You cannot judge morality without the historical context. So you are President Truman, your choices to end the war are to Invade Japan that would probably left 100,000 Americans dead and 1 million Japaneses or drop the bombs with 0 American dead and 200,000 Japanese. Anecdote: My Dad was in the Pacific for 3 1/2 years, he referred to Dec. 7th as National Kill A Jap Day until he died in 2002, he would ave gladly dropped 50 atomic bombs in 1945. And back to the point: I do not want hear about any Biden gaffs, this moron is The Gaffenator.
Yes the Japanese were horrible but we also weren't great. The Allies could claim moral superiority in regards to not enslaving conquered people or conducting scientific experiments on the prisoners like the Japanese did. That said killing civilians was common practice for all sides. To win the war you had to both defeat the enemy on the battlefield and also the ability of it's population to sustain a war. That meant bombing targets such as industrial sites and populations centers. Keep in mind this was a time without such things as guided missiles. Bombing was much closer to horseshoes than it was to being a sniper. As said even prior to the dropping of the A-bombs hundreds of thousands of Japanese were killed by fire bombings of Tokyo and other cities. This is why I said the war was very morally ambiguous and the end of the war from the A-bombs were just more moral ambiguity. One could argue the Japanese deserved it from such things as the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, Comfort Women, and any number of atrocities they committed. Another argument is that an invasion of the Japanese home Islands would lead to many more deaths of Japanese as they fought to the bitter end like they did in Okinawa and took with them as many Allied forces as possible. Those are valid concerns but I personally can't say if the A-Bombs and frying hundreds of thousands in the explosion and then through radiation poisoning was right. I don't think there is any clear answer.
The Japanese murdered, raped, and tortured civilians all over Asia including American troops. There were a lot of bombing raids throughout Europe and Japan that resulted in a huge loss of civilian life. The Dresden and Tokyo bombings were particularly infamous. The wars of the early 20th century were more concerned with winning than who got killed.
I largely agree with what you and Os cited. That said there still is some historical debate whether Japan would've surrendered without the A-Bombs and it does appear that even before the bombing of Hiroshima there was serious talk within the Japanese government. After the Hiroshima it sounds like the camp for surrender was gaining the upper hand they were appealing to the Emperor to put his weight behind surrender. While Hiroshima might've been necessary to push the Japanese to surrender it sounds like Nagasaki wasn't and that the Japanese were already going to surrender. One of the part of the history is that the US wanted to send a message to the Soviet Union through the A-Bombs. While there was discussion of just dropping it somewhere where it wouldn't kill a lot of people that that wouldn't be enough of a message to both the Japanese and the Soviets.
Well said and I think you can talk about the moral ambiguity on both sides with one very significant exception. The Japanese were trying to conquer other countries and subjugate their populations whereas the US was defending itself. If it were the Japanese that had dropped an atomic bomb on San Francisco as an invader I think it would have looked vastly different than what the US did in trying to end the war.
I agree the Japanese needed to be defeated and were the aggressors. When I talk about moral ambiguity I'm talking about how the war was conducted.
Pretty much this. The US will always hold the original sin of being the first nation to drop a nuclear weapon on another nation. That we have stockpiles to wipe out civilization a hundred times over means we're not going to be in line to openly accept payback any time soon. Despite Japan's tremendous success rebuilding itself and its vow of having only a military for self defense, they haven't won their neighbor's sympathies back for getting nuked. That should tell you how earnest they've tried to make up for their past with the biggest culprits being are their blatant whitewashing of history and that damn shrine. Something about that religious/cultural fervor that still stands to this day means they wouldn't have given up as easily at a time when their perceived supremacy were at all time highs. Maybe that second nuke damned the US of any substantial excuse, or maybe as a bloodthirsty and violent culture, we should all understand how easy war escalates to total war when there are no clear winners after blitzes or shock n awes. We seem to be fine having a war in almost every year of our existence, so maybe we're good at not crossing that line... Hey Chi-Na
By what intelligence was the US to infer that from at the time? You surrender when you surrender, if you don't we are still fighting.
