Yes because >Invasion would have likely been worse than Okinawa >They didn't surrender immediately after the first >Kyoto/Hirohito was spared >Russia didn't get any part of Japan >Allowed for complete surrender >They are now so terrified of war they don't even like the idea of beefing up their own SDF to assist overseas.
I think that is a pretty damn good result of the use of a WMD.
1. The fact the Japanese "would not surrender" was heavily influenced by what surrender would mean. Namely, the U.S. would only accept unconditional surrender, which would be incredibly unappealing to the Japanese government witnessing the massive restructuring being undertaken in Germany state.
2. The "traditional" bombing campaign undertaken in Japan had already wreaked as much, if not more, destruction than the atomic bombs did. The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the two atomic bombs combined.
3a. The Soviet Invasion of Japanese Manchuria which re-opened hostilities between the two countries happened on the same day the bomb was dropped. This would have been another huge blow to Japanese morale, as they'd obviously hoped to avoid such an escalation with their war weary forces.
3b. Military situations on the ground, such as the position of troops and the territory held by armed forces, influences international politics directly. This is in reference to the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria; the U.S. already had to face a uneven power sharing scenario in Germany because the Soviet Union had grabbed more of the country's territory and likely hoped to avoid a similar situation in Japan.
Because we built up Japan as a bulwark against Communism after WWII, so we rebuilt their entire country and made it strong because we needed it to be strong. Exact opposite of all these Middle Eastern states we intervene in.
>>13537 No, sorry. You should have asked to ban any discussion about the nuking of Japan, because everybody knows that it wasn't justified, Japanese were innocents dragged to a war they didn't want to fight and the nukes were just the evil imperialist tools of the racist Americans.
>1. The fact the Japanese "would not surrender" was heavily influenced by what surrender would mean. Namely, the U.S. would only accept unconditional surrender, which would be incredibly unappealing to the Japanese government witnessing the massive restructuring being undertaken in Germany state.
This is 100% the fault of the Truman administration. They could've easily extracted a surrender months earlier without the bombs ever having been necessary.
>>13357 better than letting the soviets get control of more and losing millions of allied lives hiroshima and nagasaki have both recovered rather well, thankfully. dropping a modern nuke would cause a lot more damage.
>How does /his/ feel about the words of some of the Allied command citing that they felt that it was unnecessary and that they would have surrendered soon without the bombs?
Leahy, MacArthur, Nimitz, and Eisenhower were among those who held that view. I used to believe them after I learned this fact but after I looked into the topic more I realized their opinions really don't matter at all.
And consider what it says about the Japanese leadership (and it was a very small group of leaders calling the shots) that they couldn't even agree on terms upon which they'd agree to surrender, while their people are dying in a war they know they've lost.
Just goes to show how much the leaders of any nation have in common; both the U.S. and Japanese leaders were thinking first about jockeying for international power (how to get more or lose less) rather than about the people getting killed.
That's why, regardless of whether the bomb was necessary or not, bullshit claims to moral superiority like "we saved lives by not having to invade Japan" on behalf of the state disgust me. As if they actually fucking care. Yeah, right. How altruistic.
>have exam on japanese history and culture tomorrow >this is one of the topics for the essay
>>13357 It's too much of a 'what if' situation to properly say 'yes' or 'no'. Given the opinion of president Truman at the time >Truman and his advisers believed that Japan was ready to surrender. Invasion was not regarded as inevitable. >”… it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” - US Strategic Bombing Survey, summary report (1946)
It was overkill. Further to add to this, a the Hague Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907) suggests that targeting civilians specifically, as the bombings did, is a war crime. I partially agree with >>13455 but I don't think millions would have died if Japan was to be invaded.
>>13710 Embracing of pacifism after it was forced upon them in 1946 (San Francisco treaty), playing the 'victim role', wanting to avoid additional pressure from around Asia due to their aggressive nationalism in the early 1900s.
>>16277 Seems odd that they would just go ahead and bomb both cities anyway unless there were undocumented discussions
>>16588 >in a war they know they've lost. I don't think you appreciate how important "face" is to the nips though. It was easier to accept that the reason they weren't winning the war was because their troops weren't trying hard enough then it was to accept that their tactics were fucked and their secret codes were cracked wide open.
To be fair, a lot of the Japanese soldiers' fight to the death attitude came out of war time propaganda convincing them of how horribly they'd be treated as POWs by the U.S. (which is ironic, considering how they treated POWs, maybe that's why they believed it.) Death before dishonor and dying for the Emperor etc. etc. certainly played a part but you can chalk a lot of it up to good old fashioned homeland sponsored fear.
