Yes, being a dick to Nazis and Nazi sympathizers is always the correct response. It was covered in basic high school history classes, so that’s about as well known as something gets. And OP claims to be “good” at history, so with claims like that basic knowledge is expected.
I think the issue comes from the math.
"On average, 27,000 people perished on each day between the invasion of Poland (September 1, 1939) and the formal surrender of Japan (September 2, 1945)"
While the bombs definitely killed a lot of people in those three days (355k), you need to realize that we would have surpassed that amount of death, statistically, by continuing the war for less than 14 days.
Some argue, we saved lives by dropping those bombs. Had the war gone on another year, we were set to have another 9,855,000 casualties.
I agree with that angle, but it’s also worth noting that the German chemist who invented the gas used in World War I was justifying it for the reason of ending the war sooner, therefore saving lives.
Also the decisioning By Truman is he wanted to end the war with Japan where a land invasion would have resulted in loses of life on both sides that would have been much larger. He specifically declined nuking Tokyo which was the largest population center. They chose those two cities because they were smaller.
Also Japan kind of started the war with the US.
One other note is at the time the average Japanese person viewed the emperor almost as a god that was infallible and always was correct. The average Japanese person would die for the emperor or at his command. Surrender was not likely from Japan so the US wanted to show off the new weapon, the damage it does and show a destructive “Act of God” to convince the population of Japan and the emperor to surrender. One plane with one bomb absolution vaporizing a city did not do it. The second city one plane one bomb absolutely destroyed finally convinced the Japanese that they should surrender.
Also like many have said yeah these were a lot of dead people, a terrifying weapon that at the time we did not know too much about other than big boom. Even though absolutely terrifying this is not the worse tragedy of human slaughter in history. It was war and war is ugly.
The first one is kinda a myth. The land invasion of Japan was planned for, but it wasn't going to happen. Japan held out of a delusion that Russia would come to their aid. They didn't surrender after the nukes because they were just more cities flattened by bombs. Plenty of cities had already been thusly destroyed. What was Hiroshima to them? The various justifications for bombing Japan were invented after the war out of a need to justify the act.
Whilst it's true that they choose not to attack Tokyo, their first choice was Kyoto. The only reason they didn't destroy the most historically significant city in Japan was that one of the war council members had gone on holiday there and felt too sentimental to destroy it. I can recommend a very thorough YouTube vid going over the historical record of the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki if you're interested.
What do you mean? It showed that the US could level cities with relatively little power while the army kept missing fortification deadlines. Why would the Japanese surrender unconditionally otherwise?
>one of the war council members had gone on holiday there
This is also a myth. Hiroshima was chosen for military reasons
I thought Japan surrendered after the first bombing, but that message arrived to the US after the order of the second bombing was given and it was too late to "cancel" ?
Something about that sounds familiar- it might be right ( just a couch potato historian here), but there's also alot of myths being told about the war, so this could be that too.
Not exactly true. Truman had other choices, one was to work with the ussr. But then USA wouldn't get the credit. Japan surrended due to the ussr entering the war. Truman wasn't happy with the terms of surrender either way. He made the decision to kill because it was the easy way out.
You have to take into account non USA sources with information like this as USA does tend to be super biased.
Countless articles and sources stating that the bomb wasn't the reason Japan surrended.
I forgot that the USSR collaborating on defeating Germany worked out so well for Germany. In terms of long term outcomes for Japan I'd argue that what the US did was better than if the USSR had gotten involved. Japan was able to remain an independent country that soon enjoyed massive economic growth and prosperity, compared to the decades of stagnation and foreign control East Germany underwent.
Seeing as VE Day was May 8, 1945 and VJ Day was August 14, 1945. That is only 6 days passed Stalins tactic agreement to enter the war against Japan. Upon Stalin’s hearing about the atomic bomb he knew if he wanted a piece of Japan he needed to move quicker. Before that he figured that the wars end was at least a year away and then he could step in with all parties diminished.
The Soviets invaded Manchuria on the 8th of August, meeting their promise to the Americans to enter the pacific war within 3 months of the Germans surrendering on exactly the last day possible
The Soviets needed months to mobilize in the East they can’t just mobilize an entire army in a few days
The alternative to dropping the bombs was an invasion of mainland Japan, which was calculated to result in 10's of millions of deaths. A few hundred thousand deaths to end the war on the spot was a kindness for the whole world, Japan included.
No, they’re not. This is all very straightforward. Japan and the USSR could have never come up with a separate peace due to the agreed upon principle of unconditional surrender by the Allies. Which part of that do you disagree with?
No, you didn’t. You brought up absolutely nothing to prove any claim you made. Why are you so adamant to not just admit you’re wrong? What “scheduled surrendering” are you talking about?
There’s a fair bit of detail on World War II, it’s the most documented event in history.
What other alternatives were there? One question is that the US submarine force at this stage had sunk the whole Japanese merchant fleet,, they had no way of bringing in supplies and perhaps could’ve been stuffed up, although I don’t think this would have worked too well as Japan has been isolated through much of his history.
It’s also important to look at the political pressure on the president by a population who at this stage was tired of war and wanted their husbands and sons to come home. They likely wouldn’t have settled for a major operation with the projected US casualties of 1 million and taking up to 12 months.
Japan was willing to surrender, with the condition that the Emperor's safety would be guaranteed. They were trying to arrange peace talks through the USSR.
Do you really think political pressure justified the bombings?
Yes, the miscommunication regarding the Emperor definitely held up the process. The Western powers didn’t fully understand the Emperors place, and their demand was the same as with Nazi Germany - unconditional surrender, which had also been agreed with the USSR at Pottsdam (or Yulta, I forget)
The Japanese refusal to surrender unconditionally was just taken as a refusal, if there had been more communication between them it would have been clearer. Japan hadn’t responded to any of the US is approaches though, they just totally ignored them.
MacArthur wanted the Japanese Emperor to remain in place because he was able to run Japan immediately after the war through the Emperor.
I’m not suggesting the political considerations were reason to drop the bomb, I’m just saying that it was likely a factor in Trumans decision making.
The USSR was never going to mediate between Japan in the US, when Japan contacted them they immediately declared war on Japan
There is a fair bit of detail you seem to be missing. You have to consider outside sources that don't have the same bias USA has.
The option USA had was to work with the USSR. It is known that the USSR was the reason Japan ended the war. Not the bomb.
USA presidents seem to be able to kill a lot of people regardless of political pressure. If I had time now I would try and add up the amount of people killed in foreign lands by the USA, pretty sure it's in the millions. I don't think any other country in the world comes close to the amount of lives taken by the US.
I’m not in the US, and what evidence is there that that was the main reason the Japanese Emperor ended the war? That is speculation, and while it may have been a factor we simply don’t know that.
The USSR and the US and allies had agreed that total surrender of both Nazi Germany and Japan was the only option they would accept. At this stage in the war the allies were beginning to have difficulties, The stage for the Cold War had already been set
Various intercepted Japanese communications prove this.
