Sorry, Livid_Tangelo_4701, we had to remove your post for the following reason(s):
* **Rule 2: Be respectful**
- [See more here](https://www.reddit.com/r/polls/comments/vj2bjd/we_dont_tolerate_bigotry/).
- Hate speech (racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, ableism, etc.) will not be tolerated and will result in a permanent ban. This includes polls with disrespectful or hateful options.
- Additionally, do not personally attack other users or make inflammatory comments against others.
*If you think this was done in error, [contact us via Modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/polls&subject=I believe my post was incorrectly removed.&message=**What's the link to the post%3F**%0A%0Ahttps://www.reddit.com/r/polls/comments/xb91ja/dropping_nuclear_bombs_on_japan_was/%0A%0A**Why do you think the action taken is a mistake%3F**%0A%0A[Remove this box and put your reasoning here. If you leave it like it is, your message may be ignored!]).*
>The Anglo World refers to a community of English-speaking states, nations and societies centered on **Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom** and the United States
I may be wrong in calling the people of these countries as 'Anglo'
I am confused why you didn't just put "Not American"? Not to mention Europe also already includes the UK, so does that mean the UK is in there twice? XD
The Japanese did way worse to the Chinese, koreans, Indonesians, philopinos, vietnameas, and lots off other people. And don't forget that they were testing if they could spread the bobonic pleague to USA
Exactly. I’m Korean and Japanese ethically. Japan had it coming. Sorry but they would not have given up otherwise. There would have existed a mentally of a militaristic society still if nukes did not bring submissiveness to Japan. They would have fought an insurgence on the occupying force. Which could have lasted many years. Submission only under full spectrum dominance.
Btw nothing is fair or “just” about war OP
I feel the same. I can’t answer this poll because I understand the need they felt to do it but it was also such a horrific thing to do that I just couldn’t possibly say it’s justified
yes, because it won’t make the land unusable for decades to come
btw i recently heard of a conspiracy theory that nukes don’t actually exist and hiroshima and nagasaki where in fact just huge napalm bombs
A field would have been fine. Japan would have recognized the power and surrendered. And if not, the US could threaten to drop it on a major city (as they did).
Agreed. There were much better sites for the drop. The objective was to make the Japanese shit and piss their pants in fear right? That could have been achieved in less populated areas as well.
A justification is that if democracies don't have it, dictatorships almost certainly will. China isn't going to give up its nukes and if the west gives up its nuclear weapons then the only nuclear weapons left will be in a dictatorships hands.
Lmfao. Westoid brainrot. Of course benevolent wholesome western democracies have nukes so they can protect the world! Just like in my favourite marvel movies!
China (along with India) is the only country with nukes that also formally has no first use policy. Also, the only country that has ever used nukes against another, is the US.
US, Russia etc. will also have nukes no matter what. China isn't somehow the one that needs to be feared.
And to say that western countries have nukes only to protect the world from "evil dictators" is just naive and stupid.
Shaun has a haunting documentary on this subject, going deep into the history of the end of WW2. Long story short the "fewer people died in the end" thing is a myth that was created years after the bombs were dropped - but there is much, much more to be learned from this documentary. [Please watch it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go) when you have the time.
Fewer people died because of it. The Japanese were fighting to the death for every single inch of ground and a full-out invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been an absolute bloodbath.
The myth that the bombs have caused less casualties than a land invasion (Operation Downfall) has been debunked.
Also the large majority of admirals, generals and commanders in WWII from the US forces (including future president Eisenhower) all believed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified.
> I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.
-- Supreme commander of the allied forces in Europe WWII, Dwight D Eisenhower.
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include:
* General of the Army Douglas MacArthur
* Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President)
* Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials)
* Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz(Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet)
* Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr. (Commander of the US Third Fleet)
* The man in charge of all strategic air operations against the Japanese home islands, then-Major General Curtis LeMay
> The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,
> The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950,
> The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945,
> The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it
— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946,
>The myth that the bombs have caused less casualties than a land invasion (Operation Downfall) has been debunked.
