Bombing Japan

[Hannibal the destroy]

I know this is a very sensitive topic throughout the world but I believe the Atomic bombing of japan was the best thing that could have possibly resulted. For example in the short term we saved more lives than we would have lost had we invaded japan and the war would have dragged on longer and cost more money,lives and materials.In the long term what would have happened if we invaded and won would be a surge of nationalism on an unprecedented scale,because the homeland is being attacked and thoughts like "this is the line in the sand,no retreat" would been passed down to several generations and created a deep hatred of America I don't think we'd be able to phase out.

Now by atomic bombing japan we killed 175,000 civilians and military personnel. This is a very sad loss but think about it if we had not bombed them like this we would have killed ALLOT more civilians whose deaths the world would not care about because in the minds of most people they would not be individual attacks it would be more abstract thusly they would get allot less sympathy and aid further exacerbating the situation in japan.

So why did I come up with this tread well my line of thought was Japan before the bombing were a warrior culture who committed seppuko if they faced defeat now they marry video game's and buy used panties from vending machine's. guess you gotta pick and choose.

[Dr. Croccer]

The Japanese were trying to secure a peace treaty through the Soviets. Their main, and apprantly only objection was the unconditional surrender which would've meant the end of the emperor as authoritarian ruler. The Allies' emphasis on unconditional surrender was what forced the mass bombings, not the Japanese unwillingness to surrender at all.

[Hannibal the destroy]

The Japanese were trying to secure a peace treaty through the Soviets. Their main, and apprantly only objection was the unconditional surrender which would've meant the end of the emperor as authoritarian ruler. The Allies' emphasis on unconditional surrender was what forced the mass bombings, not the Japanese unwillingness to surrender at all.

although the thread was made to discuss Invasion V Atomic bombing I should talk about this aspect as well. First of all the blame for this lies on both side's unwillingness to cooperate and can't really say "allied emphasis" without saying "Japanese stubbornness". Next if the jap's had surrendered to the red's can you Imagine the Frustration The American Public would have had ?

First, we get attacked and lose 3,000 soldiers and civilians, then we slog our way to the Japanese homeland and they surrendered to the commies !!? It would have been exactly like the red army's hard advance out of the SU and into Poland and then suddenly Germany the Whole of Germany goes to the allies. I guarantee that with tensions being high in our cold war this may have just been the straw that broke the camel's back. and coupled with the world IE, the public not knowing about the bomb due to the surrender we may have had a third world war.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

The Japanese were trying to secure a peace treaty through the Soviets. Their main, and apprantly only objection was the unconditional surrender which would've meant the end of the emperor as authoritarian ruler. The Allies' emphasis on unconditional surrender was what forced the mass bombings, not the Japanese unwillingness to surrender at all.

Hey, that's a really interesting piece of information there. Can you site any sources for this? Thanks!

[Valmir238]

It could have been delt with much more wisely, for example the U.S could have just launched a massive bombing offencive on military targets, effectivly finishing off the remainder of the Japanese armed forces. Destroying two cities full of innocent civilians is never a just choice.

[Hannibal the destroy]

It could have been delt with much more wisely, for example the U.S could have just launched a massive bombing offencive on military targets, effectivly finishing off the remainder of the Japanese armed forces. Destroying two cities full of innocent civilians is never a just choice.

That was what they were doing in the first place (well alongside the killing of countless civilians)

[Valmir238]

That was what they were doing in the first place (well alongside the killing of countless civilians)

Well that was the point i was trying to make, more civilians were killed than actual military targets, it was a terrible idea in the first place.

[Hannibal the destroy]

Well that was the point i was trying to make, more civilians were killed than actual military targets, it was a terrible idea in the first place.

so would you have preffered bombing the japenese army out of there hole's ? I'm tempted to agree with you if not for the fact that bomb's don't win war's. Lets say that we do keep attacking military targets and then we invade we would still have heavy resistance because back then we did not have bunker busting bombs and the japanese military would have "easily" replaced any man that died either a 14-year old child who would have been indoctrined to fight to the death, or a 60-year old who would have wanted to save the homeland from the foreign devil.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Well that was the point i was trying to make, more civilians were killed than actual military targets, it was a terrible idea in the first place.