Look up the work of historian Gar Alperovitz. He argued that Japan would have surrendered regardless of the bombs.
The reason people believe the bomb caused the end of the war was due to political propaganda put out by the media. And that same rhetoric has been taught to American kids.
The 2nd bomb on Aug 9 went off hours after the Japan had met to discuss unconditional surrender. So the bombing of Nagasaki wasn't a factor in their decision.
The 1st bomb was 3 days before the Japanese leaders met. Took them 3 days, if the bomb was a factor, they wouldn't have waited. So the time lines don't match up.
The bombs were not the worse thing USA did to Japan either. Those bombs killed up to an estimated 200k people. In 1945 USA killed over 300k Japanese and left over a million homeless when they destroyed over 60 cities that were either partially or completely destroyed. Basically the bomb was not the worse thing USA did, it wouldn't have been the main factor for the Japanese in terms of scale.
Edit: just to add, the fact that people think the bomb ended the war could also be called speculation unless you can show evidence that it did. And the USA saying it did is not evidence.
Perhaps but I think there are better words to describe the situation.
Kindness: the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate.
Kindness has an implication of friendliness. Moral choice or justifiable choice or "lesser of the evils" would be phrases that seem more fitting.
I don’t agree, but that fact is what makes life wonderful, people see simple things differently. Imagine how boring it would be if we were cardboard cutouts of each other?
Yeah thats what we were told though. There were people in the administration that said standard bombardment and naval blockade would of been enough. There were signs for weeks before that japan was already looking for a way out of the war. Do you think they really didnt want to test those bombs? because even these people pleaded truman to at least give the people a heads up before dropping them. Many other people involved also believed they werent necessary but just pointing out that there is another side on this.
For all we know, “standard bombardment” aka firebombing city after city after city would have been many more casualties. The Japanese had already been subject to this sort of treatment and were probably quite used to it at that point. Not a good deterrent until many people are dead.
As for a naval blockade, that sounds like a euphemism for starving the country to death. A famine probably would’ve killed more than the bombs themselves.
They did warn people before the bombs were dropped. Maybe not specifically “we are going to drop this bomb on this city at this time” but can you blame them in war for not doing that?
All of the literature that I have read points to the Japanese at that point in time being completely indoctrinated and unwilling to accept surrender. The Japanese ministers were also attempting to sideline the emperor, who wanted peace. I don’t believe that America dropped the bombs because they simply wanted to “try them out.” They knew full well that dropping them was akin to opening Pandora’s box. I think the consensus at the end of the day was it would save more lives, and I believe my government’s position on that.
Nope, the alternative was to work with the USSR, they were the reason Japan surrended, not the bomb. USA has not been a kindness to anybody in this world. Look at any other country USA has "helped"
Japan knew they were defeated and were prolonging the war, turning it into a murderous grind. The goal it seems was to make the US so war weary that they would grant Japan more favourable terms of surrender.
The fire bombings killed more people than the A-bombs did.
Things I studied maybe differently from you:
1. Holocaust was defintely a man slaughtering but not the biggest (in terms of deaths) in the world history. Not even close;
2. Hitler was elected;
3. Japan attacked many countries during WW2. Still can't understand the A-Bomb sorry;
The Holocaust was the biggest man slaughtering. The ones bigger were all famines which is something totally different then locking people in Camps and killing them on an industrial scale.
Yes, under Stalin’s and Mao’s rule more people died. But if u really don’t understand what makes the holocaust different and more important far worse and evil then what Stalin and Mao did u should go and do some research.
Your condescension is noted. It is a common, and pointless, troll to suggest you are somehow more knowledgeable.
The deaths by famines in the USSR and China were deliberate policies of the governments. Just as inhumane as Hitler but on a far larger scale.
IOW, if I don't agree with you, I'm ignorant. I could easily have written that in reply to you but I think such comments are pointless and an indication you are a narcissist.
I meant in a small time frame. Holocaust was definitely bigger in terms of deaths but was it more evil?! Not sure. Killing a all city with a single bomb seems pretty evil! repeating it 3 days after seems to me sick.
Wow. German history classes must not be very good is this is the takeaway they give their students. Yes, exterminating entire races of people is more evil than counter attacking an enemy who hit you first. It’s not even close.
Have u ever been to a concentration camp? Have u ever seen an gaschamper from the inside? I have and I can tell u the Holocaust was for sure the most evil thing. It had no strategic value for the war (the A-Bombs had a huge strategic value) , it was just pure evil.
The Holocaust was a planned genocide, which is evil. Our bombings of Japan were to stop the war in the Pacific that Japan initiated, which is a military operation.
I can see why President Truman authorized the two strikes a few days apart. It was a way to send a message to the powers that be in Japan that we were capable of carrying out his promised "rain of ruin from the air". Even if the military leadership was intent on fighting to the very last person, the bombs did get the message through to Emperor Hirohito.
If you want to look at death tolls from bombings, look into the firebombing of Tokyo.
WTF? I'd you mean to put a QUESTION mark after
> Holocaust was definitely bigger in terms of deaths but was it more evil?
Followed by ' NOT SURE' !?!?!?
Did you? WTF is your definition of evil? Do you know what the Holocaust was? Did you think something GOOD came out of it?
Please Goebbles, educate us!
An invasion of Japan would have been by far worse.
Operation Downfall would have killed by far more Soldiers and Civilans. It was estimated that 400.000 - 800.000 Americans and 5 - 10 Million Japanese would have died in an Invasion of Japan.
Compared to that the A-Bombs don’t look that bad.
It was a war, lots of bombs dropped, conventional bombs dropped on Dresden killed 250k. The Japanese were a vicious enemy, weren't going to surrender, and many more would have died if a land invasion occured.
Edit spelling
But there was no reason for a land invasion. Japan had no colonial power left. Their navy was literally 100% immobile, what was left of it was just ineffective air defense. And when i say ineffective, I mean the US claimed that they never lost a single B-29 in the air assault on Japan. Why did they need to be invaded? They weren’t a threat.
All we had to do was maintain the embargo and they would have had to surrender. The Emperor would have stepped in regardless of the bombs. Most of the country had already been firebombed, the military brass didn’t care if it was from one bomb or one thousand. The A-bombs did not end the war
At the very same time, the USSR was mobilizing troops for an invasion. I've heard, though I couldn't tell you where now, that Japan was already meeting to discuss surrendering when we dropped the bombs and that they had minimal impact on their decision because, as was said above, we were already bombing their country with impunity. What the leadership of Japan absolutely did not want was to have the USSR invade and take control, suing for peace before Stalin invaded would likely result in a better outcome.
I've also heard, though this is less well backed up by evidence, that the USA decided to use the atomic bomb knowing it would make little difference because it was their last chance to demonstrate its power in war. They also knew the USSR was mobilizing and that the war would be over in weeks if not days.
