Need project help about WW2

[General Nosaj]

I believe the bombing was right as it was the only way to end the war as neither side would have given up. If the Japanese had had the chance to nuke the American's first then they would have as well.

I don't see it as a right or wrong but rather a question to ask ourselves why should we do it and what would happen if we did not. We meaning the US Government/Military, not me.

By dropping the bomb: It ended the war alot sooner. The downside is the loss of innocent lives, an unfortunate effect of war. IMO using a WMD weapon is cowardly. To never have seen your enemy. To never have known your adversary that there is a possible kindred, innocent spirit occupying a human body, trying to be human just as you are. WAR sucks no matter how we "play" it. Sometimes it's sadly a necessity, but we should always regret having to do it. To not do so, then you've not allowed yourself to evolve your humanity.

By not dropping the bomb: The war would go on alot longer. And a possibility to further stress the earth's resource: more human lives, prolonged emotional and spiritual stress & trauma (happens anyway also by dropping the bomb), etc.

Either choice we make, we must deal with the consequence and responsiblity. Since the bombs were dropped, both sides must make amends to each other and learn from this lesson of war. No matter what we choose to do, there can be no right or wrong, just the responsiblity we must accept. To answer right or wrong, then we may further divide this world. Pointing fingers continues the cycle of battles and war, trying to prove who is right or wrong. We should strive for harmony and most of all a mutual collaboration between our differences. It's what the world needs now more than ever.

[Dreamer128]

Well.. at least it showed the world how devastating an A-bom could really be.

[shadowspecter]

Hmmm... interesting, well my project is already done and due. It’s kinda interesting what some of you said. Well here’s my opinion, it was wrong that U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. never even bothered to warn the Japanese that we were going to drop the a-bomb on them if they didn’t surrender. Hundred of thousand of innocent lives were killed instantly and thousand of lives after the war from the cause of radiation. A military general said the Japanese would have surrendered if we warned them since they were already crippled and the blockade of resources were already weakening them. Yes maybe the dropping of the a-bomb ended the war sooner, but would it have really killed one million American lives? We will never know since it never happened.

Think about it, when Pearl Harbor was bombed, Americans responded in rage and said the Japanese were “barbaric” because they attacked civilians. Well what happened in those two Japanese cities? We killed innocent lives too, how did Americans respond to this? They said that they deserved it. If you compared the death toll, Japanese lost far more lives then the attack on Pearl Harbor. I’m not trying to be anti-American, I’m proud to be an American. I just hate how the history was formed, like what happened to the Native Americans, slavery, how ignorant people were and still are.

[Seraph]

Well, here are some things that I haven't seen mentioned that might be useful to remember.

With the destruction of her merchant fleet, starvation was going to be a huge issue for Japan durring the winter of 1945-1956. Things were so bad that the Japanese government was looking at plans to convert things like acorns into foodstuffs.

If the US had made the decision not to drop the atomic bomb, then there would have been no reason to not systematiclly destroy every Japanese city by firebombing. Take the March 9-10, 1945 raid on Tokyo, 100000 killed, a million injured, almost 16 square miles of the city destroyed. Now consider that by Oct 1st the 60 most important Japanese cities would have been destroyed, and that by Jan 1st 1946, every major Japanese city would have been destroyed.

Also, something for those who keep claiming that Japan was ready to surrender. If they were so ready, then why did they reject the Potsdam Declaration on July 28th 1945? It wasn't until August 10th that Japan decided that it should accept the Potsdam Declaration.

In short, Japan wasn't close to an unconditional surrender, and there would have been a lot more dead Japanese if the US hadn't used the bomb (this is true even if you ignore the bloodbath that the invasion of the home islands would have been).

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the greatest human tragedy of the 20th century.

Way to put Hitler in his place.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I think perhaps I can see Hiroshima and Nagasaki being justified as worse than Hitler... Perhaps... Perhaps, in fighting evil, we had lost a bit of ourselves in the process?
Yes, the Holocaust was horrid, but the slaughter was spread out over years.
This was lives being taken in the blink of an eye. Before they could even react.
This was *America* with the blood of innocents on its hands, not Hitler. Perhaps that is why it's tragic.

DISCLAIMER: These are not necessarily Illumina's opinions. Illumina is just trying to see it from a different point of view.

[Seraph]

While Hitler was the first example to spring to mind, he wasn't the only one. There were a lot of very bloody incidents durring world war two. The March 8-9 firebombing of Tokyo killed over 100,000 and injured over a million. The firestorms in Hamburg killed 50,000, the RAF bombing of Dresden in February 1945 killed between 37,000-100,000 (The US was no stranger to killing civilians Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not that much more horrific then a lot of Allied air operations). The Rape of Nanking involved the killing ~370,000 and the rape of ~80,000.

