrendered in and around Nanking, who numbered more than 50,000. The two officers lied about the incident to the newspapers for propaganda purposes, pretending that they managed to behead more than 100 people in combat, and the media accordingly helped spread wartime propaganda to raise public morale. The Japanese media at the time used to spread fake news of this kind most of the time, controlled and censored by the military. The Midway disaster was reported as a military success and the public knew nothing about what actually happened at Midway until the war was over.
 
Last edited:
Not putting up a fight and letting the bad guys kill or enslave you and all your friends and relatives isn't a very attractive alternative.

japanese would be that strong ? :roll:

babies could enslave you ?

that is why imperialism is increasing!
 
Re: The devil's in the details

The incident was actually a mass execution of prisoners of war or former combatants who had surrendered in and around Nanking, who numbered more than 50,000. The two officers lied about the incident to the newspapers for propaganda purposes, pretending that they managed to behead more than 100 people in combat, and the media accordingly helped spread wartime propaganda to raise public morale. The Japanese media at the time used to spread fake news of this kind most of the time, controlled and censored by the military. The Midway disaster was reported as a military success and the public knew nothing about what actually happened at Midway until the war was over.

And I actually do accept that it was exaggerated. However, there is no denying that the press in Japan had no problem publishing this and people in Japan were crazy over it.

Could you imagine such a thing happening here? I could not.
 
Re: The devil's in the details

We didn't start the war. We were defending ourselves from their aggression. How in the world is that a degree of wrong???

Defending yourself from aggression isn't wrong... killing civilians, on the other hand, is. That being said, I'm not naive enough to think you can accomplish the former without also doing the latter. It's an imperfect world - in order to do good, you have to be willing to do evil. I don't think we do anyone any favors by glossing over that brutal fact.

Sorry about the lateness of this response... I haven't been in here for a few months.
 
Re: The devil's in the details

Defending yourself from aggression isn't wrong... killing civilians, on the other hand, is.

Uh-huh. And how do you destroy the capabilities of a nation to continue a war without killing civilians? It is not like they build their factories and shipyards in the middle of nowhere.
 
Re: The devil's in the details

I heard the propaganda and like a good little 'Merican I swallowed it whole.

The history of US troops abroad is one of pure evil.

What a load of crap. Are you seriously defending Imperial Japan?

Yeah, I hate to break it to you, but Japanese troops did far, far worse everywhere they went. That’s why China and South Korea still hate them to this day.
 
Re: The devil's in the details

Without looking into it too much, I suspect that the vast majority on here who chose 'it was the right thing' are American. While most on the other side of the poll will be non-Americans.

Quite a bit of that sentiment will come from the fact that from the moment it happened, America has been telling it's people, and the world, that far more lives were saved.

My father and those of his generation fully accepted this justification and when I was a boy I believed it, probably because of who I heard it from. I suspect that many of my generation, from Allied countries, had a similar experience.

Now that I am much older, it is not a justification I am comfortable with. Perhaps I would be more comfortable with it, if it did not happen twice. I think the devastation caused by the first bomb was probably convincing enough of America's willingness to use such destructive power on a civilian population center. The second bomb, in my view, is completely unjustifiable.
 
Re: The devil's in the details

It is true that Japan had attacked America first. But, as I understand it, Germany was in a race to build the bomb before us. The US, didn't want to drop an A bomb on Germany however. Other countries would have been effected by a European bomb. Japan was probably a better selection, due to their geographic isolation. (?)
 
Re: The devil's in the details

Uh-huh. And how do you destroy the capabilities of a nation to continue a war without killing civilians? It is not like they build their factories and shipyards in the middle of nowhere.

Like I said in my post, you can't. There's nothing new there, though... it's been like that in every war since the beginning of time - once the fighting starts, it's the non-combatants who pay the biggest price. There's no such thing as "right" in war - even a war of self-defense - it's all just shades of "wrong". The German and Japanese civilians who died in World War II bombing raids were just as much the victims of their Government's policies as anyone else. Just because it was US or British bombs who killed them doesn't change that fact, does it?
 
Re: The devil's in the details

Now that I am much older, it is not a justification I am comfortable with. Perhaps I would be more comfortable with it, if it did not happen twice. I think the devastation caused by the first bomb was probably convincing enough of America's willingness to use such destructive power on a civilian population center. The second bomb, in my view, is completely unjustifiable.