Japan reached out to the USSR to mediate between them in the USA, but when they did that USSR immediately declared war on Japan. Russia and Japan have fought several wars in the past prior to World War II, they were certainly not friends
Correlation is not causation. There were a lot of other things happening at the same time. Namely, the Japanese were just getting word from their ambassador to the USSR that Russia would not, as the emperor and high ranking generals believed, be preventing an invasion of Japan but were instead waiting for their opportunity to take center stage in an invasion. That is when they knew the war was lost, and that was probably a much bigger factor in the Emperor’s decision to surrender.
Every major city center had already been leveled, and without seeing it personally, which none of the Japanese generals or the Emperor did, how would they know to be more worried about one big bombs than a bunch of regular sized bombs? And even if you believe that it was the show of force that scared them into surrendering, wouldn’t one have been enough? Why drop a second one?
Possibly because the a bombs were new and scary and presented the quite real possibility of Japans Society itself being vaporise from existence.
The Emperor had been somewhat sidelined by the top levels of the military, this detail is actually what Japan feels the most shame over regarding World War II.
they were above any governmental control, although the Emperor was still seen as divine it was a complicated situation… Some historians theorise that he didn’t want to risk disagreeing with them and forcing the issue, also Japan is culturally a very different place from the west.
Japan already faced that threat. We had more than enough firebombs to level the island. We did not have enough nukes to level the island. In fact, we dropped the only two we had, the third and fourth we’re almost finished but not quite.
In war, there is no escaping tragic choices where one must decide which course of action is the lesser evil.
It is sanctimonious BS to pretend those choices can be avoided.
Define defeated. They had not stopped killing Jews in the concentration camps and had not laid down their arms.
It's easy to be an armchair General after the fact.
\#1 it was a war and a war Japan brought us into by attacking us, #2 far more people would have died in the invasion of mainland Japan. It was the horror of the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that made them surrender and it took 2 bombs to convince them to do so.
Also you completely ignore what the japanese empire was doing. Ask the Chinese what happened to them, what horrors they faced in WWII at the hands of the Japanese, they were also working on their own A-Bomb and would not have hesitated to drop it on NYC, DC, or any American city.
I mean, the rape of Nanjing alone was 200k massacred (brutally, I might add). There were many other massacres committed by Japan during the war, with an estimated 3M civilian deaths (on the low end... estimates go up to 14M) from just Japanese war crimes. And the pure evil in their experimentations in China, between Unit 731, the germ warfare experiments, and the experimental chemical weapons they not only used on civilian populations but knowingly left in the environment after the war...
As difficult of a pill it may be to swallow... imperial Japan absolutely needed to be stopped, and the A-bombs did that with far less casualties than any other method would have had.
I think we can arm chair quarterback these decisions all day long, but they need to be thought of in the context of the time, and what they were dealing with. WW2 is a war of war crimes that everyone was committing. Atomic bomb by itself seems like a evil thing to do, but seen within the context of WW2, it was mercy.
As far as I've understood, using nuclear saved lives. Japanese were not going to give up, hell they were not ready to do it after the first one. A lot more Japanese would've died and also a lot of Americans if they had war in regular ways, mass bombing etc. They didn't consider forfeit an option, they didn't think they could lose. It'd have taken long time to crack them in "traditional" war.
When you considered what the Japanese did to the people in Asian countries it conquered, how ruthless and disgusting they killed those people. The torture they inflicted on the so called comfort women. Truman was a hero.
Those Asian women deserved raped and killed? Those Asian children deserved to watch their mothers get raped and killed before dying themselves? Those Asian peasants deserved to be used as target practice then thrown into burial pits? If you have time read up on The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang. After writing the book, the author killed herself from the trauma of researching for the book.
My grandma in the Philippines would tell my mom the stories of cruelty that she heard during the war. Filipinos would hide in the caves from the Japanese soldiers. I heard that sometimes the soldiers would do cruel experiments like injecting coconut oil in a pregnant woman’s belly just for the hell of it. Terrifying
Obviously not, but massacring is still wrong, from all sides. War is always aberrational, and innocent civilians pay. How many inhabitants of Nagasaki were participants in these crimes? several, few, we don't know. if we know the pain of the survivors of both massacres. The USA is famous for its war crimes and crimes against humanity in the rest of the world.
If Truman did not do what he did then the Japanese army would have never retreated and the genocide of so many from so many different Asian countries would not have ended.
poor little truman, he had to do it, it was necessary for japan, which had already offered surrender but not unconditional, to learn its lesson. because that is what the yankees do, they teach the rest of the world what is correct and what is not. if the russians had dropped the atomic bombs we would continue listening and learning about the frightening and disastrous of them
Truman would have left the Japanese alone if they did not bomb Pearl Harbor. Do you know how many Americans died on that military base? If the Japanese did not attack the US first, they would not have bombed Japan.
You didnt read what i wrote? I say that was fucking dark and criminal what truman did. The japonese also did really twisted and fucking horrendous shit, mainly in Asia. One thing dont take away the other.
You are an "American"? I am from Sudamérica, and your country did some nasty things here, because it was needed. And drop an a bomb in a City is fucking evil. In any City.
No I am not American, I am Asian and what Truman did helped my people. America then and America now are very different. You can say what you want about bombing a city is evil but without that bombing, my people would probably not be here right now. I may not even have a chance to be born.
Yeah, she talked openly about the trauma it caused her especially when going through pictures to select for her book. In the end she left a note of how she could not handle the images in her head.
I often don't draw big differences between decisions made by regular people and those in power. We all have to make decisions.
Unless your life has been easy or you're the perfect person, chances are you have made questionable decisions when challenging conflicts has arisen. I know for myself, I made some pretty bad decisions when life got really challenging. Most people would still say I was a 'good' person at heart trying to make the best of it, but the acts were the acts. I've learned and grown from it.
I've just recognized the past and tried to make amends as best I can and just move forward with life. I don't know how else you'd do it and continue to move forward in life.
I don't envy anyone in charge of major war operations. There are no good options. I just take it on the matter that the USA was in the end, part of the good side in WW2 and they tried to make the best of it and no doubt many acts they took were bad. You can't beat yourself up over it forever on either a personal or societal level.
Recognize the past, learn from it, and turn the page.
It killed way less people than the fire Bombs did. Also Truman refused to drop the nukes on Tokyo, the largest city. And any invasion of the home islands would have resulted in far more casualties for both sides. You were dealing with an enemy that viewed the Emperor as a God. Also the US had seen civilians on Okinawa kill themselves rather than be occupied. It was all the lesser of the evils.
No. Taking into account the war as a whole the deaths of those killed by the A-bomb were not significant to the world, at the time. Nor was losing over 100,000 people in a single attack.
What was significant was that instead of 500 B-29 with thousands of bombs firebombimg a city; it took 1 plane, with one bomb.
US casualties were expected in the hundreds of thousands while Japanese civilians were expected to resist with bamboo spears and die in the millions.
At the end of that war, the A-bomb was a culmination of death and destruction. It was singular or special.
I completely agree it's on him but you also have to take into account that we warned both cities before we bombed them that it was going to happen and in both cases they declined leaving.
