Alright, time to get into the meat and potatoes. Do you guys think the second atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki was justified by the United States?
No bomb at all on non-Anglo countries was every justified.
Only Anglo subhumans should have the right to die in firebombings.
You could also argue the Japanese high command would've surrendered to the United States anyway once the Soviets started invading Manchuria, atomic bomb or not. I mean, it isn't exactly a hard decision, choosing to be occupied by either the US or the Soviets.
Yes. It was evil, no doubt, but it was a necessary evil. We had to be absolutely certain that the Japanese High Command knew that they faced annihilation. Given how delusionally committed to prosecuting the war they were in August 1945, it was quite possible that they would have continued to fight so that all of Japan could have died in a massive bushido last stand.
From an American point of view it was vital to rapidly secure a prestige and moral victory over the Japanese even more after the first bomb since the soviet routed the remaining Japanese armies on the continent in during same week.
Like that Yes.
From another point of view No.
The Japanese lost it all after the first bomb ; the soviet crushing them in Manchuria and menacing to invade (they were the last back chance for surrendering not to the Americans) they were going to surrender during the month (maximum) anyway the emperor willing or no.
From what I recall, they were obtaining a lot of their ingredients from the Europe, so making more would be really difficult. They certainly had the capability
No where near as many as pic related, a flyer dropped on Japan
Arguing on terms of reason on a war is silly.
Were the bombs terrible things that we should strive our best to never use again? Yeah. But its not like the war itself was not terrible and with the Soviets at the door you can understand why America wanted to be showy.
You're a fucking dumbass
The marxists/progressives running the US wanted to make a duo-polar world with the USSR
So Japan unconditionally surrendering was the only acceptable outcome for them.
Japan was willing to negotiate long before 45, or before war even started in the first place.
War with japan was only a casus belli to get into WW2 after all.
If not by the US then by someone else.
I agree nuclear warheads were a mistake, but the bombing of Japan isn't what should be blamed.
If anything, the horror and after math of the bombings have helped prevent them from being used further.
>The marxists/progressives running the US wanted to make a duo-polar world with the USSR
Less than a day old and we have /pol/tard level conspiracy theorist
between your type and armchair wiki historians (add the Reddit), this board is doomed
If the United States had not dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, the world would not have united in disgust against atomic weapons.
Without massive public pressure against there use, Atomic weapons would have been used in the Cold War and there would be no survivors.
>War with japan was only a casus belli to get into WW2 after all.
>You're a fucking dumbass
What is Pearl Harbor? Japan started a war it could not win. How could the American high command know that Japan was willing to surrender when they were facing kamikaze attacks every day? This /pol/ shit you're spouting about marxists in the US is the only dumb thing in this thread.
>Like chemical weapons, nuclear force is something entirely different to conventional warfare.
Only if you're talking about the environmental effects on the planet itself. In terms of effects on people, the results are the same.
The thing about the a-bomb is its power to fully desolate a city. Everyone gets some shivers when they think that a single weapon could destroy them and everyone they know while making their hometown into a uninhabitable piece of scorched land.
>~150000 Nips die
>Don't use bomb
>Millions of Nips die
It was but not for the official reasons. Only gullible ignorants still thinks Japan wasn't already an American colony before the bombs drops. USA's history is a giant lump of disgusting false flags like that.
One of the biggest defenses of the bombing is that the loss of life was collectively lesser than if there were prolonged combat. Regardless of Russian involvement, it's clear that the Japanese had no intentions of surrendering. There would have been massive casualties from continued conflict, pushing against a country that would rather collapse slowly than surrender is rarely the best option.
Not to mention that more people died from firebombing alone. While the civilian casualties were high, the overall kill count is lower than it would have been.
Oh good, the German shitposters moved over from /pol/ to /his/. Stay mad, keks.
>Japan was willing to negotiate long before 45
Allowing Japan to keep its military and then current form of government (which they wanted to do) was absolutely unacceptable. They tried to build an empire, got roughly 25 million people killed in the process, and then basically wanted a cease fire. That's bullshit.
>Japan started a war it could not win.
Japan never intended to win the war. For example, many of the Japanese navel commanders were educated in the USA --- in their eyes, America was decadent and lazy. Japan was hoping America would eventually accept some kind of cease-fire or white peace.
But you're right. Most people were surprised that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. FDR had anticipated Japanese aggression for nearly a decade. Many of the high command assumed it would first happen in the Philippines
The goal of Japan was to wipe out at least 1/4th (?, might be wrong) of the Pacific Fleet station at Pearl Harbor. Funny enough, over 1/4th had already set sail for the Atlantic. Japan reconnaissance decided to attack anyways. People living on Pearl Harbor could describe the smiles of the Japanese pilots as they gleefully hung out their windows while shooting the island.