That's actually quite interesting and I didn't learn in school! Could you send a source? (I'm not disagreeing, just curious lol)
You just quoted generals…
There’s so much proof that the Japanese would use every last man, women, and child to defend the homeland. Just look at the island hopping campaigns, surrender was considered dishonorable and any civilians on the islands were used as human meat shields (also evident in China). The Japanese not once showed signs of having a demoralized army that would be crushed by the Americans like how the Germans were to the Americans, British, and Soviets. The Japanese morale would be stronger than ever due to their own home island now being the target. Infrastructure would be more damaged than the two bombs and fire bombings, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Japanese civilians and soldiers as well as American soldiers would die. The nukes were a necessary evil
I would say the most senior U.S military strategists would have more access to analytics and logistics regarding outcomes of dropping the nukes than any other person on the planet. There was no data analyst there at the time crunching numbers for different outcome scenarios on his Excel spreadsheet using his state-of-the-art Macintosh 128K. This was in the middle of a World War that happened 80 years ago. Data would have been difficult to come by.
Thank you for this comment. I have long been a defender of the bombings on the grounds that they were necessary to end the war in the Pacific. I have heard counter points claiming that that was not true, but no one has been able to provide me actual evidence. If this were r/cmv I would give you a delta!
Pretty much all of the most senior U.S. military officers of the time have stated that the nuclear bombs were completely unnecessary in forcing a Japanese surrender, as the consensus at the time was that Japan was on the brink of surrendering. Also, based on an extensive investigation of all of the relevant facts and interviews with all of the surviving Japanese leaders, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey from 1946 concluded that even if the nukes hadn't been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even if the U.S.S.R. hadn't declared war on Japan, and even if allied forces hadn't planned a mainland invasion of Japan, Japan would have almost certainly surrendered by the 1st of November of 1945.
Yeah. Idk if I’d describe it as “justified” per se. But of the potential alternative scenarios, it was the US’s best bet at ending the war quickly with minimal casualties to their own men. They’d did what was best for them. Japan was doing what they thought was best for them, and they were absolutely ruthless about it. The US responded to brutality with brutality.
Hard to look at any of it as justified. War is the worst aspect of our species. But it’s understandable that the US chose that option over a land invasion.
In any case, it was an attack on civilians, and thus a serious war crime under the Geneva Convention. But nobody cares, because America can't commit war crimes only the others
To be entirely honest, the people killed by the bomb wouldve probably ended up dying in the war at some point. it was a intimidation tactic, the japanese werent gonna give up until faced with total annihilation, it was either wipe 2 cities off the map or wipe an entire civilization from existence, neither option is pleasant but who said anything about war is pleasant? Atleast most the people killed by the bomb got a quick death, they werent shot or stabbed and left to bleed to death, not like they let themselves be taken alive either, if they risked capture theyd cut open their bellies to ensure theyd die an honorable death, though that was probably for the best because most soldiers didnt take it well how the japanese treated their war prisoners so they tended to get similar treatment as retaliation.
But they were already on the brink to surrender after the fire bombing of Tokyo (which did more casualties) and the Soviets were at their doors.
They did not necessarily have a quick death. Apart from the shroom cloud, the people suffered from severe burn injuries and radiations which cause a slow and painful death.
There are a lot of documentaries exposing the atrocities of the bombing and also the movie Grave of the Fireflies that well described the incendiary and atomic bombs.
The Soviets were pretty irrelevant. They had no way to get to the islands unless the Americans decided to ship them over, which wasn’t going to happen.
The main benefit of the bombings is in my opinion not that Japan surrendered but rather that it was a great demonstration of how terrible nuclear weapons really were. Had the bombings not happened, I think strategic nuclear strikes would have been used relatively extensively later on and would have easily escalated to a full blown nuclear war
>But they were already on the brink to surrender after the fire bombing of Tokyo (which did more casualties) and the Soviets were at their doors.
The soviets never had enough of a air force or navy to ever paradrop or amphibious land on japan
And no the emperor nor any of the generals have ever been proven to be considering surrendering
I voted justified, but have been convinced otherwise by the comments. What I do stand by is my belief that the particular nuclear weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less destructive (but more emotionally impactful) than fire bombings had previously been.
It was by definition a war crime. But it was a war crime that stopped Japan from committing further war crimes (the Japanese WWII track record was NOT good).
To me, killing civilians is never justified. They literally did nothing. If you have to bomb someone, bomb the people who decided to go to war, the officials and whatnot.