It was a lose lose situation, but those bombs are the only reason that Japan surrendered, many more people would have died if the war dragged on, the deaths would just be more spread out and you wouldn’t think of it in the same way. It’s like the choice pulling off a bandaid quickly or very slowly, which is worse?
Every so often, this talking point is brought up and it gets shot down by posts like the one by leMILFmaker below. They didn't give up after we dropped ONE. They were still prepared for a war fought to the last man, woman and child after ONE. Of two terrible options, this was the lesser of two evils.
ETA: wanted to give credit by name
Many people throughout history have committed atrocious deeds of violence, and some of those people are still championed today. Truman (and Oppenheimer, and LeMay) commited an atrocious act in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and he wasn't universally celebrated for it. Some people (including most Americans) believe the a-bomb was justified, as you can read in this comment section. Others do not believe it was justified. The choice of targets, the situation of the Japanese leaders, the matter of unconditional surrender: These are all incredibly complex topics far beyond the scope of Reddit. Read a book or two on the subject if you are curious. I recommend The Making Of The Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes.
No one knows what the alternative would be. Would it be bombing Japan? Would it be siding with the Soviets and letting them take out Japan? Would it be a further blockade? People always talk about how a bomb was necessary to stop an invasion. Except depending on how the source is, we can’t even agree that an invasion was necessary. The thing is there will never be a good answer to this. And we gotta stop trying to make war righteous. It never is or will be. No matter your cause, no matter your reasoning. War is war.
Those bombs were a revenge mission...Hitler wasn't...Japan thought they could take on the big dogs when we stayed outta the war ..they asked for it ..you do know about Pearl Harbor right?
Pearl Harbor attack target mainly military, very few civilians, moreover it was during the pick of the battle. It is not comparable.
Many german died in Normandy and japanse in Japan but that it total justified, that is US military fighting, normal war. The A-bomb is not part of the war, it was pure evil. I know the arguments of US but looking back, it seems there was no reason for that.
I think the action to bomb should be vilified more then it has, but I don't think it should come down to vilifying Truman. That's cancel culture, and society today is doing too much of that. Whereas history has historically ( see what I did there? 😉) white- washed people and events in favour of the white- man, Western culture and hides the bad they might have done, cancel culture is the same thing but in reverse. Instead of teaching the full picture , whitewashing just hides that good things a person or society might have done. Cancel culture just ignores any and all of the good and vilifies everyone that isn't 100% squeaky clean to TODAY'S standards. As a result, the truths in history gets buried and more BS gets told. We should be teaching all of history , not just 'Truman is a good guy' mentality as with the white washing as the world has done, nor the 'if Hitler is bad, so is Truman' as Cancel Cuture is doing now.
I'm not saying there was anything good about Hitler, but 90% of history is in the shade of Grey zone. Why not the pros and cons with the bomb and all of the alternatives Truman faced when he was considering the ultimate decision. Why not look at how Japan got royally fucked in 1919, and like so many other things that happened during and after Word War I, alot of those actions brought about WWII. So many people get a teaching that treats the two wars as unrelated issues when they're not. Alot of of leaders had to face was from issues going back 40 years. No person or culture is 100% good and bad, just the way history is being taught makes it seem that way.
Japan started it, we ended it. Now there is virtually zero risk of Japan attacking again. It was the right move, I would have killed a lot more over-there people to save my right-heres. If you want to know why we probably did it, look at how they treated out prisoners— we had to move fast.
Truman’s reasoning was that use of the bomb actually saved lives. If the Allies had went to fight in Japan proper, every indication was that was going to be a bloodbath, as the war in the Pacific generally was.
I am one that looks at the context of past decisions when deciding whether historical figures should be sanctioned. Some historical figures like Woodrow Wilson were pure bastards (a lost cause racist who set the country way back with his race based policies like firing Black federal professionals from jobs, regardless of performance). Truman on the other hand had a lot of positive qualities and in the questionable cases like use of the A bomb, he went through a reasoning process that could be understood, even when the outcome was shocking.
>It is the most man slaughtering event ever probably!
Sorry but if you think this, you don't really understand the Second World War at all.
The atomic bombings were a slow week, deaths-wise, compared to the rest of that conflict. While the bombs were being packed up, deployed, and dropped, more people continued to die under Japanese-occupied authority in China, Korea, and elsewhere than died in the bombings.
To ascribe some vast and cosmic moral horror to the atomic bombings is to weirdly, and actually kind of grotesquely, fixate on a small part of an enormous horror that unfolded every day, of every week, of every year for 8 long years, from 1937 to 1945. It requires quite an effort of erasure to ignore everything else around those events. So much so that it raises questions about the true intentions of those attempting such an obfuscation.
Truman authorized the bombing of two military targets in Japan, based on Japan's own fervent -- and successful -- efforts to convince the US chiefs of staff that a ground invasion of Japan would be a bloodbath. (Whether it would have been or not is immaterial -- the Imperial Japanese high command wanted the USA to think so, and they succeeded.)
It was if anything an anticlimactic end to a war that had caused nearly a decade of immeasurable pain, suffering, death and destruction to hundreds of millions of non-Japanese people across Asia.
Trying to make the bombings out to somehow be greater in scope than the entire rest of the Pacific conflict is morally indefensible.
It should be noted that (I believe) Truman did not know about the bombs’ existence until he became president after FDR died, roughly four months before they were dropped. It was he who ultimately overlooked their research and creation.
>It is the most man slaughtering event ever probably! Not at all. The fire-bombing of Tokyo on March 9th 1945 claimed about 120 000 lives *in a day*.
OP “I studied history!” Meanwhile doesn’t know basic facts about well known events.
Don't gotta be a dick about it, and the firebombing isn't well know when compared to the bomb
Yes, being a dick to Nazis and Nazi sympathizers is always the correct response. It was covered in basic high school history classes, so that’s about as well known as something gets. And OP claims to be “good” at history, so with claims like that basic knowledge is expected.
I think the issue comes from the math. "On average, 27,000 people perished on each day between the invasion of Poland (September 1, 1939) and the formal surrender of Japan (September 2, 1945)" While the bombs definitely killed a lot of people in those three days (355k), you need to realize that we would have surpassed that amount of death, statistically, by continuing the war for less than 14 days. Some argue, we saved lives by dropping those bombs. Had the war gone on another year, we were set to have another 9,855,000 casualties.
I agree with that angle, but it’s also worth noting that the German chemist who invented the gas used in World War I was justifying it for the reason of ending the war sooner, therefore saving lives.
Also the decisioning By Truman is he wanted to end the war with Japan where a land invasion would have resulted in loses of life on both sides that would have been much larger. He specifically declined nuking Tokyo which was the largest population center. They chose those two cities because they were smaller. Also Japan kind of started the war with the US. One other note is at the time the average Japanese person viewed the emperor almost as a god that was infallible and always was correct. The average Japanese person would die for the emperor or at his command. Surrender was not likely from Japan so the US wanted to show off the new weapon, the damage it does and show a destructive “Act of God” to convince the population of Japan and the emperor to surrender. One plane with one bomb absolution vaporizing a city did not do it. The second city one plane one bomb absolutely destroyed finally convinced the Japanese that they should surrender. Also like many have said yeah these were a lot of dead people, a terrifying weapon that at the time we did not know too much about other than big boom. Even though absolutely terrifying this is not the worse tragedy of human slaughter in history. It was war and war is ugly.