Then kindly show us in the meetings of the Supreme War Council where a single bomb would have been enough.

The Army declared Martial Law, and was prepared to arrest anybody who appeared to support peace.

And on the day of the first bomb, the 6 members were unanimous in their support of the war. Only after the first bomb did 2 of the 6 support peace negotiations.

And that only changed by another 1 vote after both the declaration of war by the Soviet Union, and the second bombing. And that only swung 1 more vote, making it 3 in favor of peace, and 3 in favor of continuing the war.

So sorry, that claim just does not hold up when looking at the votes of the highest powers in japan at the time.

But please, if you can show us anywhere in the final meetings of the Gunjin Sangiin (Supreme War Council) that only one bomb would have been enough, please present it to me. I have been studying this for over 30 years, and have yet to see anything even remotely like that.
 
Re: The devil's in the details

It is true that Japan had attacked America first. But, as I understand it, Germany was in a race to build the bomb before us. The US, didn't want to drop an A bomb on Germany however. Other countries would have been effected by a European bomb. Japan was probably a better selection, due to their geographic isolation. (?)

Germany was nowhere close to building their own bomb, they were going about it all wrong. Actually, the nation closest to the US in achieving a bomb at the time was actually Japan.

And actually, Japan attacked everybody, not just the US. And they had actually first attacked in 1937. The US and Japan had pretty much been in a low level conflict ever since the Sino-Japanese War started.

And there was no "want to drop a bomb on Germany", that war was over before it was even ready.
 
Re: The devil's in the details

Without looking into it too much, I suspect that the vast majority on here who chose 'it was the right thing' are American. While most on the other side of the poll will be non-Americans.
I've heard plenty of Americans disregard facts and make untrue accusations that condemned our use of the A-bombs.

Conversely, I think that non-Americans who adhere to facts would acknowledge that the A-bombs were dropped on military targets at the height of the most brutal war in human history.


Quite a bit of that sentiment will come from the fact that from the moment it happened, America has been telling it's people, and the world, that far more lives were saved.
My father and those of his generation fully accepted this justification and when I was a boy I believed it, probably because of who I heard it from. I suspect that many of my generation, from Allied countries, had a similar experience.
Now that I am much older, it is not a justification I am comfortable with.
How about this justification: They were military targets bombed at the height of the most brutal war in human history.


Perhaps I would be more comfortable with it, if it did not happen twice. I think the devastation caused by the first bomb was probably convincing enough of America's willingness to use such destructive power on a civilian population center. The second bomb, in my view, is completely unjustifiable.
First, civilians were not the target of the A-bombs. The A-bombings were attempts to destroy targets of great military importance.

Second, Japan did not surrender after the first A-bomb, so the war was not over and it was necessary to continue attacking them.
 
Last edited:
Re: The devil's in the details

Defending yourself from aggression isn't wrong... killing civilians, on the other hand, is. That being said, I'm not naive enough to think you can accomplish the former without also doing the latter. It's an imperfect world - in order to do good, you have to be willing to do evil. I don't think we do anyone any favors by glossing over that brutal fact.
Deliberately targeting civilians is wrong. Collateral damage, on the other hand, is accepted as a necessary part of war.

The A-bombs didn't target civilians. Both A-bomb attacks were attempts to destroy military targets.


Sorry about the lateness of this response... I haven't been in here for a few months.
That's OK. As you can see, I'm not all that good at prompt responses myself.


japanese would be that strong ? :roll:
babies could enslave you ?
If we didn't bother to defend ourselves, yes, it would be easy for others to conquer us.


It is true that Japan had attacked America first. But, as I understand it, Germany was in a race to build the bomb before us. The US, didn't want to drop an A bomb on Germany however. Other countries would have been effected by a European bomb. Japan was probably a better selection, due to their geographic isolation. (?)
It is unlikely that there would have been any effect on other European countries. The reason why we didn't use the A-bombs on Germany is because they had already been defeated.


Being an American conservative makes you and anything you say a total disgrace except to the American propaganda system.
What is disgraceful about pointing out historical facts?


Here you are, with a lick of evidence, making apologies for Class A USA war criminals.
There is ample evidence for the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.