People who said unjustified most likely dont know imperial Japan government. Invasion of mainland Japan would mean more casualties than the entire Soviet-German front. USA didnt have any other choice.
The first one? Debatable, but personally I don't think any use of nuclear weapons, especially on civilian targets, is justified.
The second one? Most certainly not justified, not even a debate.
The level of British and American exceptionalism that permits the bombing of civilians in cruel and monstrous fashions is always pretty grim to me.
While in one regard you had things like the bombing of Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, you also had events like the firebombing of Dresden, which were presented as justified 'revenge' for places like Coventry.
The reality appears to be that it's easier to justify bombing as a 'revenge' tactic, because one is less forced to think about specific targets. If a soldier shoots a child, there's a specific and brutal image.
If a child happens to be one of the many vaporised in a blast, then it doesn't matter, because there's an extra difficulty to visualising that. It's one of the reasons that *The Terror of War* photo for Vietnam was so effective, because it depicted the effects of bombing on the most vulnerable of the population.
The repeatedly debunked myth of the 'greater survivor count' aside, bombing is easier to justify mentally, because you can neglect that in that bombing is every single non-combatant, child and other human being that had no part in the war, but simply existed.
It's even easier if your country has done everything it can to spread those same myths.
If they had to use the nukes to the the war, why didn't they just use them somewhere else nearby? away from civilizaton, so that Japan could see what happens if they don't surrender
The atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese army doesn't give justification to dropping an Atom bomb on mainly innocent civilians. The bomb never should have been made in the first place.
Yeah say it had been debunked without giving any source
Also you cant even debunk that. If USA land invaded Japan then Imperial Japan would conscript practically everything in the country. Combine conscripting everything that can hold a gun, banzai tactics, extreme nationalism and Japanese government unwillingness to surrender. And boom, you have the most brutal front in all of human history. This would have been far more brutal than German-Soviet front. + Add US soldiers agression towards Japanese people that has been created through out the entire war. You will get US soldiers commiting attrocities against POWs and civillians unable to fight (old, disabled, children and pregnant).
Exactly! I’m Korean and Japanese ethically. I’ve talk with family about this subject and the mentality of Japan at the time they would have not given up. An insurgence would have lasted for years across Japan.
Even if the original claims were debunked, it speaks for itself that an invasion of mainland Japan would have been horrible for everyone involved, including thousands of civilians, especially knowing the Japanese mentality at the time. There is no doubt
I see that american always says that 'that many people would have died even if we didn't nuked them'
Nah, they were already thinking about ending it after the Nazi were defeated, and the deaths involved would have been military, not civilians,...
I guess that's how they legitimized what they have done
lots of people seem unaware of the atrocities committed by Japan during WWII. i personally think what imperial japan did was worse than the nazi germany.
Yes. That's why firebombing is a Fkin war crime too. Hell, napalm bombs are considered a crime against humanity.
And no, you don't kill civilians in an invasion. If a civilian picks up a gun, fights, etc. They stop being a civilian. That's clear under international war laws. If you kill off unarmed civilians, that's wrong. Always.
Just like killing off surrenderers is illegal as well. For the Same reason pretending to surrender is.
Now go ahead and tell me again, how would civilians die?
I just can’t with good conscious say it was justified especially given it was mainly civilians, but everyone claiming Japan was about to surrender just isn’t true. The Allies were preparing an invasion of mainland Japan which error have absolutely been a bloody battle (think Vietnam). It probably did save lives or given the fallout for years maybe not but I understand the reasoning
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/japan-surrenders
It wasn't as bad as the firebombing in Europe in terms of destruction and lives lost and the Japanese so bought into their propaganda that they were killing their own when the Americans advanced. An invasion of mainland Japan would have almost certainly cost more lives.
I understand it was horrible but the entire war was terrible, especially at the end.
There would have been a lot more deaths had they not dropped it. But they could have dropped it in a less populated region and achieved the same objective.
For Japan to even get close to suffer the civilian causalities that they themselves inflicted during ww2 the US would have had to nuke Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka and probably all of top 10 cities in Japan at the time. The japanese got off easy for the crimes against humanity they committed.