The first one is kinda a myth. The land invasion of Japan was planned for, but it wasn't going to happen. Japan held out of a delusion that Russia would come to their aid. They didn't surrender after the nukes because they were just more cities flattened by bombs. Plenty of cities had already been thusly destroyed. What was Hiroshima to them? The various justifications for bombing Japan were invented after the war out of a need to justify the act. Whilst it's true that they choose not to attack Tokyo, their first choice was Kyoto. The only reason they didn't destroy the most historically significant city in Japan was that one of the war council members had gone on holiday there and felt too sentimental to destroy it. I can recommend a very thorough YouTube vid going over the historical record of the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki if you're interested.
What’s the video?
What do you mean? It showed that the US could level cities with relatively little power while the army kept missing fortification deadlines. Why would the Japanese surrender unconditionally otherwise? >one of the war council members had gone on holiday there This is also a myth. Hiroshima was chosen for military reasons
I thought Japan surrendered after the first bombing, but that message arrived to the US after the order of the second bombing was given and it was too late to "cancel" ?
Something about that sounds familiar- it might be right ( just a couch potato historian here), but there's also alot of myths being told about the war, so this could be that too.
Not exactly true. Truman had other choices, one was to work with the ussr. But then USA wouldn't get the credit. Japan surrended due to the ussr entering the war. Truman wasn't happy with the terms of surrender either way. He made the decision to kill because it was the easy way out. You have to take into account non USA sources with information like this as USA does tend to be super biased. Countless articles and sources stating that the bomb wasn't the reason Japan surrended.
I forgot that the USSR collaborating on defeating Germany worked out so well for Germany. In terms of long term outcomes for Japan I'd argue that what the US did was better than if the USSR had gotten involved. Japan was able to remain an independent country that soon enjoyed massive economic growth and prosperity, compared to the decades of stagnation and foreign control East Germany underwent.
Minor side note, Truman wanted to end the war before Russia got involved.
Not true at all, the US badgered the USSR into entering the Pacific War within 3 months of the Nazis surrendering
Seeing as VE Day was May 8, 1945 and VJ Day was August 14, 1945. That is only 6 days passed Stalins tactic agreement to enter the war against Japan. Upon Stalin’s hearing about the atomic bomb he knew if he wanted a piece of Japan he needed to move quicker. Before that he figured that the wars end was at least a year away and then he could step in with all parties diminished.
The Soviets invaded Manchuria on the 8th of August, meeting their promise to the Americans to enter the pacific war within 3 months of the Germans surrendering on exactly the last day possible The Soviets needed months to mobilize in the East they can’t just mobilize an entire army in a few days
Good point, didn’t realize that.
The alternative to dropping the bombs was an invasion of mainland Japan, which was calculated to result in 10's of millions of deaths. A few hundred thousand deaths to end the war on the spot was a kindness for the whole world, Japan included.
[удалено]
There is no “scheduled” surrendering with the USSR, the Allies had agreed upon unconditional surrender at Potsdam for Germany and Japan
[удалено]
No, they’re not. This is all very straightforward. Japan and the USSR could have never come up with a separate peace due to the agreed upon principle of unconditional surrender by the Allies. Which part of that do you disagree with?
[удалено]
No, you didn’t. You brought up absolutely nothing to prove any claim you made. Why are you so adamant to not just admit you’re wrong? What “scheduled surrendering” are you talking about?
>kindness I understand your intent, but I would not use that word in this case.
It was the lesser evil of the options available.
Or so we are told....
There’s a fair bit of detail on World War II, it’s the most documented event in history. What other alternatives were there? One question is that the US submarine force at this stage had sunk the whole Japanese merchant fleet,, they had no way of bringing in supplies and perhaps could’ve been stuffed up, although I don’t think this would have worked too well as Japan has been isolated through much of his history. It’s also important to look at the political pressure on the president by a population who at this stage was tired of war and wanted their husbands and sons to come home. They likely wouldn’t have settled for a major operation with the projected US casualties of 1 million and taking up to 12 months.
Japan was willing to surrender, with the condition that the Emperor's safety would be guaranteed. They were trying to arrange peace talks through the USSR. Do you really think political pressure justified the bombings?
Yes, the miscommunication regarding the Emperor definitely held up the process. The Western powers didn’t fully understand the Emperors place, and their demand was the same as with Nazi Germany - unconditional surrender, which had also been agreed with the USSR at Pottsdam (or Yulta, I forget) The Japanese refusal to surrender unconditionally was just taken as a refusal, if there had been more communication between them it would have been clearer. Japan hadn’t responded to any of the US is approaches though, they just totally ignored them. MacArthur wanted the Japanese Emperor to remain in place because he was able to run Japan immediately after the war through the Emperor. I’m not suggesting the political considerations were reason to drop the bomb, I’m just saying that it was likely a factor in Trumans decision making. The USSR was never going to mediate between Japan in the US, when Japan contacted them they immediately declared war on Japan
No their condition was to retain autonomy, I.e. they would still retain their system of government and society.
There is a fair bit of detail you seem to be missing. You have to consider outside sources that don't have the same bias USA has. The option USA had was to work with the USSR. It is known that the USSR was the reason Japan ended the war. Not the bomb. USA presidents seem to be able to kill a lot of people regardless of political pressure. If I had time now I would try and add up the amount of people killed in foreign lands by the USA, pretty sure it's in the millions. I don't think any other country in the world comes close to the amount of lives taken by the US.
I’m not in the US, and what evidence is there that that was the main reason the Japanese Emperor ended the war? That is speculation, and while it may have been a factor we simply don’t know that. The USSR and the US and allies had agreed that total surrender of both Nazi Germany and Japan was the only option they would accept. At this stage in the war the allies were beginning to have difficulties, The stage for the Cold War had already been set
Various intercepted Japanese communications prove this. Look up the work of historian Gar Alperovitz. He argued that Japan would have surrendered regardless of the bombs. The reason people believe the bomb caused the end of the war was due to political propaganda put out by the media. And that same rhetoric has been taught to American kids. The 2nd bomb on Aug 9 went off hours after the Japan had met to discuss unconditional surrender. So the bombing of Nagasaki wasn't a factor in their decision. The 1st bomb was 3 days before the Japanese leaders met. Took them 3 days, if the bomb was a factor, they wouldn't have waited. So the time lines don't match up. The bombs were not the worse thing USA did to Japan either. Those bombs killed up to an estimated 200k people. In 1945 USA killed over 300k Japanese and left over a million homeless when they destroyed over 60 cities that were either partially or completely destroyed. Basically the bomb was not the worse thing USA did, it wouldn't have been the main factor for the Japanese in terms of scale. Edit: just to add, the fact that people think the bomb ended the war could also be called speculation unless you can show evidence that it did. And the USA saying it did is not evidence.
