Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

World War II General WWII Discussion
#401

Hard not to agree pdf.
Actually the post-war division of lands, islands and territories was was fully in “spirite of time”.
The deportation of the Axis population has been legalized in Potsdam Conference too

[ul]
[li]Germany’s eastern border was to be shifted westwards to the Oder-Neisse line, effectively reducing Germany in size by approximately 25% compared to her 1937 borders. The territories east of the new border comprised East Prussia, Silesia, West Prussia, and two thirds of Pomerania. These areas were mainly agricultural, with the exception of Upper Silesia which was the second largest centre of German heavy industry!
[/li][li]Expulsion of the German populations remaining beyond the new eastern borders of Germany.( i.t forced deportation)
[/li]
[/ul]
i.e it was in fully accord with intarnational rules.

#402

…besides i strongly doubt that Japs want to stay voluntary on the new Soviets Isnads:)

#403

dropping these bombs was Osama bin Laden’s justification for the 9-11 attacks. in addition to war crimes in Vietnam.

#404

Not really. I don’t think he gave a shit about the Japanese that died in those bombings, anymore so than Truman did…

I believe his main motivation was Clinton’s launching of cruise missiles that devastated the camps in Afghanistan, and killed several families in his movement. And BTW, some think he had little to do with the actual planning of the attacks and basically just sent money (to Khalid Sheik Mohammad)…

#405

yes. he stated as such in one of his tapes to the west.

#406

Part of Sakhalin was taken by the Japanese during the Russo-Japanese war but I believe that this is not the case with the Kurile Islands which were considered Japanese territory prior to the war.

Additionally, the Soviets had agreed to a non-aggression pact with Japan that was supposed to be in effect until April 1946.

#407

I think it was the right call. they were far from finished. 5,000 died in the Kamikaze attacks off Okinawa alone.
do you use or hold back your best weapon??? consider this:
he decides NOT to use the bombs. how many US serviceman die in the invasion. ive heard ests as high as a million. so. we invade. the war ends. the grieving families find out Truman had a ‘magic weapon’ that could have saved their loved ones. how do they react??? ill tell you. they want a rope around Trumans neck !!!
ive heard Japan is still waiting for an official apology for the US ???

#408

Thats not what they teach to little kids in japan…

#409

I say YES!..if it had not been used many of you who had fathers who would have been shipped from Europe to the Pacific for the Invasion, myself included, would not be here discussing the merits of dropping it. One million fathers die, how many millions of children would not have been born?

#410

your right. that’s what I heard also. but the still observe the events every year.

#411

I think they should have. I know the decision was probably more political than anything else, but I can’t help but think that myself and many others wouldn’t be here now if we hadn’t.

Later,
Dave

#412

What about all those innocent civilians?

#413

They weren’t so innocent. If they knew any better they should of gotten out of the city when the Americans dropped all those flyers warning them that they were going to drop the bomb. They chose not to leave because they were mostly army people in disguise as civilians. I say, they should of dropped a third bomb and maybe even a fourth to teach the Japanese a lesson they would never forget.

#414

I agree, in fact Truman should of dropped a couple more bombs even after the surrender, so the Soviets knew not to mess with the Americans. Germany should of been given one or two A-blasts too! to teach them a lesson!

#415

What is the legal or moral basis for nuking or otherwise attacking a defeated enemy nation after it has surrendered?

If nuking a place or people to show that it’s not a good idea to mess with the attacker is a good principle, then surely it’s a good principle for bin Laden to nuke New York, Chicago, Los Angeles etc so that other Western nations know not to mess with him?

Would you be happy with Japan bombing to obliteration the American survivors in the Philippines in 1942 so that the Soviets knew not to mess with Japan?

Wasn’t Germany destroyed enough by the war ‘to teach them a lesson’? What lesson would a couple of nukes have taught the starving survivors of Hamburg, Dresden and Berlin?

#416

They survived didn’t they?..Look at Japan today. It is the leader in the trade world…a few more Atomic blasts wouldn’t have hurt much. The cold war was a result of the Americans not flexing enough mussel. The soviets thought that the Americans didn’t have any more atomic bombs, so by sending a few to Germany as well as a few more to Japan, would of shown the Soviets that there were more to come and this would of prevented the cold war. War is war and lessons need to be taught. If Truman did blast Germany then he wouldn’t have had to spend all that money on the Marshall plan to rebuild Germany beacuse there would have been nothing to rebuild if a few nukes wiped out a few cities.Rather obliviate a city so it can not be rebuilt then only half bomb it and spend so much money rebuilding it. Look at Chernobyl…they did not rebuild that city, they left it a ghost town. The war costs so much money and the Manhatten project costs so much too, therefore why send only 2 measley A-bombs to Japan after investing so much money and technology when we could of sent half a dozen or so, to get value for our money!

#417

I am going to step out on a limb here and before you cut it off ponder this. The point I believe is once a person or nation is involved with a fight or a war the object is to destroy as much equipment or kill as many men as you can while trying to save as much of your stuff and men as you can. The bombs filled that need. Hindsight is great. Alot of things could have/should have been done differently. The US could have dropped them on the Emperors palace. I’m sure Japan or Germany both would not have hesitated to drop them on us or their other enemies. Thanks for reading.

#418

Thank You for agreeing with me. That is exactly what I am saying. You bomb as much as you can rather than waste valuable manpower or money the traditional way.Yes, the Emperors palace should also have been nuked, I agree with you!

#419

Well I don’t believe I said the palace should have been bombed. I think we stopped when we should have. The Japanese surrendered and I think that was the point of the bomb being dropped. Destroy and kill quickly then stop when your enemy is defeated. I don’t think wiping out a group of people once they are defeated is what this great nation (USA) is all about. Sorry if anyone misunderstood my original post.

#420

How old are you - 12? Do you have any idea of the human suffering involved, from the kids wandering around with their flesh hanging off them in shreds to the mental pain of the pilots you’re asking to drop nuclear weapons on a defeated, suffendered enemy knowing that they have committed one of the worst war crimes in history and that their memory is damned for eternity.

There was an arguable case for dropping the bombs originally. There is none for doing so after Japan’s surrender.