There is ample evidence for the fact that Japan made no surrender offers until after both A-bombs had already been dropped.


I heard the propaganda and like a good little 'Merican I swallowed it whole.
The history of US troops abroad is one of pure evil.
That the A-bombs were dropped on military targets at the height of the most brutal war in human history is hardly propaganda. It is established historical fact that is backed by a wealth of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Re: The devil's in the details

Deliberately targeting civilians is wrong. Collateral damage, on the other hand, is accepted as a necessary part of war.

The A-bombs didn't target civilians. Both A-bomb attacks were attempts to destroy military targets.



That's OK. As you can see, I'm not all that good at prompt responses myself.



If we didn't bother to defend ourselves, yes, it would be easy for others to conquer us.



It is unlikely that there would have been any effect on other European countries. The reason why we didn't use the A-bombs on Germany is because they had already been defeated.



What is disgraceful about pointing out historical facts?



There is ample evidence for the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.

There is ample evidence for the fact that Japan made no surrender offers until after both A-bombs had already been dropped.



That the A-bombs were dropped on military targets at the height of the most brutal war in human history is hardly propaganda. It is established historical fact that is backed by a wealth of evidence.

I think your government may bomb Turkey too even if we are allies! you could save jews after bombing babies ? No you just wanted to take part in this war!
 
japanese would be that strong ? :roll:

babies could enslave you ?

At it's height, the Japanese Empire rivaled the size of the British Empire. And they had a much more powerful army.

At the time of Pearl Harbor, Japan had the capability to seize and hold the Hawaiian Islands. That is something that most people want to pretend to ignore, but it is the truth. And these "babies" were responsible for the deaths of millions.

There is a reason that even 70 years later, much of the Pacific Rim still hates and fears Japan. Go to anybody from the Philippines, Korea, China, Indochina, Burma, or anywhere else and you can see this. It is especially true of those in the generation prior to mine, where Japan was more often than not responsible directly for atrocities done against those people themselves.

But as each generation has passed, the image of the horrors they did during their war of expansion faded, replaced by transistor radios, cameras, and men in business suits.

But do not ever make the mistake to think it is not there. It is still there, to this day. It is simply suppressed, and hidden away. And most of the Western Pacific still lives in fear of the time that Japan throws away their agreements and decides it is time to rebuild again.
 
Hawaii was not an easy target, by any means

At it's height, the Japanese Empire rivaled the size of the British Empire. And they had a much more powerful army.

At the time of Pearl Harbor, Japan had the capability to seize and hold the Hawaiian Islands. That is something that most people want to pretend to ignore, but it is the truth. And these "babies" were responsible for the deaths of millions.


Imperial Japan had the troops, certainly. But they were mostly in China, haring after KMT & Communist forces, & desperately trying to find a government that would surrender. They never did, & a large part of the IJA sat out the war there, until the culminating battles with the USSR.

The problems for IJ in invading Hawaii were sealift & logistics. The IJA & the IJN battled each other nearly as much as they battled foreign militaries. The IJA refused to release troops except to critical targets, the IJN couldn't move that many troops (3 divisions IJA, & preferably 5) from China to Hawaii. The IJN barely had enough sealift & POL to get to Hawaii for the Pearl Harbor raid. For a detailed examination, see The Hawaiian Invasion, and other Nonsense

& besides, the whole point to Pearl Harbor was to take the US Pacific Fleet off the board while IJ prosecuted the war elsewhere. Additionally, an out-&-out invasion of Hawaii (if successful) would have involved atrocities against citizens of US territory, lots of US military & their dependents. If that had happened, the US might have dropped nuclear weapons & firebombed all of IJ, not just the worthwhile military targets.
 
Re: Hawaii was not an easy target, by any means

Imperial Japan had the troops, certainly. But they were mostly in China, haring after KMT & Communist forces, & desperately trying to find a government that would surrender. They never did, & a large part of the IJA sat out the war there, until the culminating battles with the USSR.

& besides, the whole point to Pearl Harbor was to take the US Pacific Fleet off the board while IJ prosecuted the war elsewhere. Additionally, an out-&-out invasion of Hawaii (if successful) would have involved atrocities against citizens of US territory, lots of US military & their dependents. If that had happened, the US might have dropped nuclear weapons & firebombed all of IJ, not just the worthwhile military targets.

