Need project help about WW2

[shadowspecter]

...I’m doing a survey again about what you think about the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities. Do you think it was right that the U.S. dropped the bomb on Japan and can you give me a reason why you think that? Thanks a lot if you can help me out. This topic will end by tomorrow because this assignment is due tomorrow...heh. I should learn by now that procrastinating is a bad thing...guess I will never learn...heh.

[johnny]

This discussion can go either way. The americans knew that if they were to invade Japan, there were going to be ALOT of casualties on their side. The japanese wouldn't have surrendered that easily, that's just not their nature.

So from an American point of view it's totally justifiable. By dropping the big one on Hiroshima and nagasaki, and then threatening to drop one on Tokio, they killed a lot of Japanese civillians, but saved the lifes of possibly tens of thousands of GI's. Not a very tough decision if you ask me.

[ 02-10-2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: johnny ]

[SecretMaster]

I say no. I just did a report on this too and here are some key facts to note.

1. The bombings of both cities killed more than double that of Pearl Harbor, and so the arguement of "the Japanese deserved it because of Pearl Harbor" is totally silenced right there.

2. Military Generals who commanded and fought against the Japanese all agreed that the bomb was not necessary to have Japan surrender (MacArthur for one, Eisenhower, and others). Japan was also practically in shambles before the bomb was dropped, and would not have lasted longer.

3. There were other means to negotiated a favorable surrender via Russians that Truman consciously knew about, but did not consider that idea.

[Faceman]

The following may sound cynical, but as it comes from a mostly America-critic European (me ) rest assured it's no right-wing parole, but simply a assertion of possible facts.

I think that the main reason to drop the bomb was to "show off", and I also think that
1.) It worked
2.) It was justified if not even necessary

Let me explain:
By dropping the A-bomb the US achieved several things
1.) They took the place as the world's first and foremost superpower, thus suppressing a possible upcoming conflict with the USSR by intimidation. This worked both ways and quickly turned into the Cold War. now a lot of bad things have been said about this time, but just try to imagine how a "Heated" war between comunist and wester countries (without A-bombs in that case) would/could have looked.
2.) An uncomparable destructive power ended WWII, making this war even more abhorrent than WWI and keeping most of the involved countries from entering a major conflict ever again.
3.) Public respect/fear of major war increased dramatically and has not decreased since.

Now I admit that this may not have been intended, and I would not support any nuclear strike now nor would I have back then.
Whatever the gain, I consider human life (regardless of numbers) to be a too high price for ANY of it. But I can see the political agenda behind it, I do get its point and I am quite content with the global political outcome.

To sum up:
IMHO
The US had no ethical right to drop the bomb (nobody has the right to take thouands of lifes).
The US had good reason to drop the bomb.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a political and strategical success.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the greatest human tragedy of the 20th century.

[ 02-10-2004, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

[SecretMaster]

Totally in agreement with Faceman here.

And another reason for why the bomb shouldn't have been dropped. Cold War, thats why. IMHO, this was the beginning to the cold war. We could have possibly avoided this or possibly prolounged it (along with a faster resolution as society advances) entirely.

[johnny]

Originally posted by SecretMaster: Totally in agreement with Faceman here. And another reason for why the bomb shouldn't have been dropped. Cold War, thats why. IMHO, this was the beginning to the cold war. We could have possibly avoided this or possibly prolounged it (along with a faster resolution as society advances) entirely.

Well, if it wasn't for the cold war, there would have probably been a real one. Take your pick.

[Paladin2000]

I agree with the above posts and something to add:

The American forces were suffering heavy casualties from kamikaze fighters in the fight for Okinawa. If they are going to lauch a full scale attack on the mainland Japan, the losses would be even more devastating, thus dropping the A-bombs is a more cost effective action.

[ 02-11-2004, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: Paladin2000 ]

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by SecretMaster: I say no. I just did a report on this too and here are some key facts to note. 1. The bombings of both cities killed more than double that of Pearl Harbor, and so the arguement of "the Japanese deserved it because of Pearl Harbor" is totally silenced right there. 2. Military Generals who commanded and fought against the Japanese all agreed that the bomb was not necessary to have Japan surrender (MacArthur for one, Eisenhower, and others). Japan was also practically in shambles before the bomb was dropped, and would not have lasted longer. 3. There were other means to negotiated a favorable surrender via Russians that Truman consciously knew about, but did not consider that idea.

I've never heard point #1 used as a justification for dropping the bomb, EVER.

Argument 2 is also questionable. The consensus among the military AT THE TIME, was that the Japanese were more than prepared for a protracted defense of the Japanese Homeland. Estimates indicated that the US could have suffered over 1 million casualties (!) in a invasion. Military officials were shocked when investigations of post-war Japan revealed that the Japanese had hidden substantial military assets, including hundreds of newly manufactured JET FIGHTERS (modelled after the Messerschmitt ME 262 - using German technology), in secret hangers throughout Japan. Military intelligence prior to the surrender had totally failed to reveal their existence.

The Russians were a late entry into the war against Japan, and the US desperately wanted to avoid a protracted land war against the Japanese homeland, not only to minimize US casualties but ALSO to avoid allowing the Russians to make post-war territorial claims in the Pacific. A quick resolution to the war was required. As it was, the Russians were still able to claim several smaller islands which are still in dispute today.

Sorry, but I think dropping the First bomb was necessary if for no other reason than to save US soldiers lives. Prior to the dropping of the first bomb, the Japanese were also stubbornly holding out for a Negotiated Peace; one that would have allowed them to retain territory seized in the war. The US and its Allies insisted on an unconditional surrender. Had the Japanese realized the inevitability of their position and surrendered unconditionally, the second bomb would NOT have been dropped. Regrettably, the Japanese stubbornly held out. The second bomb convinced them of the futility of their position.

[InjaYew]

Whether I like it or agree with it is immaterial. The point in war is to defeat your enemies, and this means killing a whole lot of people. The military minds of the time made this decision and the result was the quick end to the war. Remember also that there was no declaration of war when Pearl Harbor was bombed. I think there was some heavy revenge motivation there. I always become puzzled when people bring casulty amounts into discussions about war. After all, war and death are pretty much synonymous aren't they? [img]tongue.gif[/img] Personally I'd like to see humankind evolve out of the need for war, but with the power mongers I see in the world theatre today, I guesss it's not going to happen anytime soon.

I guess my rambling (it's early) answer would be yes, it was justified. If I'm forced into battle I am going to win by any means necessary. I'm not there to fiddle around. Viet Nam should have taught us that. That's why I'm basically pacifistic. If I have to fight, there will be a world o' whoop ass...

[Gabrielles blades]

no, i dont think it was justified
as was mentioned earlier the war would likely have been won without those civilian casualty producing devices. when we kill civilians like that, we are really no better (and probably worse) than terrorists like bin laden.

If russia had managed to gain more land out if it, so what? japan is an island with few natural resources - which is why japan went to war in the first place, because they wanted to conquer areas with the resources they need.

the cold war would probably occur still even if we did not drop the bombs, there was massive military testing of nuclear weaponry on some island so they knew just how powerful it was. and the scientist who leaked the info. would probably still leak it in the alternate future.