Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombing?
I have to write a persuasive essay about whether the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was worth the thousands that died. Thanks Guys
- BeauLv 69 years agoFavorite Answer
It was unjustified in my opinion.
By August 1945, the Second World War was over. The US were never going to invade Japan whether Japan surrendered or not after the atomic bombings - the planned invasion had been shelved in July 1945 after the high number of US casualties in Okinawa. Truman cited a high cost invasion of Japan to justify to the US public why he used WMDs on civilians (which is a war crime - imagine if it had been the other way around with Japan dropping 2 nukes on 200,000 US civilians). The fact is, a US invasion was never going to occur, the US Navy were firmly against it and was leading a blockade that was working to hasten an end to the war.
Whether Japan did surrender as a result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is debatable. A more convincing argument is that Russia's declaration of war on Japan and subsequent invasion of Manchuria was the bigger reason why Japan surrendered. The firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 resulted in more casualties than Hiroshima, and it was the capital city. By March 1945 Japan already knew that the war was over. But unlike atomic bombs, firebombings could be continually repeated. So why didn't Japan surrender in March 1945 after Tokyo had been firebombed nearly to the destructive scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Simply because the aerial bombing of Japanese cities had been going on consistently since 1942, and were therefore nothing out of the ordinary. Although atomic bombs were different, the outcome from the victims' perspective - dead civilians and a ruined city - was the same as an extensive firebombing raid. It had to take something monumental to convince the Japanese government to give in, such as Russia entering the war with the potential to invade and occupy Japan itself.
Evidence that suggests the atomic bombs were merely a propaganda show aimed at Russia was the fact that Russia declared war and invaded the Empire of Japan at midnight on 9 August, 1945. The atomic bombs were dropped on 6 August and 9 August (at 8.30am, Tokyo time). Truman knew that the Russians would enter the Pacific War on 9 August due to an agreement made at the Yalta Conference between Roosevelt and Stalin that Russia would enter the Pacific War no later than 3 months after Germany had signed its surrender (which happened at midnight on 9 May, 1945, Moscow time). The 9 August is 3 months after 9 May.
Also consider the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were included on a list of cities that were left untouched from aerial bombing. Truman wanted to preserve these cities so that the full extent of damage from nuclear bombs on whole cities and its radiation effects on people could be assessed. The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission set up by Truman in 1946 was not created to medically treat the victims, but to research the effects of radiation. One can therefore wonder: How is bombing 200,000 people to death and then researching the survivors for scientific purposes any different to the scientific experimentations conducted by the Axis?
There is no doubt the existence of Japanese fanatical troops in the Pacific, but to dispel the American propaganda that all Japanese soldiers, men, women and children would fight to the death, take into account the 600,000+ Japanese troops who surrendered to the Russians during the month of August, 1945 during the Russian invasion of Manchuria. This is one of the largest military capitulations of WW2 - six times larger than the German surrender at Stalingrad. Also consider the fact that at the Battle of Iwo Jima, General Kuribayashi evacuated all Japanese civilians - men, women and children - from the island. The only Japanese that the Americans engaged at Iwo Jima were soldiers. So forcing civilians to resist was not a strictly enforced Japanese nationwide policy, but something that was exaggerated by Truman to again justify the use of nuclear weapons on civilians. To evaluate the difference between Iwo Jima and Okinawa, one must understand that Okinawans were not Japanese.
The conventional American history textbook says that the atomic bombs caused Japan's surrender and was justified because it was favourable to a high cost invasion. This is only taught to justify a decision in which Americans would feel uncomfortable of if there was no justifiable reason for it. I bet that no American history textbooks make any mention of the Russian invasion of Manchuria, arguably the most decisive factor in Japan's decision to surrender, or the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were preserved from previous aerial bombing, or the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission.
This simple quotation from Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the US Pacific Fleet in WWII sums up best the military necessity of using nukes on civilians: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
- ?Lv 44 years ago
in reality the eastern refused to offer up and would have fought till eventually each body of their infantrymen were lifeless. the U. S. also needed to attempt the A Bomb in a genuine international project so this worked out suitable. various of the Generals in command for the U. S. did not prefer to apply the bomb as they felt they could reduce casualties through negotiating a treaty. Truman replaced right into a genuine ***** of a president and needed to do it only to ensure what got here about. In all reality it had not something to do with the eastern surrendering. See to the eastern Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only 2 extra cities further to the list of dozens of cities that had already been leveled from aerial bombing from US planes., the only reason the eastern surrendered replaced into because at the same time the Russians were invading from the north and actual destroying the eastern forces on their very personal floor. the eastern determined it may be extra sensible to offer as a lot because the U. S. and get extra sensible words than to be thoroughly taken over through the Russians. that is the genuine heritage of all of it.