Reading book surrounding the surrender of Japan (Racing the Enemy, if anyone is interested).
Two bombs were considered absolutely necessary, to convince the japs that we had a sizable stockpile of them. If we stopped at one, it was thought that the japs would think that we had used our only bomb.
The main argument of the book, as I gather so far, is that the japs surrendered mostly because of the Soviet declaration of war. Partially extra fear of occupation by them, partially because until the very end they had been hoping that the Soviets would help broker a more favorable peace for Japan, to create a buffer/ally against US influence in Asia in the post-war world.
The killing of people isn't what causes the outrage from the bombs; it was the way it was done. A single bomb wiped out thousands in a matter of minutes. Not dropping the bombs means invading mainland Japan, which would have led to casualties on both ends, leading to many more people dying. The bombs aren't even the most devastating events in terms of civilian casualties during WW2. That would be the firebombing of Dresden. But people don't talk about that as much because it was with conventional firebombs.
>most devastating events in terms of civilian casualties during WW2.
>That would be the firebombing of Dresden
>Not the Siege of Leningrad
Why does nobody ever ask the more serious question? Was the war itself justified? What could have been done to avoid it? Getting mad about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is pointless because that's what ultimately ended the conflict.
Oh hey, I read that book, too. It's fairly legitimate even if I don't agree with all of the author's assertions, but I do have to admit the written entries describing the high command's thoughts on the soviets are pretty good at shedding light in how the government worked at the time. One part in the book IIRC has it describe how Hirohito summoned a high ranking official and basically told him that it was absolutely necessary to broker a surrender deal rather than continue fighting now that the soviets were involved, and after Molotov rejected the offer to negotiate a peace deal (due to them already preparing for Potsdam). That being said I still would think the atomic bombs had a significant effect as being a single bomb that could ruin a whole city, even despite the previous bombing campaigns.
Honestly, the boring answer is that probably both the soviet invasion and the atomic bombs led to surrender, I guess then it's only a matter of which had more weight in determining it.
>Why does nobody ever ask the more serious question?
I've honestly come to wonder this after seeing these types of debates. To me, the more serious question is whether or not civilian bombings can be justified any under circumstance, e.g. was it justified to bomb Japanese civilians at all because their population was so fanatical about the war?
>was it justified to bomb Japanese civilians at all because their population was so fanatical about the war?
Or rather, I should say, would it be wise to justify that sort of reasoning (the danger being that it would set future precedents on what is considered ethical), and if so, where does that place us ethically compared to the people making the decisions over 70 years ago?
I think the Soviets alone would have been enough - the Japanese already knew the consequences of the US having total air superiority, and the bomb would have just hastened the inevitable. The shock that really mattered, in terms of changing their minds, was the realization that any Soviet mediation was impossible.
Perhaps the increased rate of destruction of the bomb would have made them think that waiting for a Soviet-brokered peace was useless, but I doubt it.
Now, that doesn't mean that the US government had all of that in mind when we decided to drop the bomb. I don't think our intelligence apparatus within Japan proper was that great, certainly nothing compared to what the Soviets got from their spy-diplomats. I don't think we knew how much the Japanese were staking on the Soviet Union helping them out, and so the atomic bomb made a lot more sense.
If the question is one between an Axis-dominated world, and terror-bombing, I'll take the terror-bombing. Putting aside the issue of whether or not the civilian populations deserved it for supporting their jingoistic shitlord rulers, it was seen as the main way to strike at an enemy when it was impossible/extremely undesirable to contend with them on land. In hindsight, it may not have been necessary to win the war, but at the time, it wasn't completely clear that the Soviets would enter the war, then it wasn't clear whether they would win the war, then it had already become standard policy, and was believed to be significantly damaging the German war machine (which would save lives on the eastern front, and when the western front was reopened). And for Japan, we knew from the beginning that any invasion of the home islands would be extremely bloody, and the fighting on Okinawa only reinforced that idea.
The state of their war effort is irrelevant.
Bottom line, they were testing two different bomb technologies.
It's the same reason why drugs are tested on animals and then humans before coming out in the market, and plane models are put on wind tunnels: There is no realistic way to predict the outcome of such complex endeavors without proper real life testing
They needed to level two different cities to test how each one worked on actual buildings, and actual people, and study yield, destruction ratio, health effects on short and long terms.
>German being this butthurt
Yes. We nuked them once and they still did not yield. It took a second one.