Do you know why the Strategic Bombing Survey thought Japan would never survive past a few months? Because in the middle of August the USAAF was going to finish off its firebombing campaign and switch to an anti-transportation network campaign. Which was planned to knock out the entire Japanese rail network by targeting key chokepoints. The end result was planned to be totally crippling of the country. Which also would have including crippling the ability for food transport, which would have resulted in a mass famine of a couple million dead at least.
But yeah, the bombings were the overkill.
And go look up what happened to civilians on Okinawa, and then multiple that up if you want to see what would have happened in an invasion.
>>13357 No. The Emperor himself declared Japan was ready to surrender multiple times before the bombs were dropped. Truman and the generals leading him on wanted full unconditional surrender instead of peaceful end, and they wanted to use the bomb to establish US dominance to the USSR.
>>16739 >We Americans didn't a give a fuck what happened to those slant-eyed bastards! >Ignoring the fact that the postwar control and management of Japan was easily the single major topic of discussion and debate within the American leadership in late 1945.
If you really believe that, you live in a fantasy world. Besides, your point isn't relevant anyway. People who fervently supported the war and constructed the weapons in factories are more than just bystanders.
>>13419 >Japanese economy halted to a stop >Literally no troops left >Navy and Airforce on its last legs with no resources to replace and repair what they have >No food anywhere >Absolutely no allies left, surrounded on all fronts by the USSR, Unified Chinese, Brits, and the US >the bombs stopped the war
>>13357 Yes, it was very justified. And this is coming from someone who used to condemn that act as one of the most despicable actions to have been ever committed by humans.
If the question was only "Would you throw an atomic bomb on a city?" The answer is simple, of course not. Except in the case of true psychopaths.
But the question wasn’t that. There was a context where all the possible choices were horrendous and we had to choose the lesser evil.
Of course there aren’t beautiful wars, and getting Japan to surrender ending the war in one move was an idea that occurred when the Allies had lost 4 million soldiers and 25 million civilian lives (and on the Axis side, mainly Japan, 2 million soldiers and 750,000 civilians have died). Strategists calculated that Japan's invasion and conquest by methods, say, traditional, could cost the lives of 1 to 4 million Allied soldiers and between 5 and 10 million Japanese lives. Nuclear bombs caused some 200,000 deaths and immediate surrender.
Now the question was: "Would you throw atomic bombs on two cities, killing 200,000 innocent people or would you invade the country killing between 6 and 14 million people, among your own people and the enemy civilians?"
This dilemma is not discussed often, of course, because in the historical distance is very easy to condemn any decision that had been taken (and to forget the atrocities of the Japanese army, which were terrible) and of course is very comfortable to pretend you can have a war with flowers and blueberry pie to finish the enemy. Especially an enemy as the Axis and the Japanese emperor who would have rather let their own people die as human shields in an invasion in order to keep going. Today it seems as if the only atrocity of World War II would have been that, and had committed only by the United States, considered by many the ideological and political opponent. But the matter cannot be dispatched regardless of what had been the imperialist military expansionism
>>17009 >7/18/45 Diary Entry: >"P.M. [Prime Minister Winston Churchill] & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan [atomic bomb] (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time." >t. Harry "Fuckboy" Truman
While I agree with that general sentiment, the fact you're using that to say why this instance particularly is wrong makes me think you have limited knowledge of any of the history being discussed in this thread.
Japan was starving to death because of their retarded government. The alternative - continued blockade and firebombing campaign - would have killed far more people.
Leaving the regime in power was the only alternative that would actually end the bloodshed... until they recover and start a new war. Also it would mean a hyper-authoritarian, censorship-heavy state that would never create decent animu.
>>17154 Japan offered its surrender, the US rejected it. In fact, it's only following the first bomb Japan was willing to make a last resistance because of how horribly immoral the attack was. Only by dropping the last bomb, proving the US had more than one, did the us ACCEPT Japanese surrender.
>>16822 Plenty of civilian deaths on Okinawa were caused by Japanese propaganda and Japanese soldiers killing or encouraging suicide of civilians, no? Sure the Americans killed plenty of civilians anyway due to confusion.
Why did they attack with Atomic Bombs if they were planning on additional carpet bombing anyway?
You'll have to excuse my apparent lack of knowledge, I'm just doing a stage 1 course.
I don't mean to be this guy, but it's been asked several times in this thread; can you provide a reference or cite a source that indicates Japan offering any kind of surrender to the U.S. prior to the bombs? I was looking it up myself and I'm finding absolutely nothing credible.
And this thread (my first on on /his/ incidentally) has had me shift my view a bit. All I'm seeing is as you've said: exploring the Soviets as middlemen for brokering a peace but never actually nailing down WHAT THEY'D AGREE TO in a hypothetical surrender scenario.
>>17337 I'm not sure why it matters who was killing the civilians. The point is when you had ground operations against the Japanese with large numbers of civilians present, a lot of them died. The further actions the Japanese were taking like mass civilian militias would have made them even worse.