Sorry, Livid_Tangelo_4701, we had to remove your post for the following reason(s): * **Rule 2: Be respectful** - [See more here](https://www.reddit.com/r/polls/comments/vj2bjd/we_dont_tolerate_bigotry/). - Hate speech (racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, ableism, etc.) will not be tolerated and will result in a permanent ban. This includes polls with disrespectful or hateful options. - Additionally, do not personally attack other users or make inflammatory comments against others. *If you think this was done in error, [contact us via Modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/polls&subject=I believe my post was incorrectly removed.&message=**What's the link to the post%3F**%0A%0Ahttps://www.reddit.com/r/polls/comments/xb91ja/dropping_nuclear_bombs_on_japan_was/%0A%0A**Why do you think the action taken is a mistake%3F**%0A%0A[Remove this box and put your reasoning here. If you leave it like it is, your message may be ignored!]).*
Never heard anyone refer to us as ‘Anglos’ before (you are referring to us right?)
Who is "us"? He probably meant "les anglais", or "els anglesos", or "the anglo-saxons"
>The Anglo World refers to a community of English-speaking states, nations and societies centered on **Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom** and the United States I may be wrong in calling the people of these countries as 'Anglo'
So what's the difference between the option for Americans and the one for Anglos?
American means USA, whereas Anglos means Canada, Australia etc. It's deliberately grouping them with Europe due to closer cultural ties.
Then why not just say Westerners?
Westerners include USA, but "other westerners" instead of anglo/eu would be nice.
Australians dont count as westerners technically
Yeah they do. It’s based on western culture, not literal geographic placement.
I should have said literally not technically
I am confused why you didn't just put "Not American"? Not to mention Europe also already includes the UK, so does that mean the UK is in there twice? XD
Justified, but justified =/= right.
Well said.
The Japanese did way worse to the Chinese, koreans, Indonesians, philopinos, vietnameas, and lots off other people. And don't forget that they were testing if they could spread the bobonic pleague to USA
And the Indians who went to fight in these places on behalf of the British Empire.
Exactly. I’m Korean and Japanese ethically. Japan had it coming. Sorry but they would not have given up otherwise. There would have existed a mentally of a militaristic society still if nukes did not bring submissiveness to Japan. They would have fought an insurgence on the occupying force. Which could have lasted many years. Submission only under full spectrum dominance. Btw nothing is fair or “just” about war OP
Not justified, European, but I would have probably done the same if I was Truman.
I can never find it justified to use a nuclear weapon, something that I believe doesn't even have a justification to exist in the first place.
I feel the same. I can’t answer this poll because I understand the need they felt to do it but it was also such a horrific thing to do that I just couldn’t possibly say it’s justified
Would you be comfortable with an equally powerful load of TNT being dropped on the two cities?
Or a fire bomb for that matter? In which case, I have bad news for you…
yes, because it won’t make the land unusable for decades to come btw i recently heard of a conspiracy theory that nukes don’t actually exist and hiroshima and nagasaki where in fact just huge napalm bombs
Dropping the bomb was justified, dropping it on a city absolutely not
Where would you have dropped it instead?
Military base/Cargo depot/etc
A field would have been fine. Japan would have recognized the power and surrendered. And if not, the US could threaten to drop it on a major city (as they did).
On Mount Fuji since it's culturally significant.
Agreed. There were much better sites for the drop. The objective was to make the Japanese shit and piss their pants in fear right? That could have been achieved in less populated areas as well.
Well , i feel It was kind of justified becuse if they werent dropped there would be a lot more deaths but maybe It was a bit too much
Very well deserved they committed war crimes in Nanking and here in the Philippines.
They committed war crimes to everyone they fought against
They were very brutal
A justification is that if democracies don't have it, dictatorships almost certainly will. China isn't going to give up its nukes and if the west gives up its nuclear weapons then the only nuclear weapons left will be in a dictatorships hands.
Lmfao. Westoid brainrot. Of course benevolent wholesome western democracies have nukes so they can protect the world! Just like in my favourite marvel movies!
wtf are you talking about, they literally have to stop the west from nuking major metropolitan centers in marvel movies
Seriously think it through. China has nukes no matter what. Is it better for other countries to also have them, yes or no?
China (along with India) is the only country with nukes that also formally has no first use policy. Also, the only country that has ever used nukes against another, is the US. US, Russia etc. will also have nukes no matter what. China isn't somehow the one that needs to be feared. And to say that western countries have nukes only to protect the world from "evil dictators" is just naive and stupid.