Also, everyone gets all butthurt about the nukes but far more people died in the tokyo firebombing than in both nuclear explosions combined.
And I have to wonder how many committed suicide because their god emperor told them to do it?
USSR, after these traitorous assholes leaked intel on how to build a nuke.
>mfw there are still historians unironically claiming that Julius Rosenberg wasn't a Soviet agent
They were just foreigners
How can it be a surprise when non-white foreigners hold no allegiance to their host country?
There were countless other communists throughout the US
All protected by the various administrations
>millions of people died in WW2
>for some reason everybody focuses on this one event.
Yes. Because weaboos would not surrender at the time within a hundred years. More lives would have been lost and the unnecessary carnage and destruction would have continued. There was even a fucking guy who spent 30 years in the jungle of the islands after the war ended and refused to surrender even with planes dropping leaflets and flying his family over him so they could talk to him on loud speaker.
Hadn't the Japanese been trying to surrender to the Soviets for almost a year before we nuked them? Nobody would let them surrender, everyone was trying to scoop up clay and make a point at that point of the war, and Japan was merely the whipping boy.
> From an American point of view …
This is a really interesting perspective. I have no idea whether it's justified, but thanks for that because I didn't even consider that the form victory takes would affect the way citizens on the "winning" side would feel about it.
They were told of the bombs before the first was dropped and were asked to surrender and they didnt.
They were asked the day of the first bomb to surrender and they didnt.
They were asked for 2 days following the first bomb to surrender and they didnt
They were asked on the day of the 2nd bomb to surrender and they didnt.
Leaflets were dropped on all major cities as well as extensive radio broadcasts warning citizens of the impending attacks
Far more people would have died in a ground invasion
Yes it was justified. It brought the war to a swift end and arguably minimized the loss of life.
Allies wanted Hirohito to give up being emperor
His refusal led to the second bomb. America decided more civilian casualties weren't worth it and let him surrender while keeping the throne.
>Hadn't the Japanese been trying to surrender to the Soviets for almost a year before we nuked them?
If by "trying to surrender" you mean "trying to win over the Soviets as mediators for a peace" then they'd been trying that for a few months. The Soviets as a fairly reasonable first step (notwithstanding the fact that they by this point had already decided to enter the war against them) asked for what terms the Japanese wanted. And the Japanese ambassador then repeatedly asked his foreign minister for what terms they wanted. And he never got a concrete answer? Why.
Because: at no point in the war prior to August of 1945 did the Japanese government ever internally agree to what terms it would actually find acceptable.
Here is one message from the Japanese ambassador on the left asking straight up how exactly they though they could end the war before he bothered Molotov again, and being told straight up they hadn't actually decided on peace conditions.
And just to give you an idea of what conditions they're talking about, it's not just talking about whether the Emperor stays on a figurehead, it's about shit like (and this is from a message sent at the end of July 1945) whether or not Japan was willing to given up Korea yet. He never got an answer on that.
>It's not about the deaths but opening Pandora's box of nuclear warfare.
Thank god it was opened early and stigmatized while it was still small, then. Imagine if we had skipped the small time atomic bombs and our first actual usage of them in war had been H-bombs. That would have been fucked up.
Either both bombs were justified or neither was because they both had the same goals: force a quick capitulation of Japan to prevent american casualities and demonstrate to the rest of the world the power of the atomic bomb.
The US had Japan beaten and a naval blockade in place. Victory was inevitable but it would have been a long grind of starving the japanese out of their will to fight with military losses on both sides as Japan mounts its last desperate attempts to break the blockade. Instead of letting it come to that the US decided to kill a bunch of civiliains instead. Anyone has to think for themselves if it was justified. [spoiler] Assuming justified means what doing 'what is just' the answer is no of course. Also I sure hope this board has spoilers or I'm going to look silly.
Here's the big secret: there was no political decision to drop the second bomb. It was a breakdown of civilian/military oversight.
Because under the terms of Truman's initial authorization, the USAAF didn't actually need the ok to drop a second bomb, it was completely up to the general officers. And they did so. Because they wanted to scare the Soviets? Because they wanted more information? Because they wanted to show the Japanese the first bomb wasn't a one off example? Nope. Because USAAF doctrine said you hit the enemy as soon as you could with everything you had available. And if that meant there wasn't enough time for the Japanese to process the information about the first bomb, then that's their problem. It was completely against their strategic thinking to have a bomb ready and NOT drop it. Which is why they also pushed as hard as possible for the third bomb to be dropped immediately as soon as it was available later in August.
After the second bombing, Truman then quietly issued orders that nothing else could happen without his specific authorization. And he could certainly never admit it had been a surprise to him, but it was.