And the conventional bombing campaign and the atom bomb program were planned completely separately, and only top level officers and officials were informed of the atomic bomb.
I've been to Hiroshima and to the Peace Museum. I've seen the horrible things the bomb did to the city and the people. Learned about of the Japanese government and the US Occupation Govenrment covered up the bomb and the effects for 10 years.
Though you know what?
At the time it really didn't matter to the Japanese. We were already firebombing the cities and causing mostly the same amount of death and destruction. One bomber or a few dozen, it did not matter.
The Soviet Horde flooding through China and Korea is what motivated them. Japan came down with a case of common sense. They decided it was better to surrender to the Americans then let the Communist Russians into their country.
>>17542 Still no proof posted. And like i said, even if the japs did try to surrender earlier to the US we would not have cared, we wanted an unconditional surrender. So i dont see how i made your point
There were actually Japanese representatives going around Moscow trying to organise a cease-fire, but Truman decided that he wouldn't settle for anything but absolute surrender.
Although, it was probably inevitable that either Russia or America would be eventually dropping a bomb, so it was better that we did it. The Russians had secretly managed to find the Kaiser Wilhelm institute, and snatched up several scientists for themselves.
>>13357 The atomic bombings were some of the least destructive in the war. The firebombing of Tokyo literally killed ten times as many people, and unless you've seen Grave of the Fireflies you probably don't even know that it happened.
The only reason anyone gives a shit about the atomic bombs is the novelty of the weapons used, and also the pearl-clutching faux outrage at the fact that this 120,000 people were burned alive by nuclear heat rather than napalm. As though the dead are more dead because the bombs were atomic.
By this point in the war the Japanese had had literally EVERY chance to surrender, and had refused for no other reason than that they preferred the idea of obliteration to surrender. The atomic bombings were totally justified. It saved American lives, and the US government has no obligation to let its people die to satisfy the depraved murder-worship of some barbarous pagan savages across the Pacific.
>>13357 No seems like the easy answer. They could have at least dropped it on Mt Fuji or something to limit casualties of civilians and then said next on on Tokyo unless you immediately surrender. Lesson learned: Never sucker-punch America.
>>18214 I know. But I'm saying that the dropping of the bombs had a sufficiently traumatising effect on the citizens of the world. I'm also saying that it was probably likely that it would have discouraged the use of future nuclear confrontations due to the fact that people have seen what they can do. It's not so much a moral point as a what-if due to historical inevitabilities.
>>13357 americans couldn't handle the sophisticated level of nip banter desu. bunch of spergs dropping bombs on people just because they got btfo. a country with proper bantz would have simply laughed off pearl harbour as some high-level banter and proceeded to bantz back by dropping flyers depicting anime drawings of the emperor blushing at the size of ameri-kuns penis.
jokes aside, it is like the response to 9/11. americans will call it justified but the rest of the world knows that the us are bullies. world police? america has been a terrorist nation since they decided to nuke japan. it stopped one war but it started another and since then, americans have been forcing other nations to comply with us economic and political interests using their military might and propaganda for public support. i believe that the bombings were not about making japan surrender, but either about testing the weapons on an actual target or showing the world that america is #1 now. there was way too much overkill for it to be something people should view as justified. this is getting dangerously close to a /pol/ post so i'm going to stop now.
the bombing is kinda justifiable, but looking at it in the context of the future, it is the start of an unjustifiable slippery slope so i am going to say no. anyone who views it as justified rather than overkill is a moron or an american.
>>18460 There is no doubt part of American's intent was to tell Russia they would lose a continued ground war in Europe. And yes the upside of the bombing was it probably did prevent any further usage of the weapons since.
The japs still weren't willing to surrender unconditionally (in this case, meaning acceding to all demands except keeping the Emperor as a figurehead - we had communicated a while before the bombs dropped that we were willing to make that concession).
>i believe that the bombings were not about making japan surrender, but either about testing the weapons on an actual target or showing the world that america is #1 now
Were the guys behind the decision glad about what it meant for America to be the first ones to have the bomb? Yes. Was that the MAIN reason we dropped it? No. Read about the final days of the war, Racing the Enemy is a good book.
>america has been a terrorist nation since they decided to nuke japan
We've been the least-shit global power in the history of the world. We were right cunts in Latin America and parts of Asia, but in general we governed our sphere with a much lighter hand than anyone who came before us.
If we didn't become a global superpower, either the Soviets would have taken everything, or the shithead Eurocunts who fucked up the world before WW2 would have continued as the leaders of the Western world. US hegemony was better than either alternative.
>>18555 There are huge differences between the bombing of Japan and post-9/11 Allied confrontations.