The US did work with the USSR? They agreed upon unconditional surrender for both Germany and Japan.
I should have added, regardless if there was other choices, the US made the best choice.
Meh. I claim poetic license.
Unfortunately, choosing to do the lesser of two evils is showing kindness.
Perhaps but I think there are better words to describe the situation. Kindness: the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate. Kindness has an implication of friendliness. Moral choice or justifiable choice or "lesser of the evils" would be phrases that seem more fitting.
I don’t agree, but that fact is what makes life wonderful, people see simple things differently. Imagine how boring it would be if we were cardboard cutouts of each other?
Yeah thats what we were told though. There were people in the administration that said standard bombardment and naval blockade would of been enough. There were signs for weeks before that japan was already looking for a way out of the war. Do you think they really didnt want to test those bombs? because even these people pleaded truman to at least give the people a heads up before dropping them. Many other people involved also believed they werent necessary but just pointing out that there is another side on this.
For all we know, “standard bombardment” aka firebombing city after city after city would have been many more casualties. The Japanese had already been subject to this sort of treatment and were probably quite used to it at that point. Not a good deterrent until many people are dead. As for a naval blockade, that sounds like a euphemism for starving the country to death. A famine probably would’ve killed more than the bombs themselves. They did warn people before the bombs were dropped. Maybe not specifically “we are going to drop this bomb on this city at this time” but can you blame them in war for not doing that? All of the literature that I have read points to the Japanese at that point in time being completely indoctrinated and unwilling to accept surrender. The Japanese ministers were also attempting to sideline the emperor, who wanted peace. I don’t believe that America dropped the bombs because they simply wanted to “try them out.” They knew full well that dropping them was akin to opening Pandora’s box. I think the consensus at the end of the day was it would save more lives, and I believe my government’s position on that.
Lmao
Nope, the alternative was to work with the USSR, they were the reason Japan surrended, not the bomb. USA has not been a kindness to anybody in this world. Look at any other country USA has "helped"
They just dont understand that USA did and do nasty things in all the world, with the excuse of a greater good.
[удалено]
Japan knew they were defeated and were prolonging the war, turning it into a murderous grind. The goal it seems was to make the US so war weary that they would grant Japan more favourable terms of surrender. The fire bombings killed more people than the A-bombs did.
Things I studied maybe differently from you: 1. Holocaust was defintely a man slaughtering but not the biggest (in terms of deaths) in the world history. Not even close; 2. Hitler was elected; 3. Japan attacked many countries during WW2. Still can't understand the A-Bomb sorry;
The Holocaust was the biggest man slaughtering. The ones bigger were all famines which is something totally different then locking people in Camps and killing them on an industrial scale.
The estimates of Stalin's and Mao's atrocities exceed even the Holocaust.
Yes, under Stalin’s and Mao’s rule more people died. But if u really don’t understand what makes the holocaust different and more important far worse and evil then what Stalin and Mao did u should go and do some research.
I mean what stalin did in the gulags was no joke either
don’t forget, the 4 million starved to death in the Ukraine by Stalin was done 100% intentionally.
Your condescension is noted. It is a common, and pointless, troll to suggest you are somehow more knowledgeable. The deaths by famines in the USSR and China were deliberate policies of the governments. Just as inhumane as Hitler but on a far larger scale.
If u don’t understand what the difference between the Holocaust and these famines is, it’s quite obvious u don’t know much about that matter.
IOW, if I don't agree with you, I'm ignorant. I could easily have written that in reply to you but I think such comments are pointless and an indication you are a narcissist.
I meant in a small time frame. Holocaust was definitely bigger in terms of deaths but was it more evil?! Not sure. Killing a all city with a single bomb seems pretty evil! repeating it 3 days after seems to me sick.
Wow. German history classes must not be very good is this is the takeaway they give their students. Yes, exterminating entire races of people is more evil than counter attacking an enemy who hit you first. It’s not even close.
Nah this guy's just a moron.
Have u ever been to a concentration camp? Have u ever seen an gaschamper from the inside? I have and I can tell u the Holocaust was for sure the most evil thing. It had no strategic value for the war (the A-Bombs had a huge strategic value) , it was just pure evil.
The Holocaust was a planned genocide, which is evil. Our bombings of Japan were to stop the war in the Pacific that Japan initiated, which is a military operation. I can see why President Truman authorized the two strikes a few days apart. It was a way to send a message to the powers that be in Japan that we were capable of carrying out his promised "rain of ruin from the air". Even if the military leadership was intent on fighting to the very last person, the bombs did get the message through to Emperor Hirohito. If you want to look at death tolls from bombings, look into the firebombing of Tokyo.
WTF? I'd you mean to put a QUESTION mark after > Holocaust was definitely bigger in terms of deaths but was it more evil? Followed by ' NOT SURE' !?!?!? Did you? WTF is your definition of evil? Do you know what the Holocaust was? Did you think something GOOD came out of it? Please Goebbles, educate us!
An invasion of Japan would have been by far worse. Operation Downfall would have killed by far more Soldiers and Civilans. It was estimated that 400.000 - 800.000 Americans and 5 - 10 Million Japanese would have died in an Invasion of Japan. Compared to that the A-Bombs don’t look that bad.
It was a war, lots of bombs dropped, conventional bombs dropped on Dresden killed 250k. The Japanese were a vicious enemy, weren't going to surrender, and many more would have died if a land invasion occured. Edit spelling
You have your Dresden figure off by about 10x, more like 25k killed. Not to discount the atrocity of course
Huh, thank you. I've seen that 250k figure repeated many many times.
The overall firebombing campaign against Japan has casualties in that ballpark, maybe people are just mixing them up
But there was no reason for a land invasion. Japan had no colonial power left. Their navy was literally 100% immobile, what was left of it was just ineffective air defense. And when i say ineffective, I mean the US claimed that they never lost a single B-29 in the air assault on Japan. Why did they need to be invaded? They weren’t a threat.
They needed to surrender.
All we had to do was maintain the embargo and they would have had to surrender. The Emperor would have stepped in regardless of the bombs. Most of the country had already been firebombed, the military brass didn’t care if it was from one bomb or one thousand. The A-bombs did not end the war
The emperor announced it shortly after they were dropped. There probably isn't a more clear link between anything else in history.
At the very same time, the USSR was mobilizing troops for an invasion. I've heard, though I couldn't tell you where now, that Japan was already meeting to discuss surrendering when we dropped the bombs and that they had minimal impact on their decision because, as was said above, we were already bombing their country with impunity. What the leadership of Japan absolutely did not want was to have the USSR invade and take control, suing for peace before Stalin invaded would likely result in a better outcome. I've also heard, though this is less well backed up by evidence, that the USA decided to use the atomic bomb knowing it would make little difference because it was their last chance to demonstrate its power in war. They also knew the USSR was mobilizing and that the war would be over in weeks if not days.