It's very unclear what the US knew or didn't know at the time but another argument is that the US didn't really intend to give Japan that much time to consider surrender after the bombing Hiroshima. In fact the bombing of Nagasaki was moved up two days due to weather.
I have studied it and the bomb was not not needed. You could have easily have chosen smaller targets and worked up to larger ones. Blowing the top off Mt Fuji would not be a demonstration of weakness. lol. Also I am VERY critical of Dresden and other times we bombed civilians. You falsely assume I don't care when you bring that up like it somehow makes a difference in the argument. And as far as manning up, it would have been a lot better if we blockaded the island or fought instead of killing little kids. Murdering innocents is not excusable in my book. This was done to intimidate Russia, and nothing more. I don't buy the greater death toll argument; and good luck proving it because no other scenario played out. I also don't think Russia was going to steam roll Europe. Especially if we had nuclear domination. We could blow up their targets and mountain top as well because they didn't have that tech at the time. All in all though, I really think blowing up a mountain is a great idea and would have worked. There is nothing weak about that, and you don't need to lay waste to kids. Hell, do that first, exhaust such a simple option, before killing kids. Sure killing kids shows you don't give af, but I do give af. Maybe I am "weak" but blowing up Mt. Fuji and other heritage sites might actually be more effective and ethical than just bombing innocents. Did it work? Yes. Did they exhaust other options? No. Not even a **** was given because they were "japs" and subhuman in the eyes of many Americans at the time.
"Truman knew that the Japanese were searching for a way to end the war; he had referred to Togo’s intercepted July 12 cable as the 'telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace.'" "Generals Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry “Hap” Arnold and Admirals William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, and William Halsey are on record stating that the atomic bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both." "No one was more impassioned in his condemnation than Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff. He wrote in his memoir 'that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender …. In being the first to use it we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.'" "MacArthur thought the use of atomic bombs was inexcusable. He later wrote to former President Hoover that if Truman had followed Hoover’s “wise and statesmanlike” advice to modify its surrender terms and tell the Japanese they could keep their emperor, 'the Japanese would have accepted it and gladly I have no doubt.'" "Before the bombings, Eisenhower had urged at Potsdam, 'the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.'" https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-atomic-bombs
this statement pretty much shows you haven't studied it ("I have studied it") enough. I don't believe there is any historian who argues such a simplistic explanation. One factor among many? yes. But not, "nothing more."
OK maybe Truman also liked beating off to the video footage. But really, this was largely about intimidating russia and showing who is boss. We didn't need it to end the war. Go ahead and ignore 99% of the rest of my post and the nuance provided. I will also point out that this theory is not an uncommon one. Many critics of the bomb dropping make this argument. It isn't even original. You can learn this in documentaries that aren't even against the bomb droppings themselves because one of the effects was to intimidate Russia from making gains in Europe and East Asia. You are the one who needs to go study up.
"We didn't need it to end the war." "Need," maybe not. But the bombs were effective. They ended the war almost instantly and resulted in Japan's unconditional surrender, perhaps saving anywhere from 1.5 million to 10-12 million lives in the process. Perhaps if you were Truman you might have made a different decision. That's fine. But the U.S. had been at war for nearly four years and was ready for it to end.
BS. They were looking to surrender because Russia was on their doorstep. They knew a two front war was impossible. We also knew they wanted surrender and we had options regarding that. You are parroting a classic lie that was used to justify the droppings. Even high ups, one who became a president mind you, agree it was not needed. We were never going to have a land battle, and that option was one of many. And we had better options than that available. Much better options. This was about intimidation against Russia which was massively pushing expansion... of Communism. And if you want to get more into it... perhaps it is more than showing Russia who is boss. It is also about hate, revenge, and zero respect for Japanese civilian life because of years of propaganda dehumanizing the enemy.
Reds and blues both defending the atomic bomb! "Coz the Japs were vicious. Every single one. Worse than Euros. The little Japanese kids in school that day (twice). It didn't hurt: they got vaporized. Except for the far away ones. You know how marshmallows are when you're camping and all snuggly around the fire?"
