Was the use of nuclear weapons on Japan justified or necessary? The Japanese supposedly were negotiating peace at the time and their terms were nearly identical to ours, meaning that using nuclear weapons was a ploy to scare the Soviets.
Japan was unwilling to surrender unconditionally. They wanted to retain possession of illegal territory, such as Manchuria. Obviously the Allies weren't going to stand for this and so we drew up invasion plans. Then we realized that it would be an utter disaster to invade. Looking at losses in the hundreds of thousands of Americans, and ten times that much on the Japanese side. Not to mention the huge financial burden it would place on both sides (and with so many dying, the impact on the economies as a whole). Another huge factor in our decision to drop the bomb was that the Soviets were planning an invasion as well. And we didn't think they'd be too keen on leaving. Bringing the war to a quick close was key, as was minimizing Soviet influence and American casualties. These factors are but a few key reasons we chose to drop the bomb. Personally I think we were totally justified, as any other course of action would have resulted in a violent conflict that would have claimed millions of lives.
Japan was on the verge of collapse from our prolonged bombing with B-52s, and we had to convince the Soviets to declare war on Japan as the 2 of them had a NAP dating back to 1941. They couldn't fight. An invasion was not necessary as their country was in ruins and they had no supplies. They were preparing to surrender.
We sent them an ultimatum at Yalta. Then at Potsdam. They were clearly not going to surrender, as we had said directly to them at Potsdam that we would utterly devastate them if they did not agree to an unconditional surrender. Stalin was already planning on enforcing Soviet claims on Sakhalin and Manchuria before Yalta. He was looking for a way to get justification for more land grabs. Luckily Japan surrendered before they got too far.
I don't care if we gave them ultimatums. Call us liars then. Its better than murdering thousands of civilians. They could no longer continue fighting. They weren't a threat to anyone. As for forcing them to sign a peace treaty, the atomic bombs weren't that effective. Our firebombing raids hurt them much more.
Firebombing also caused a lot more civilian deaths. You seem to not understand that if we didn't drop the bomb that we were going to invade. So if your argument is about the loss of human life then it makes little sense to say that an invasion of Japan would be preferable to the atomic bombing.
There was no need for either as they were creating a peace treaty practically identical to the one we proposed.
That's nonsense. Japan had no intention of agreeing to our terms. If they did, then it would have been done after Potsdam.
Whether they did or did not want to surrender, they would have had no choice as they lacked the means to resist the Allies.
They were planning to devote their entire populace to national defense. Everyone, man, woman, child, elderly, infirm, were expected to grab whatever weapons they could and fight the US invasion. And had we invaded it would have necessitated a prolonged occupation and an insurgency would almost certainly have continued to this day. Point is that Japan had the power to resist surrendering, and that the only way we were going to get them to surrender was going to be an invasion or the A-bomb. Thankfully we chose the latter.
The Allies should of not dropped the bomb. One of the real reason why the Americans dropped the bomb, was to force the Japanese to surrender to the Americans and not allow the Soviet's to advance in to Japan and spread Communism all over the land. So America just dropped the Bomb to end the war. They also dropped the bomb to get the Soviet Union to be jealous. Like their trying to say If the Soviet Union cause trouble, than we will drop the bomb on you; threatening the Soviet's, but obviously, it wasn't to long for the Soviet's to get their self an Atom Bomb (1949) That's just my point of view. It might of been necessary to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because if they hadn't dropped the bomb, than the first Atom bomb might off gone during the Korean War, and by then, there were more Nuclear bombs around. The result could be really bad. So maybe for it was a right time to drop the bombs in 1945. But i'll go with my first opinion. The Atom bomb should of not happened.
The decision to resist wasn't unanimous. We most likely could have gotten some kind of peace. If this as impossible, then so be it, but more efforts should have been made.
We didn't have B-52s until 1952 (get it) so Already I'm going to have to question some of your credentials and ask that you cite any of your claims as the the Japanese having lost the will to fight or were willing to surrender... This is in concurrence with everything I have ever read or been taught about WW2. I mean you had isolated pockets of Japanese resistance into the 70's by isolated individuals who didn't believe that Japan had ever surrendered. Given this, and the well documented and extensive preparations the Japanese had for using the entire populace for homeland defense it seems hard to fathom any situation in which the Japanese were ready and willing to surrender prior to the bombs being dropped. As to the question... As was previously noted firebombing and even conventional bombing had previously produced similar if not worse humanitarian outcomes then the dropping of the bombs did (although admittedly not with the same long term side effects) so the humanitarian argument doesn't seem to carry much weight with me. Further, A lot less people died during the bombings then would have died in a potential invasion of Japan. Most estimates I have read put US casualties alone around the one million mark, which if you follow similar US to enemy casualty rates would signify the almost total annihilation of the civilian and military population of Japan. So in the end I think we were justified.
Your source also supports a conspiracy theory for Waco, JFK's assassination, 9-11, Oklahoma City bombing, the birthplace of President Obama, Pearl Harbor, and the murder of Jesus' family, to name a few.
Does it now? Then allow me to produce some other ones. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html Oh, and heres a nice list of quotes in relation to the atomic bombing. http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
Written by the head of the Institute for Historical Review, who's primary purpose is to deny the Holocaust...
Apparently I should pay more attention to sources before I post them.........I think nows a good time to /thread and GTFO of here before I make a fool of myself any further.
We can go back and forth, presenting the facts and evidence 'till the cows come home. But I've got class in 10 minutes and I don't think anyone is changing their mind. So instead of directly responding, I just want to point out how awesome this guy's picture is! EDIT: LOL after seeing pedro's post and looking at mine I noticed Weber's digitized Hitler stache! Mark Weber And his wonderful compatriot, Mr. Leuchter!
I believe it was justified and it prevented more of them being dropped because of the destruction seen in Japan and nobody wanted that again.