When all you have a dumb bombs and military targets are in the middle of a city, one is left with very little choice but to destroy the city. Cities were warned before they were bombed, and the use of the atomic bomb saved countless civilian lives than if the Allies had invaded mainland Japan.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

It could have been delt with much more wisely, for example the U.S could have just launched a massive bombing offencive on military targets, effectivly finishing off the remainder of the Japanese armed forces. Destroying two cities full of innocent civilians is never a just choice.

No......It is.


Called "Growing a set".

[Ludicus]

Slightly offtopic, but I couldn´t resist. Congrats, Pres. Obama.

"Under the new strategy, the United States would commit for the first time not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states..."
It is with pleasure to observe a step in the right direction. A he stated in 2008:" It's time to take that moral high ground back"

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Slightly offtopic, but I couldn´t resist. Congrats, Pres. Obama.

"Under the new strategy, the United States would commit for the first time not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states..."
It is with pleasure to observe a step in the right direction. A he stated in 2008:" It's time to take that moral high ground back"

Until we get nuked........

[motiv-8]

Until we get nuked........

That makes absolutely no sense, given that the policy is directed towards non-nuclear states.

[conon394]

The Japanese were trying to secure a peace treaty through the Soviets. Their main, and apprantly only objection was the unconditional surrender which would've meant the end of the emperor as authoritarian ruler. The Allies' emphasis on unconditional surrender was what forced the mass bombings, not the Japanese unwillingness to surrender at all.

The Japanese were looking for quite a bit more than just the emperor, retaining their existing government, much of their pre-WW2 empire, no allied occupation or trials... Some people floating ideals for mediation by the Russians were offering less - but they had no power.

[Hannibal the destroy]

The Japanese were looking for quite a bit more than just the emperor, retaining their existing government, much of their pre-WW2 empire, no allied occupation or trials... Some people floating ideals for mediation by the Russians were offering less - but they had no power.

thanks for that info because from what I read It was Just the emperor the japanese wanted to retain.

[Ludicus]

thanks for that info because from what I read It was Just the emperor the japanese wanted to retain.

In fact,
a - Potsdam declaration made no mention of the emperor.
b- unconditional surrender applied exclusively to the military Japanese forces:
"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces"

The Japanese declaration of surrender, Instrument of Surrender:
Last lines:
"...The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender"

[Hannibal the destroy]

In fact,
a - Potsdam declaration made no mention of the emperor.
b- unconditional surrender applied exclusively to the military Japanese forces:
"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces"

The Japanese declaration of surrender, Instrument of Surrender:
Last lines:
"...The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender"

thanks for that information.

[Chukada1]

Blame lies soley on those in power in Japan. You don't get to commit atrocities all across Asia, and then keep your government and not have war tribunals.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The arrogance of the Japanese government is astounding.

[Ishoss]

We had to put them to justice. They had to answer for their crimes. It wasn't an option to let the Germans keep Sudeten, Austria, Danzig and other areas they occupied before the war right? Not to mention letting Hitler stay in charge. Likewise it shouldn't be an option to let the Japanese keep Manchuria, Korea and areas I might have forgotten. It wouldn't be fair on the Chinese, it wouldn't be fair on the British, it wouldn't be fair on the countless US military, it wouldn't be fair on the Koreans.

So let's make a pick: Bombing two quite large cities and kill some hundred thousands, or initiate operation downfall and kill several millions. Hmm, such a tough choice...

[torongill]

Why do you keep creating such topics, when the one about the allied war crimes so extensively discussed the atomic bombing? I'm just curious, do get high or something?