OK, was it wrong to bomb Japan?

Those who saw the video know the correct answer. The US Government bent over backwards to NOT kill civilians. Civilians in many cities all got written warnings in their language. And so many flyers were dropped they can't claim they never heard of the flyers. Truman did not do it to kill humans. HE told them in writing why he was going to destroy cities. Had people watched the video, they would know much more than they do now.

 

People the Japaneses government was planning on mounting mass attacks on heavily armed US forces using civilians including old men and very young boys.

If they had indeed thrown hundreds of thousands of such people against our troops then more by far of Japanese people would had died just from those kinds of attacks then by the two atom bombings.

Footnote there was an interesting novel by the name of The Burning Mountain where the author have the atom bomb test failing and the US therefore invading the home islands.

He study the invasion plans of the US and the defense plans of the Japanese military to write a very interest book concerning the likely blood bath that would had resulted.

 

Not if was two cities filled with military targets as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were.

 

Yes. And people love to express outrage over Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of the nuclear factor. Perhaps they would have preferred those locations have been dealt with like Dresden? Sorry, but war is not pretty; that's why it's called war...

 

Interesting video. And I understand the frustrations of the guy... however, he probably is not aware of the following facts like probably 90% of the American public and the rest of the world is not aware of:


Pearl Harbor was not a 'surprise attack' by the Japanese, it was outright wanted, provoked and expected by Roosevelt & co.

This due to the fact that he wanted the US to join in WW II, but the American public did not have interest in another World War on European soil.
So, under the leadership of Roosevelt the US government halted oil shipments and freezed assets of the Japanese, months before the attack on Pearl Harbor:



This of course would have led to the economic devastation of Japan, which they took as an act of war. They did not have another option than to attack, as otherwise they would have bled dry. However, as what is being sold as a 'surprise attack' to the American public and the world for the past 75 years, wasn't a surprise at all. The newspapers on Hawaii knew it was under way and even warned about it:





And if the Hawaiian newspaper knew, then the US government also knew.


After the attack on Pearl Harbor, suddenly the newspaper reads "Hawaii attacked without warning"



So within a few weeks after the attack, hundreds of thousands of Americans enlisted for the army to 'defend' their Nation in a war that was clearly instigated by their own government.

 

Read your history... both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.

 

I agree in that we could have won conventionally at some point but at what cost one year or more of bloody war, the death of many thousands of our troops and more horror of them killing our POWs under their care which did happen. Dropping the bombs war horrific but did end the war and cause Stalin to pause from any idea of exploiting the global situation to add more territory to his post-war gains.

There was a lot at stake plus we spent a fortune developing it so using it was kind of reasonable to show a return on the investment.

 

Japan would have starved to death before winter ended. The goal of dropping the bombs was to prevent the Soviets from grabbing more Japanese territory before they surrendered.

- - - Updated - - -

There never would have been a land invasion. We had a total blockade of Japan and air supremacy. We would have starved them out.

 

To answer the question in the OP:

Given what was *definitively* known at the time, it was the right decision.

Given what we know now, it wasn't. We should have targeted the Japanese leadership until we killed everyone who was fighting against their own surrender. A lot of Jalanese officers and officials were already debating calling for a surrender.

 

Starve them to death....much better than just blowing them up?

Lol. Neither is any better than the other.

And before you say it...no they would not have surrendered before losing hundreds of thousands to starvation and disease.

 

I did not watch the video, but thank you for bringing up this topic. The US was wrong big time to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.

Furthermore you are correct that a fission bomb is nothing compared to a fusion bomb. Those who want to follow Hillary Clinton down the road to confrontation with Russia had better beware what they are doing. People like Hillary Clinton and that warmonger crowd are leading the world towards a big disaster.

 

It would have been wrong to not drop the bomb. The arguments have already been presented in this thread. To pretend that less life would have been lost is ignorant of the evidence that overwhelmingly suggests otherwise.

 

Like the 10 million that the Japanese killed throughout Indonesia, Asia, and Pacific islands?

 

I was countering the argument that our only options were nukes or invasion.

 

How about the bombing of Dresden ? That didnt end any war and was totally a waste and a war crime. Heck the Japanese didnt even surrender after getting hit with the 1st bomb.

 

I don't think there can be any doubt that the war was won without the bombs and that they were for the surrender of Japan unnecessary.
What it did do was to delay any Russian plans on challenging the US until they themselves had the bomb. It also did show the destructiveness of the weapon which probably was a good thing going forward.

 

So your saying Truman was like Obama and didnt listen to his military advisors? Do you have any idea of the casualties we would have taken invading Japan never mind those we would inflict on the Japanese.

 

`
`
I watched the vid and found it interesting. I hate war but I'm also an adherent of the "Just War Theory" as presented by Augustine/Aquinas. Aside from all the other reasons for bombing Japan, there are also those who say it was done as retribution for the atrocities the Japanese committed against American POW's, and others. Unit 731 anyone?

 

I haven't watched the video yet.

Frankly, using the phrase "well researched" in the same sentence with PJ Media is ludicrous. Pajama Media is famous for made nonsense and conspiracy theories.

While Roosevelt created a Joint Chiefs in 1942, it did not have the same composition that it does now.

The JC, as constituted in those days, were George C. Marshal, Leahey, Ernest King, and Hap Arnold.

To my knowledge Marshall did not go on record opposing the use of the bomb, but he defer, thinking it was a political decision. He did suggest telling the Russians instead of using it. This, of course, was done at Potsdam.

http://www.doug-long.com/marshall.htm

I suspect that Arnold was a strong proponant, given his long advocacy of strategic bombing.

If my memory serves me, I believe Leahey was opposed.

We know that elements of the Japanese government made overtures through Sweden before the bomb was dropped. However, it is not clear what standing the people behind it actually had.

The reality is that it was a political decision.

 

Those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind.

 

Invading japan was not needed. They were ready for surrender. The bomb was not for japan......it was for russia

- - - Updated - - -

I don't believe those women and children did anything wrong

- - - Updated - - -

They were cities filled with women and children

 

The Japanese sowed the wind.

 

Yes the bombing of Dresden was a war crime

 

We never would have invaded. We had a total blockade of the home islands and air supremacy. We could have fire bombed their food growing regions and starved them out before the end of Winter '45/46.

 

Pearl Harbor was not a 'surprise attack' by the Japanese, it was outright wanted, provoked and expected by Roosevelt & co.

This due to the fact that he wanted the US to join in WW II, but the American public did not have interest in another World War on European soil.
So, under the leadership of Roosevelt the US government halted oil shipments and freezed assets of the Japanese, months before the attack on Pearl Harbor:



This of course would have led to the economic devastation of Japan, which they took as an act of war. They did not have another option than to attack, as otherwise they would have bled dry. However, as what is being sold as a 'surprise attack' to the American public and the world for the past 75 years, wasn't a surprise at all. The newspapers on Hawaii knew it was under way and even warned about it:





And if the Hawaiian newspaper knew, then the US government also knew.


After the attack on Pearl Harbor, suddenly the newspaper reads "Hawaii attacked without warning"



So within a few weeks after the attack, hundreds of thousands of Americans enlisted for the army to 'defend' their Nation in a war that was clearly instigated by their own government.