- siamvelvet72Lv 79 years ago
If we hadn't bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki then millions would have died. The Japanese home island had never been invaded before. When we invaded Okinawa we suffered the most loses during the war. It was house to house fighting. MacArthur feared that it would be the same if we invaded with huge causalities on both sides. We sent a warning to Hirohito that we would bomb and he ignored it. So we chose a factory town. Then after we bombed Hiroshima we asked for their surrender and they refused so three days later we bombed Nagasaki. It was justified. In the end it saved more lives. Many people don't believe so and say how could it have saved lives when thousands died in those bombs and from the radiation that followed. Think about having to fight civilians in house to house fighting with no sure sign of victory. It would have been a slaughter.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Well it was either drop the atomic bomb or land ground troops into Japan. The president was convinced that americans AND japanese would lose heavy casualties. Both options would end the war but, one had a lot less american deaths. Besides they had no idea how powerful the atomic bomb would be. So in short....
Blowing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a good thing.
Edit: Yes Needful Sinner the atomic bombs may have been useless but..
1. They were still in the war. They could have given up at any moment but, they didn't did they.
2. If we were to wait for them. They would rebuild their army and invade the US.
3. They needed to be motivated to surrender. If the US just waited them out then the US wouldn't help Japan rebuild their economy.
4. Bombs are awesome.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Needful SinnerLv 79 years ago
Alot of people will say 'of course, it was war'
Or 'if we invaded many would have died'.
That logic only applies to those that buy into the 'we would've had to invade' mindset.
It entirely ignores what is fact. The Japanese already were defeated, all that was needed was to wait them out from a distance.
The nukes were dropped to impress the Russians, Japan already was toast.
Japan being an island nation was entirely dependant on imports to sustain them as a people and to sustain their war effort... that need is what started the war in the first place. Advance the clock a few years and you have Japan entirely blocked by the USA, the submarine campaign against Japanese shipping so successful all of Japans merchant marine were on the bottom.
Rice crops can't feed a whole nation.
Japans military was a spent force. They have no oil or fuel, eg the Yamato only being given enough fuel for a one-way sortie, they sent the largest battleship in the world out without any fuel to return home with - that's how bad off they were. You have single B-29s like the ones that dropped atomic bombs and the reconnaissance planes that preceeded the drop flying over major citys - unmolested. In this invasion of the home islands in which so many millions were going to die - the Japanese were given bamboo spears to fight the enemy with.
How valid a threat is a country that can't delend their own airspace, doesn't have fuel for their Navy, and arms people with wooden spears?
Last and not least even the USA knew the Japanese were looking for a way out of the war... the priviso is a peace that saved face. They wanted their Emperor to remain leader [which when all is said and done is exactly what everyone agreed to and happened]
Add onto this the people who made the desicions had no idea what would happen when the bomb detonated [some scientists pictures the earths atmosphere burning up] nor what Japanese reaction would be like [some envisioned them taking out their horror on Allied POWs].
I think had the USA just kept firebombing them into the Stone Age [like they were] and left them to rot on the vine and starve... the Japanese who already were sending out peace feelers and the USA could've come to terms without the need for nukes.
Either way I don't want to be in the mindset where dropping nukes is ever justified and acceptable [lest someone use that reasoning on me, dropping a nuke is the best way to go - for whatever given reason].
Of course, people will disagree and I'll get thumbs down... which is pretty funny when you think about it lol, makes me chuckle anyways. This from the dropping nukes on civilians is a good thing crowd. ]'good' up until someone uses that same logic on your city]
- greydoc6Lv 79 years ago
I think if you ask the older generation, people who are 75 and beyond, they have fewer qualms about the bomb. It was them or us. Many families lost loved ones and they did not look forward to more loss. Nimitz's comments were from a military point of view. From a psychological point of view, the bomb was critical to ending the war when it did. But many claim that the real reason that Truman gave the go-ahead was to keep Russia out of Japan.