In sort, World War II was full of these things. I don't know why someone can just point at two and decide that they are more important.

[Paladin2000]

Originally posted by shadowspecter: Hmmm... interesting, well my project is already done and due. It’s kinda interesting what some of you said. Well here’s my opinion, it was wrong that U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. never even bothered to warn the Japanese that we were going to drop the a-bomb on them if they didn’t surrender. Hundred of thousand of innocent lives were killed instantly and thousand of lives after the war from the cause of radiation. A military general said the Japanese would have surrendered if we warned them since they were already crippled and the blockade of resources were already weakening them. Yes maybe the dropping of the a-bomb ended the war sooner, but would it have really killed one million American lives? We will never know since it never happened. Think about it, when Pearl Harbor was bombed, Americans responded in rage and said the Japanese were “barbaric” because they attacked civilians. Well what happened in those two Japanese cities? We killed innocent lives too, how did Americans respond to this? They said that they deserved it. If you compared the death toll, Japanese lost far more lives then the attack on Pearl Harbor. I’m not trying to be anti-American, I’m proud to be an American. I just hate how the history was formed, like what happened to the Native Americans, slavery, how ignorant people were and still are.

1. Warned them - They will intercept the bombers and the 2 only nuke in the US arsenal at the time would have been lost.

2. It was a tough call - Japanese civillian casualties vs American GIs. If you were the president, whom would you rather loose?

3. There is little chance for precision bombing - even equipped with the infamous Norden Bombsight, the B-17s would have targeted a larger area in order of the bombs to hit their mark, which means some of the bomb would also hit the sorrounding buildings e.g. schools and houses. In WWII, civillian casualties can only be minimized to a certain "acceptable" level.

4. AFAIK US did issue a warning, although not a very clear indication of the incoming A-bombs, but the Generals of Imperial Japanese Army/Navy just couldn't decide if they should surrender or convert all their civillians into homeguards to defend their country.

The problem with the Japanese is their Code of Bushido-- They would rather die "gloriously" in battle than to surrender. It would be crazy for the American GIs to go against hordes of civillians whom would rather die fighting; as if fighting suicidal soldiers aren't bad enough.

5. In the war, the loosers are the villian whereas the victors are always protrayed as the champions/saviors; make no mistake about it. If Hitler had won the war, US and Europe would be written in the history books as the villians of WWII.


My conclusion -- War is bad. Something that should have not been started. But once you have started, you have better prepared to end it quickly, at all cost.

[ 02-13-2004, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Paladin2000 ]

[ferro287]

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.

Even though is thread is old, that number can hardly be stated without comment. Considering that pearl harbour took 3.500 fatalities, and hiroshima & nagasaki took roundabout 350.000, it's not twice but the hundred times of pearl harbour.

[Felix The Assassin]

Wow, some really good stuff here.

From a soldiers standpoint. (I guess I could mention that I had family serving on both sides of the World during this space of devastation).

The bomb was not a decision to win the war. It catapulted the US into the forefront of Superpowerdom. Cut and Dry!

From a tactical standpoint. The kamakazi pilots were wreaking havoc, so what, sooner or later they would have run out of both pilots and planes.

We had Marines poised to invade many a location, and some battles were fierce. However, at this point we were back in control of the Pacific, and had air superiority. Remember both bombs were dropped from aircraft. We had also started at will bombings of Japan, and their industry was suffering.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/p...xz/i-yamto.htm

From my military history standpoint. Gen MacArthur was itching for a real victory after he had left the Philipines.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarth...re/bataan.html
GOA Eisenhower, was not prepared to handle a drawdown of forces in Europe with the Allied Russians at the gate. He did not have the equipment readily available to transport to the Pacific rim. Also, we were stretching the livelihood of young Americans. True, in those days there was little complaint about fighting for freedom. Trust me on this, the strike at Pearl had a physcological effect on Americans that the Japanese never understood until there country laid in ruins. There is a quote by the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, I have seen it in both written form and media form. "I feel that all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant".

Gen Patton was ready to take the fight into Russia but was put on hold by GOA Eisenhower. Could this have prevented the "Cold War"?

The loss of live may be a fact of war. However, it is every soldiers obligation to provide safety and humanity to the civilian populace. There was no other way to "show the world" what we had, and what we could do.
http://www.donstivers.com/fulls/timetoheal.jpg
Was it needed to win the war? No.
Was it used for personal gains? No.
Was it used as a WoMD? Yes.
Did it work? Yes.
Did it prevent future conflict? No.
We were fighting in Korea in 1951. Vietnam in early 64. Raids in the middle east in the 70's. Somalia, and other little spots in the 80's. The desert in the 90's. And now in the millenium back in the desert.
So, the only unanswered question is. Did it prevent a live war instead of the Cold War?

Now, anyone for a little controversy?
http://www.ussmissouri.com/