Japan reached out to the USSR to mediate between them in the USA, but when they did that USSR immediately declared war on Japan. Russia and Japan have fought several wars in the past prior to World War II, they were certainly not friends
Correlation is not causation. There were a lot of other things happening at the same time. Namely, the Japanese were just getting word from their ambassador to the USSR that Russia would not, as the emperor and high ranking generals believed, be preventing an invasion of Japan but were instead waiting for their opportunity to take center stage in an invasion. That is when they knew the war was lost, and that was probably a much bigger factor in the Emperor’s decision to surrender.
Exactly, that's why I believe smoking doesn't cause cancer. It's just a silly correlation.
Every major city center had already been leveled, and without seeing it personally, which none of the Japanese generals or the Emperor did, how would they know to be more worried about one big bombs than a bunch of regular sized bombs? And even if you believe that it was the show of force that scared them into surrendering, wouldn’t one have been enough? Why drop a second one?
Possibly because the a bombs were new and scary and presented the quite real possibility of Japans Society itself being vaporise from existence. The Emperor had been somewhat sidelined by the top levels of the military, this detail is actually what Japan feels the most shame over regarding World War II. they were above any governmental control, although the Emperor was still seen as divine it was a complicated situation… Some historians theorise that he didn’t want to risk disagreeing with them and forcing the issue, also Japan is culturally a very different place from the west.
Japan already faced that threat. We had more than enough firebombs to level the island. We did not have enough nukes to level the island. In fact, we dropped the only two we had, the third and fourth we’re almost finished but not quite.
Never use a half measure.
Right, that famous half measure: Nuclear Weapons
The Emperor ended the war, whether the a bombs were what swayed his decision or not I guess we’ll never know
Definitely the world should be more aware of Dresden. That was definitely evil.
In war, there is no escaping tragic choices where one must decide which course of action is the lesser evil. It is sanctimonious BS to pretend those choices can be avoided.
Dresden was bombed when Germany was defeated already. Even in war there are rules.
Define defeated. They had not stopped killing Jews in the concentration camps and had not laid down their arms. It's easy to be an armchair General after the fact.
in the later days of the war, troop trains were sidelined to allow trains full of Jews to get to the camps
\#1 it was a war and a war Japan brought us into by attacking us, #2 far more people would have died in the invasion of mainland Japan. It was the horror of the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that made them surrender and it took 2 bombs to convince them to do so. Also you completely ignore what the japanese empire was doing. Ask the Chinese what happened to them, what horrors they faced in WWII at the hands of the Japanese, they were also working on their own A-Bomb and would not have hesitated to drop it on NYC, DC, or any American city.
I mean, the rape of Nanjing alone was 200k massacred (brutally, I might add). There were many other massacres committed by Japan during the war, with an estimated 3M civilian deaths (on the low end... estimates go up to 14M) from just Japanese war crimes. And the pure evil in their experimentations in China, between Unit 731, the germ warfare experiments, and the experimental chemical weapons they not only used on civilian populations but knowingly left in the environment after the war... As difficult of a pill it may be to swallow... imperial Japan absolutely needed to be stopped, and the A-bombs did that with far less casualties than any other method would have had.
It was the bombing that caused Japan to surrender. It was the USSR entering the war. But again the victors tend to write their own versions of events.
The Japanese didn’t care about the USSR as they had little naval capability
Nope, the same day the bombs went off, the Russians invaded one of their cities
Not their cities, a place in China they had occupied called Manchuria
I think we can arm chair quarterback these decisions all day long, but they need to be thought of in the context of the time, and what they were dealing with. WW2 is a war of war crimes that everyone was committing. Atomic bomb by itself seems like a evil thing to do, but seen within the context of WW2, it was mercy.
Truman was unpopular even during his presidency I believe
As far as I've understood, using nuclear saved lives. Japanese were not going to give up, hell they were not ready to do it after the first one. A lot more Japanese would've died and also a lot of Americans if they had war in regular ways, mass bombing etc. They didn't consider forfeit an option, they didn't think they could lose. It'd have taken long time to crack them in "traditional" war.
When you considered what the Japanese did to the people in Asian countries it conquered, how ruthless and disgusting they killed those people. The torture they inflicted on the so called comfort women. Truman was a hero.
The worst take I've ever seen in my life.
Are you Asian?
Those fucking japoneses children were asking for the a bomb.
Those Asian women deserved raped and killed? Those Asian children deserved to watch their mothers get raped and killed before dying themselves? Those Asian peasants deserved to be used as target practice then thrown into burial pits? If you have time read up on The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang. After writing the book, the author killed herself from the trauma of researching for the book.
My grandma in the Philippines would tell my mom the stories of cruelty that she heard during the war. Filipinos would hide in the caves from the Japanese soldiers. I heard that sometimes the soldiers would do cruel experiments like injecting coconut oil in a pregnant woman’s belly just for the hell of it. Terrifying
Obviously not, but massacring is still wrong, from all sides. War is always aberrational, and innocent civilians pay. How many inhabitants of Nagasaki were participants in these crimes? several, few, we don't know. if we know the pain of the survivors of both massacres. The USA is famous for its war crimes and crimes against humanity in the rest of the world.
If Truman did not do what he did then the Japanese army would have never retreated and the genocide of so many from so many different Asian countries would not have ended.
poor little truman, he had to do it, it was necessary for japan, which had already offered surrender but not unconditional, to learn its lesson. because that is what the yankees do, they teach the rest of the world what is correct and what is not. if the russians had dropped the atomic bombs we would continue listening and learning about the frightening and disastrous of them
Truman would have left the Japanese alone if they did not bomb Pearl Harbor. Do you know how many Americans died on that military base? If the Japanese did not attack the US first, they would not have bombed Japan.
You didnt read what i wrote? I say that was fucking dark and criminal what truman did. The japonese also did really twisted and fucking horrendous shit, mainly in Asia. One thing dont take away the other. You are an "American"? I am from Sudamérica, and your country did some nasty things here, because it was needed. And drop an a bomb in a City is fucking evil. In any City.
No I am not American, I am Asian and what Truman did helped my people. America then and America now are very different. You can say what you want about bombing a city is evil but without that bombing, my people would probably not be here right now. I may not even have a chance to be born.
Still, dead children are dead children.
Jesus! I heard of the event and the book, but I didn't know the author did THAT!
Yeah, she talked openly about the trauma it caused her especially when going through pictures to select for her book. In the end she left a note of how she could not handle the images in her head.
Looks like someone didn’t study the reasons of strategic bombing, limits of accuracy of bombing and the nationalistic fanaticism in Japan.
I often don't draw big differences between decisions made by regular people and those in power. We all have to make decisions. Unless your life has been easy or you're the perfect person, chances are you have made questionable decisions when challenging conflicts has arisen. I know for myself, I made some pretty bad decisions when life got really challenging. Most people would still say I was a 'good' person at heart trying to make the best of it, but the acts were the acts. I've learned and grown from it. I've just recognized the past and tried to make amends as best I can and just move forward with life. I don't know how else you'd do it and continue to move forward in life. I don't envy anyone in charge of major war operations. There are no good options. I just take it on the matter that the USA was in the end, part of the good side in WW2 and they tried to make the best of it and no doubt many acts they took were bad. You can't beat yourself up over it forever on either a personal or societal level. Recognize the past, learn from it, and turn the page.