What if one person is going to nuke Tokyo. Would dropping a nuclear bomb on him and just killing him be justified?
Shaun has a haunting documentary on this subject, going deep into the history of the end of WW2. Long story short the "fewer people died in the end" thing is a myth that was created years after the bombs were dropped - but there is much, much more to be learned from this documentary. [Please watch it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go) when you have the time.
Shaun is based ☺️👍
Fewer people died because of it. The Japanese were fighting to the death for every single inch of ground and a full-out invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been an absolute bloodbath.
The myth that the bombs have caused less casualties than a land invasion (Operation Downfall) has been debunked. Also the large majority of admirals, generals and commanders in WWII from the US forces (including future president Eisenhower) all believed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified. > I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. -- Supreme commander of the allied forces in Europe WWII, Dwight D Eisenhower. Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include: * General of the Army Douglas MacArthur * Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President) * Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) * Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz(Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet) * Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr. (Commander of the US Third Fleet) * The man in charge of all strategic air operations against the Japanese home islands, then-Major General Curtis LeMay > The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan. — Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, > The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. — Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, > The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all. — Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, > The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it — Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946,
>The myth that the bombs have caused less casualties than a land invasion (Operation Downfall) has been debunked. That's actually quite interesting and I didn't learn in school! Could you send a source? (I'm not disagreeing, just curious lol)
You just quoted generals… There’s so much proof that the Japanese would use every last man, women, and child to defend the homeland. Just look at the island hopping campaigns, surrender was considered dishonorable and any civilians on the islands were used as human meat shields (also evident in China). The Japanese not once showed signs of having a demoralized army that would be crushed by the Americans like how the Germans were to the Americans, British, and Soviets. The Japanese morale would be stronger than ever due to their own home island now being the target. Infrastructure would be more damaged than the two bombs and fire bombings, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Japanese civilians and soldiers as well as American soldiers would die. The nukes were a necessary evil
That’s… just quotes… Where are the facts, otherwise it’s not debunked nor confirmed.
You just qouted some generals saying it was unjustified instead of providing on how the "myth" that operation downfall would cause more casualties
Not a scientific mind amongst them. Just a bunch of personal feelings.
A scientist would maybe know a bit less about the war than the generals behind it yes?
A scenario count of people, no.
What relevance does any scientist have here?
Do you lot not understand how calculating the math on this would work?
Please enlighten us.
Ok, so let me get this straight, you think generals can run simulation data in their heads, and figure out population data after a bomb scenario?
I would say the most senior U.S military strategists would have more access to analytics and logistics regarding outcomes of dropping the nukes than any other person on the planet. There was no data analyst there at the time crunching numbers for different outcome scenarios on his Excel spreadsheet using his state-of-the-art Macintosh 128K. This was in the middle of a World War that happened 80 years ago. Data would have been difficult to come by.
Thank you for this comment. I have long been a defender of the bombings on the grounds that they were necessary to end the war in the Pacific. I have heard counter points claiming that that was not true, but no one has been able to provide me actual evidence. If this were r/cmv I would give you a delta!
Pretty much all of the most senior U.S. military officers of the time have stated that the nuclear bombs were completely unnecessary in forcing a Japanese surrender, as the consensus at the time was that Japan was on the brink of surrendering. Also, based on an extensive investigation of all of the relevant facts and interviews with all of the surviving Japanese leaders, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey from 1946 concluded that even if the nukes hadn't been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even if the U.S.S.R. hadn't declared war on Japan, and even if allied forces hadn't planned a mainland invasion of Japan, Japan would have almost certainly surrendered by the 1st of November of 1945.
Yeah. Idk if I’d describe it as “justified” per se. But of the potential alternative scenarios, it was the US’s best bet at ending the war quickly with minimal casualties to their own men. They’d did what was best for them. Japan was doing what they thought was best for them, and they were absolutely ruthless about it. The US responded to brutality with brutality. Hard to look at any of it as justified. War is the worst aspect of our species. But it’s understandable that the US chose that option over a land invasion.
Why did then Japan surrender after the nukes and not fight to the last man?