The Nippons had: > A unified army > A militarised and fascist culture > A unified, figurehead, ideology and government > Had the influence of a Capitalism-based economy > heavily mechanised army > Had positive dealings with the Axis western powers of it's day > a population who could be described as "passive" in their dealings with an authority.
All of these points would eventually lead to a successful process of rebuilding and and dismantling of negative ideology in place of an American Capitalistic culture underneath one the greatest Despots in history, Douglas MacArthur.
By contrast Afghanistan had > an unruly population which had never been conquered, and hated secular society. > An enemy which did not answer to a unified government, but rather to various leaders acting under a vague ideology based off of Islam. > Not a Nationalistic so much as pan-Islamic Army didn't care who you were as long as you fitted well in a medium vest.
The invasion was lead by a rather stupid bunch of Conservatives and ex-communists who had no real idea of what they were trying to accomplish, except to retaliate, and fast. They were also dealing with an apathetic public.
>>18929 >If we didn't become a global superpower, either the Soviets would have taken everything, or the shithead Eurocunts who fucked up the world before WW2 would have continued as the leaders of the Western world. US hegemony was better than either alternative. i suppose there isn't a better alternative, it isn't so much the fault of america as a country or ideal so much as the fault of a corrupt government as far as the terrorism is concerned.
the whole unconditional surrender thing is what gets me though. it wasn't about ending the war quicker it was about not letting the soviets have japan. at least you guys built them up afterwards i suppose.
>>19128 where did i compare the two? saying that a dog barking led to a cat running doesn't mean that i am comparing dogs to cats. simply making an observation, the us gained power when it bombed japan and it has used that power dubiously since, in the interest of it's presidents. like how bush was in with the saudis. again, that is /pol/ though and this isn't really talking about history.
>>19128 I will also stress that what the American accomplished during the next five years was near miraculous
> Women's suffrage > Inoculations for diseases introduced to a population which still essentially had plague seasons. > Modern technology > Awareness of their part in the War > A development of truly incredible Jap-American relations, even after the sad spate of G.I related rapes occuring during the first couple of years. > Greater education > Rebuilding
And so much more. Seriously, by the time MacArthur was leaving for Korea, their was substantial support for him amongst the people he'd successfully pushed back.
>>19234 >where did i compare the two? I thought you tried to compare the American conquest of Japan with post-p/11 fighting, and I tried to point out how that was an imperfect comparison- due to the feasibility of the plan, the clear sense of it's conclusions and understanding of the culture that would be changed.
Also, the very concept and existence of a nuclear bomb and it's use is inherently immoral, enemy or otherwise. But they were a concept, and they were going to eventually be used. Also, I agree with you about our vampiric nature with the the Middle-Eastern States, but I don't see how Japan was leached from over the oncoming years.
Also, what would you suggest the Allied Powers do instead? Have them land in a universally costly manner, and fight tooth and nail into the great beast against ideological crazies after having just done the same thing in Europe?
>>19660 ah no, i just meant that the bombing kind of kicked off america's reign as world police. what's done is done, there is no real use worrying about what they could have done instead. perhaps a more political solution could have been arrived at though, had the americans said that "if you don't surrender, then we'll look the other way while the soviets rape you slavic".
surely they could have simply pointed out the atrocities the soviets committed in occupied territories? i'd think that a horde of rape obsessed communists washing over japan would be a bigger threat than another bombing. americans could have played the honour card but they chose to flex in front of the soviets instead.
>>20101 Well, regarding the Soviets- they desperately wanted to have a similar situation to Germany in Japan for their day or so of fighting. And there were heaps of Soviet operatives throughout Japan trying to set up uprisings agains the unbudging American power. Instead, the Americans thought back through censorship, arrests etc, and successfully pushed them out. More importantly though, they won the ideological War through their generosity as (relatively) benign rulers.
The important thing is that the Americans had the media power, whereas in Europe it was shared.
>>26220 They had no chance. But they did have overinflated self confidence after getting lucky in the Japanese-Russo war and thought they could quickly steamroll some Pacific islands quick enough to make America sue for peace.
Yes. Japan was prepared to fight until the end, regardless if every single one of them died. There's a term for it, I just can't remember it. Two nukes caused a hell of a lot less casualties on both sides than a full-land invasion.
There were Japanese up until the 1990's still rogue, and attempting to continue WW2.
They didn't recognize those are an environmental destruction weapons. They said that radioactive contamination is the effect by weapons after bombing. That is their mistake, isn't it? How did they make a plan for bringing a war to an end by the weapon whom they don't understand about the effect?
This thread is full of Americans and their propaganda.
Japan would have surrendered even without the bombs. In fact, they tried to surrender before the bombs, but Americans rejected it and dropped the nukes, and then they accepted a surrender proposal nearly identical to the previous one. It's an absolutely unjustifiable murder of hundreds of thousands civilians.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.