OK, first of all I can see your problem in not thinking of everything that Japan had and over-reliance on future events and developments.

While indeed the IJN and the IJA were often each other's worst enemy, they would also work together very efficiently if the Emperor (or his intermediaries) ordered them to do so. Most of their infighting dealt with resources and who was in command during operations, not in actually prosecuting the war itself. This for example is why unlike in the US where you had the Manhattan Project, in Japan you had Program Ni-Go under the Army, and Program F-Go under the Navy. Both trying to create an atomic bomb, both working separately in competition with the other.

And yes, the IJA did indeed have the forces needed to invade Hawaii, and did not need to tap into the forces in China. It must be remembered, that they invaded the Philippines with 10 Divisions, over 130,000 men. Taking half of them would have slowed the Philippine invasion, but also would have locked up Hawaii, and that was more than enough forces to have secured the main island. These were actually part of the pre-war plans of Japan, but it was discarded, as the Command Staff was still thinking the destruction of the Battleships and occupation of the Philippines would drive the US to the bargaining table.

And yes, the US actually did firebomb every city of military importance. Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Kobe, Omura, Oita, Tachirarai, Kagoshima, Shizuoka, Koizumi, Tachikawa, Kawasaki, Yokohama, Iwakuni, Toyama, Kure, the list of cities leveled by firebombs god on and on. By the end of the war, few cities of over 100,000 people had not been devastated by these attacks.

And you are also forgetting how the Invasion of Hawaii (even ultimately unsuccessful) would have had on the progress of the war. To begin with, any Japanese forces would have to be drawn out, probably delaying the island hopping campaign by at least a year if not more. And of the Battleships needed for that campaign, 5 of them were still in Hawaii. Imagine the effect of their being destroyed by occupation forces in place. Or even worse, salvages and put into service with the IJN.

And 5 Divisions would have likely been enough to occupy the main island. The US only had 2 fragmentary divisions there at the time, the half strength 24th and 25th Divisions. 5 Divisions would have had no problem driving them from their bases, and eventually hunting them down without resupply in the mountains.

And with such on the plate of the United States, what would the effect be on the Manhattan Project? I doubt it would progress as it had in our timeline, with the next obvious step being invasion of the US itself. Odds are it would have been put on the back burner, probably not being completed until 1948 at the soonest.

And the loss of 5 Divisions would not have seriously impacted the invasion of the Philippines either. They still would have been able to wipe the Army from most of the islands, it would have simply taken longer to do so.
 
*continued*

And atrocities may or may not have happened. It must be remembered, that under Bushido, the treatment of other warriors is different from that of non-combatants. Defeated enemies could be treated however the victor wished, as they had lost all honor and were less than human. But it was the duty of Warriors to treat civilians fairly, as it was they who the Warriors were sworn to protect.

And unlike the treatment of most people by the Japanese, Europeans and Americans were treated fairly well during the war by the Japanese. They knew that no matter what, even if victorious they would have to deal with the American and European powers after the war ended. And that mistreating those civilians would make such matters much more difficult. Not to forget that even Germany and Italy would have looked down upon the slaughter of such civilians without purpose.

The people of places like the Philippines, Korea, China, and the rest were not given such protections, because Japan considered them to be part of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and therefore Japanese Citizens. They could be dealt with as they pleased, just like any member of the Japanese Empire. They were members of this Empire, and would remain so no matter what. Under a victorious Japanese Empire, eventually all foreigners would be expelled back to their home country.

I would bet that in an occupation of Hawaii, Japan would no more have taken out unneeded aggression against the civilians than they would have against the European civilians in Shanghai. Round them up, place them in camps, allow trusted personnel to work in the surrounding area, with their families held hostage. Attacks and sabotage dealt with by random executions of internees to keep those trusted ones in check.

And at that time in history, Hawaii had roughly 40% population that were of Japanese descent, the majority either Issei (immigrant) or Nisei (children of immigrants). There were very few "Americanized" Sansei living there in that population. Odds are most of them would have quietly capitulated and followed the new order.
 
At it's height, the Japanese Empire rivaled the size of the British Empire. And they had a much more powerful army.