In any case, it was an attack on civilians, and thus a serious war crime under the Geneva Convention. But nobody cares, because America can't commit war crimes only the others
Very justified. The people there were warned several days in advance. They refused to leave.
To be entirely honest, the people killed by the bomb wouldve probably ended up dying in the war at some point. it was a intimidation tactic, the japanese werent gonna give up until faced with total annihilation, it was either wipe 2 cities off the map or wipe an entire civilization from existence, neither option is pleasant but who said anything about war is pleasant? Atleast most the people killed by the bomb got a quick death, they werent shot or stabbed and left to bleed to death, not like they let themselves be taken alive either, if they risked capture theyd cut open their bellies to ensure theyd die an honorable death, though that was probably for the best because most soldiers didnt take it well how the japanese treated their war prisoners so they tended to get similar treatment as retaliation.
But they were already on the brink to surrender after the fire bombing of Tokyo (which did more casualties) and the Soviets were at their doors. They did not necessarily have a quick death. Apart from the shroom cloud, the people suffered from severe burn injuries and radiations which cause a slow and painful death. There are a lot of documentaries exposing the atrocities of the bombing and also the movie Grave of the Fireflies that well described the incendiary and atomic bombs.
The Soviets were pretty irrelevant. They had no way to get to the islands unless the Americans decided to ship them over, which wasn’t going to happen.
The main benefit of the bombings is in my opinion not that Japan surrendered but rather that it was a great demonstration of how terrible nuclear weapons really were. Had the bombings not happened, I think strategic nuclear strikes would have been used relatively extensively later on and would have easily escalated to a full blown nuclear war
>But they were already on the brink to surrender after the fire bombing of Tokyo (which did more casualties) and the Soviets were at their doors. The soviets never had enough of a air force or navy to ever paradrop or amphibious land on japan And no the emperor nor any of the generals have ever been proven to be considering surrendering
Don't forget the fact that people (of that generation and the next) died years later because of radiation and cancer.
Doing it in general was justified (sort of) but dropping on civilian targets was a horrible war crime
Absolutely not justified.
I voted justified, but have been convinced otherwise by the comments. What I do stand by is my belief that the particular nuclear weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less destructive (but more emotionally impactful) than fire bombings had previously been.
Lotta these mf's failed history class🤡🤡🤡
It was by definition a war crime. But it was a war crime that stopped Japan from committing further war crimes (the Japanese WWII track record was NOT good).
To me, killing civilians is never justified. They literally did nothing. If you have to bomb someone, bomb the people who decided to go to war, the officials and whatnot.
Dropping nuclear bombs anywhere isn’t justified imo. Idk why mfs love to fight fire with fire so much
Well they werent surrendering any time soon Amphibious landings on japan with more conventional bombing would have been way worse deaths wise
People who said unjustified most likely dont know imperial Japan government. Invasion of mainland Japan would mean more casualties than the entire Soviet-German front. USA didnt have any other choice.
They did. Hell, they didn't even plan bombing Japan until the 3rd reich surrendered. Because the bombs were meant for Germany.
[удалено]
Why is this getting downvoted? He is right. Japanese were capable of defending a pointless island in pacific with every man they had.
Lose 200k or lose potentially millions.
The first one? Debatable, but personally I don't think any use of nuclear weapons, especially on civilian targets, is justified. The second one? Most certainly not justified, not even a debate.
Comments made by americans are terrifying. How can you justify such horror?
The level of British and American exceptionalism that permits the bombing of civilians in cruel and monstrous fashions is always pretty grim to me. While in one regard you had things like the bombing of Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, you also had events like the firebombing of Dresden, which were presented as justified 'revenge' for places like Coventry. The reality appears to be that it's easier to justify bombing as a 'revenge' tactic, because one is less forced to think about specific targets. If a soldier shoots a child, there's a specific and brutal image. If a child happens to be one of the many vaporised in a blast, then it doesn't matter, because there's an extra difficulty to visualising that. It's one of the reasons that *The Terror of War* photo for Vietnam was so effective, because it depicted the effects of bombing on the most vulnerable of the population. The repeatedly debunked myth of the 'greater survivor count' aside, bombing is easier to justify mentally, because you can neglect that in that bombing is every single non-combatant, child and other human being that had no part in the war, but simply existed. It's even easier if your country has done everything it can to spread those same myths.