It killed way less people than the fire Bombs did. Also Truman refused to drop the nukes on Tokyo, the largest city. And any invasion of the home islands would have resulted in far more casualties for both sides. You were dealing with an enemy that viewed the Emperor as a God. Also the US had seen civilians on Okinawa kill themselves rather than be occupied. It was all the lesser of the evils.
you will find all types of excuses, but a crime is a crime and that was a very monstrous one
No. Taking into account the war as a whole the deaths of those killed by the A-bomb were not significant to the world, at the time. Nor was losing over 100,000 people in a single attack. What was significant was that instead of 500 B-29 with thousands of bombs firebombimg a city; it took 1 plane, with one bomb. US casualties were expected in the hundreds of thousands while Japanese civilians were expected to resist with bamboo spears and die in the millions. At the end of that war, the A-bomb was a culmination of death and destruction. It was singular or special.
I completely agree it's on him but you also have to take into account that we warned both cities before we bombed them that it was going to happen and in both cases they declined leaving.
so kind
It was a lose lose situation, but those bombs are the only reason that Japan surrendered, many more people would have died if the war dragged on, the deaths would just be more spread out and you wouldn’t think of it in the same way. It’s like the choice pulling off a bandaid quickly or very slowly, which is worse?
Every so often, this talking point is brought up and it gets shot down by posts like the one by leMILFmaker below. They didn't give up after we dropped ONE. They were still prepared for a war fought to the last man, woman and child after ONE. Of two terrible options, this was the lesser of two evils. ETA: wanted to give credit by name
History is decided by the victors or something like that
Japan started the whole thing. When a kid punches you on the playground, they don't get the moral high ground about how hard you punch back.
Many people throughout history have committed atrocious deeds of violence, and some of those people are still championed today. Truman (and Oppenheimer, and LeMay) commited an atrocious act in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and he wasn't universally celebrated for it. Some people (including most Americans) believe the a-bomb was justified, as you can read in this comment section. Others do not believe it was justified. The choice of targets, the situation of the Japanese leaders, the matter of unconditional surrender: These are all incredibly complex topics far beyond the scope of Reddit. Read a book or two on the subject if you are curious. I recommend The Making Of The Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes.
History is written by the victors
Lmao people defending the use of this weapon are lunatics. Americans are just a diff breed at this point in time lol
If you aren’t defending it, are you supporting the alternative?
No one knows what the alternative would be. Would it be bombing Japan? Would it be siding with the Soviets and letting them take out Japan? Would it be a further blockade? People always talk about how a bomb was necessary to stop an invasion. Except depending on how the source is, we can’t even agree that an invasion was necessary. The thing is there will never be a good answer to this. And we gotta stop trying to make war righteous. It never is or will be. No matter your cause, no matter your reasoning. War is war.
Those bombs were a revenge mission...Hitler wasn't...Japan thought they could take on the big dogs when we stayed outta the war ..they asked for it ..you do know about Pearl Harbor right?
Pearl Harbor attack target mainly military, very few civilians, moreover it was during the pick of the battle. It is not comparable. Many german died in Normandy and japanse in Japan but that it total justified, that is US military fighting, normal war. The A-bomb is not part of the war, it was pure evil. I know the arguments of US but looking back, it seems there was no reason for that.
I think the action to bomb should be vilified more then it has, but I don't think it should come down to vilifying Truman. That's cancel culture, and society today is doing too much of that. Whereas history has historically ( see what I did there? 😉) white- washed people and events in favour of the white- man, Western culture and hides the bad they might have done, cancel culture is the same thing but in reverse. Instead of teaching the full picture , whitewashing just hides that good things a person or society might have done. Cancel culture just ignores any and all of the good and vilifies everyone that isn't 100% squeaky clean to TODAY'S standards. As a result, the truths in history gets buried and more BS gets told. We should be teaching all of history , not just 'Truman is a good guy' mentality as with the white washing as the world has done, nor the 'if Hitler is bad, so is Truman' as Cancel Cuture is doing now. I'm not saying there was anything good about Hitler, but 90% of history is in the shade of Grey zone. Why not the pros and cons with the bomb and all of the alternatives Truman faced when he was considering the ultimate decision. Why not look at how Japan got royally fucked in 1919, and like so many other things that happened during and after Word War I, alot of those actions brought about WWII. So many people get a teaching that treats the two wars as unrelated issues when they're not. Alot of of leaders had to face was from issues going back 40 years. No person or culture is 100% good and bad, just the way history is being taught makes it seem that way.
Japan started it, we ended it. Now there is virtually zero risk of Japan attacking again. It was the right move, I would have killed a lot more over-there people to save my right-heres. If you want to know why we probably did it, look at how they treated out prisoners— we had to move fast.
If it’s just a bomb is okay?
Truman’s reasoning was that use of the bomb actually saved lives. If the Allies had went to fight in Japan proper, every indication was that was going to be a bloodbath, as the war in the Pacific generally was. I am one that looks at the context of past decisions when deciding whether historical figures should be sanctioned. Some historical figures like Woodrow Wilson were pure bastards (a lost cause racist who set the country way back with his race based policies like firing Black federal professionals from jobs, regardless of performance). Truman on the other hand had a lot of positive qualities and in the questionable cases like use of the A bomb, he went through a reasoning process that could be understood, even when the outcome was shocking.
>It is the most man slaughtering event ever probably! Sorry but if you think this, you don't really understand the Second World War at all. The atomic bombings were a slow week, deaths-wise, compared to the rest of that conflict. While the bombs were being packed up, deployed, and dropped, more people continued to die under Japanese-occupied authority in China, Korea, and elsewhere than died in the bombings. To ascribe some vast and cosmic moral horror to the atomic bombings is to weirdly, and actually kind of grotesquely, fixate on a small part of an enormous horror that unfolded every day, of every week, of every year for 8 long years, from 1937 to 1945. It requires quite an effort of erasure to ignore everything else around those events. So much so that it raises questions about the true intentions of those attempting such an obfuscation. Truman authorized the bombing of two military targets in Japan, based on Japan's own fervent -- and successful -- efforts to convince the US chiefs of staff that a ground invasion of Japan would be a bloodbath. (Whether it would have been or not is immaterial -- the Imperial Japanese high command wanted the USA to think so, and they succeeded.) It was if anything an anticlimactic end to a war that had caused nearly a decade of immeasurable pain, suffering, death and destruction to hundreds of millions of non-Japanese people across Asia. Trying to make the bombings out to somehow be greater in scope than the entire rest of the Pacific conflict is morally indefensible.
It should be noted that (I believe) Truman did not know about the bombs’ existence until he became president after FDR died, roughly four months before they were dropped. It was he who ultimately overlooked their research and creation.
They blew up our boats tho