At the time of Pearl Harbor, Japan had the capability to seize and hold the Hawaiian Islands. That is something that most people want to pretend to ignore, but it is the truth.

No they didn't, and I think that they knew didn't. First of all taking Oahu, where the US military had a significant presence, would have required a much larger Japanese fleet than the one that had carried out the Pearl Harbor attack. Getting that large carrier task force across thousands of miles of Pacific Ocean undetected was quite feat in itself. Add to that all the slow troop and supply ships that it would have taken to mount an invasion force sufficient enough to take the island and it practically becomes mission impossible to avoid detection. Then even if the effort were to be successful the Japanese simply didn't have the logistical capability to be able to supply and sustain the occupation.
 
The nail that sticks out

OK, first of all I can see your problem in not thinking of everything that Japan had and over-reliance on future events and developments.

While indeed the IJN and the IJA were often each other's worst enemy, they would also work together very efficiently if the Emperor (or his intermediaries) ordered them to do so. Most of their infighting dealt with resources and who was in command during operations, not in actually prosecuting the war itself. This for example is why unlike in the US where you had the Manhattan Project, in Japan you had Program Ni-Go under the Army, and Program F-Go under the Navy. Both trying to create an atomic bomb, both working separately in competition with the other.

And yes, the IJA did indeed have the forces needed to invade Hawaii, and did not need to tap into the forces in China. It must be remembered, that they invaded the Philippines with 10 Divisions, over 130,000 men. Taking half of them would have slowed the Philippine invasion, but also would have locked up Hawaii, and that was more than enough forces to have secured the main island. These were actually part of the pre-war plans of Japan, but it was discarded, as the Command Staff was still thinking the destruction of the Battleships and occupation of the Philippines would drive the US to the bargaining table.

And yes, the US actually did firebomb every city of military importance. Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Kobe, Omura, Oita, Tachirarai, Kagoshima, Shizuoka, Koizumi, Tachikawa, Kawasaki, Yokohama, Iwakuni, Toyama, Kure, the list of cities leveled by firebombs god on and on. By the end of the war, few cities of over 100,000 people had not been devastated by these attacks.


On the manpower, I don't think IJA was going to release the men (not from China, not from the Philippines. IJA had their own priorities, & that didn't include trying to invade nor hold Hawaii against determined resistance.) Nor did IJN have the sealift, nor the logistics to supply the forces during the campaign, nor shore assault capabilities - especially against determined, dug-in regular troops fighting for their national territory.

As for firebombing & dropping nuclear weapons on IJ, you miss my point. If IJA had landed & managed to hold Hawaii momentarily, I think it's quite likely that the IJA troops would have committed atrocities. In that case, not only civilians but US military personnel & their dependents would have borne the brunt (bushido quite aside, I'm not @ all convinced that IJA would have regarded gaijin as worthy of respect in any way). & if such atrocities were carried out by IJA, I think there's a very good chance that US would never have quit firebombing nor dropping nuclear weapons on IJ @ all.
 
No they didn't, and I think that they knew didn't. First of all taking Oahu, where the US military had a significant presence, would have required a much larger Japanese fleet than the one that had carried out the Pearl Harbor attack. Getting that large carrier task force across thousands of miles of Pacific Ocean undetected was quite feat in itself. Add to that all the slow troop and supply ships that it would have taken to mount an invasion force sufficient enough to take the island and it practically becomes mission impossible to avoid detection. Then even if the effort were to be successful the Japanese simply didn't have the logistical capability to be able to supply and sustain the occupation.

Yes, they did. In December 1941, Japan had 10 Battleships. 12 carriers, 18 heavy cruisers, 20 light cruisers, 126 destroyers, 68 fleet submarines, and more.

Including over 2,000 merchant ships that could operate as transports.

And remember, the Japanese Army was experienced and blooded, having fought in China for the past 15 years. The American Army was largely untested and undermanned. And once the first wave of aircraft attacked, detection no longer mattered. They had already destroyed most of the defenses and ships in the first 2 waves. The transports could land a few days later and mop up the remainder.

And the "significant presence" was primarily in the Navy, and the rapidly growing air forces. Both of which were largely destroyed on 7 December. All that was left were 2 understrength green Divisions.
 
Back
Top Bottom