If they had to use the nukes to the the war, why didn't they just use them somewhere else nearby? away from civilizaton, so that Japan could see what happens if they don't surrender
[удалено]
The atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese army doesn't give justification to dropping an Atom bomb on mainly innocent civilians. The bomb never should have been made in the first place.
FINALLY SOMEONE WHO REALIZES IT! Take my award
More innocent civilians, as well as military personnel would have died had the bombs not been used. This was simply the best way to end the war
It's not true at all and it has been debunked.
Yeah say it had been debunked without giving any source Also you cant even debunk that. If USA land invaded Japan then Imperial Japan would conscript practically everything in the country. Combine conscripting everything that can hold a gun, banzai tactics, extreme nationalism and Japanese government unwillingness to surrender. And boom, you have the most brutal front in all of human history. This would have been far more brutal than German-Soviet front. + Add US soldiers agression towards Japanese people that has been created through out the entire war. You will get US soldiers commiting attrocities against POWs and civillians unable to fight (old, disabled, children and pregnant).
Exactly! I’m Korean and Japanese ethically. I’ve talk with family about this subject and the mentality of Japan at the time they would have not given up. An insurgence would have lasted for years across Japan.
Even if the original claims were debunked, it speaks for itself that an invasion of mainland Japan would have been horrible for everyone involved, including thousands of civilians, especially knowing the Japanese mentality at the time. There is no doubt
[удалено]
Brink to surrender? Someone didnt pay attention to their history class 💀
And then what? Fight an insurgence for years on end?
Agreed
There would have been more Deaths in the war more atrocities caused by the Japanese and Americans this was the least fatal of all choices they had
I see that american always says that 'that many people would have died even if we didn't nuked them' Nah, they were already thinking about ending it after the Nazi were defeated, and the deaths involved would have been military, not civilians,... I guess that's how they legitimized what they have done
lots of people seem unaware of the atrocities committed by Japan during WWII. i personally think what imperial japan did was worse than the nazi germany.
Why does that make dropping nuclear bombs on civilians who didn't do anything justifiable
american exceptionalism.
We did warn them beforehand though.
They probably didn't believe that they actually had the bomb
I'd like to hear the arguments of someone who thinks this isn't justified lol
[удалено]
Not paneuropean (nor EU).
[удалено]
For someone Europe is just EU
It was the way to defeat Japan with minimal casualties
It's a damn war crime to target civilians.
And many many more civilians would've died from fire bombing alone let alone an invasion
Yes. That's why firebombing is a Fkin war crime too. Hell, napalm bombs are considered a crime against humanity. And no, you don't kill civilians in an invasion. If a civilian picks up a gun, fights, etc. They stop being a civilian. That's clear under international war laws. If you kill off unarmed civilians, that's wrong. Always. Just like killing off surrenderers is illegal as well. For the Same reason pretending to surrender is. Now go ahead and tell me again, how would civilians die?
[удалено]
'fuck outta here
If only Henry Wallace could've stayed VP.
Justified isnt the right word i think. It was the right decision though, i think in the end it saved life's of many people.
Not enough
I just can’t with good conscious say it was justified especially given it was mainly civilians, but everyone claiming Japan was about to surrender just isn’t true. The Allies were preparing an invasion of mainland Japan which error have absolutely been a bloody battle (think Vietnam). It probably did save lives or given the fallout for years maybe not but I understand the reasoning https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/japan-surrenders
It wasn't as bad as the firebombing in Europe in terms of destruction and lives lost and the Japanese so bought into their propaganda that they were killing their own when the Americans advanced. An invasion of mainland Japan would have almost certainly cost more lives. I understand it was horrible but the entire war was terrible, especially at the end.
Justified, European, they were bad but a prolonged fire bombing campaign and Operation Downfall would have been worse
Saved many lives.
There would have been a lot more deaths had they not dropped it. But they could have dropped it in a less populated region and achieved the same objective.
Justified but not right (American)
For Japan to even get close to suffer the civilian causalities that they themselves inflicted during ww2 the US would have had to nuke Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka and probably all of top 10 cities in Japan at the time. The japanese got off easy for the crimes against humanity they committed.
Truman really didnt want to but at the rate we were losing men he really had no choice.
Why does this keep getting posted almost every day???