The Decission to use the Atomic Bomb...

[Marmaduke]

There seem to be two defining and debated events in WWII- the use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan, and the fire bombing of Dresden and other cities. Some- such as myself, would argue that either were justified, but what do others think ? My own thoughts are influenced by the US Historian- Gar Alpervitz (see

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/alperovitz/
or http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

for more details) on the fact that the use of the Atomic Bomb was unnecessary. The bombing of Dresden has also been covered by the likes of the novelist Kurt Vonegut (Slaughter House 5) and by Gore Vidal among others.

I would just be interested in what others think- were these justified in brining and end to WWII or were they simply used to deter Russia and the threat of their increasing influence ? If so, do they offer some explanation of the way the war with Iraq has been justified (that is, in retrospect- and by governments that supported Sadam Hussein in the very weapons development t they now seek to find) ? Is history re-written in retrospect- and if it is- does it matter ? I would say “yes” but what do others think ?

Originally posted by Jasperthecat
There seem to be two defining and debated events in WWII- the use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan, and the fire bombing of Dresden and other cities. Some- such as myself, would argue that either were justified, but what do others think ? My own thoughts are influenced by the US Historian- Gar Alpervitz (see

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/alperovitz/
or http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

for more details) on the fact that the use of the Atomic Bomb was unnecessary. The bombing of Dresden has also been covered by the likes of the novelist Kurt Vonegut (Slaughter House 5) and by Gore Vidal among others.

I would just be interested in what others think- were these justified in brining and end to WWII or were they simply used to deter Russia and the threat of their increasing influence ? If so, do they offer some explanation of the way the war with Iraq has been justified (that is, in retrospect- and by governments that supported Sadam Hussein in the very weapons development t they now seek to find) ? Is history re-written in retrospect- and if it is- does it matter ? I would say “yes” but what do others think ?

i am against the decisions to drop atomic bombs on japan and firebomb dresden. i am a pacifist.

I've heard some debate over whether or not the u.s. govt. knew about japanese plans to bomb pearl harbor beforehand.
I can't say one way or another for sure about that. But I do feel the main reason for the u.s. entering the war was strictly for economic/financial reasons and for maintaining the same old corrupt govt. that alot of people were tiring of especially because of the Great Depression.

[Marmaduke]

The argument given in both the bombing of Dredern (which must account as a war crime if ever there is one) and Japan was to send a message to the Russians- not to end the war.

Eisenhower was against the use of the atomic bomb and there were a number of military here who were aginst the fire bombing of Dresden (which killed more than the nuclear attack on Japan). I do recommend Slaughter House 5 to anyone that thinks it was OK to kill 120,000 people- most of who were either civilians or fleeing from the Russian invasion (and if you want to read a more dispassionate account- read Anothny Beaver's Stalingrad or Berlin- the downfall to see just how horrific this was.

But I agree with Mere- there are times when the cure is worse than the cause- except in both instances it seemed it was never a cure that was boing sought- but a threat, and war was a cover to give this some justification.

It is worth bearing in mind when we here all the idle chatter about protecting our 'way of life' or our 'values' that seem so prevelant at the moment. This is little more than a cover for forcing an ideology on others irrespective for their (or our) wishes. All is NOT fair in love and war- it is just expedient.

[thule]

We tend to get hung up on the atomic bombings of Japan and I think the reason is because in each case all it took was one plane and one bomb to cause such massive devastation. But the truth is that more people were killed in one of the fire bombings of Tokyo when 334 bombers dropped 1700 tons of bombs killing 100,000 people in the fire storm.

As for if it was right to use the atomic bombs. I think that depends on whether or not you think the US had the right to an unconditional surrender from Japan. After Pearl Harbor I don't think that many americans wanted to negotiate with Japan and it's very likely that had the US continued its campaign with conventional warfare more people would have died, both american and Japanese. So IMO it comes down to: Should the US have negotiated a peace with Japan or should they have completely brought the country down on its knees, which they did with the atomic bombs.


/Alex

[ninswe104]

I think it would have been better to negotiat a peace with Japan then demand a complete surrender. Less people would have died and Japan would have had it easier to rebuild theire country afterwards and not have felt such hatred against the U.S

Another horrible thing about the atom bomb is the bikini islands were the bomb were tested all the soldiers who got radiation damages and the removal of the locals from there island. + the bicini islands hare still unhabitable.

[nonchalant]

from what i've heard the decision to use the atomic bomb was done out of a sense of urgency to focus our full attention on the protection on great britain as we (the us) were the only legitimate threat to the german empire and there was no sense in trying to invade an island country like japan after our navy capabilities were diminished. the use of the a-bomb was devastating, but our leaders did make a statement to our opponents that war has one objective-to be victorious-maybe if we didn't oust japan quickly germany would have successfully gained control of england, and probably made the task of securing europe much harder. many countries did not fight germany because they did not want their capitals destroyed, i don't blame them, paris is a wondrous place. in the case of ww2 there were really no other options-hitler was very close to the abomb anyway-we had to!!

[mykfin]

How can this be When the Enola Gay set off on her devestating mission from Alamorgordo New Mexico it was 1.45 am, August 6th 1945.
At this time Hitler had been dead for around 3 months (May 2nd 1945. The war in Europe was over ,it ended on the 7th May 1945 and Germany surrendered on the 8th May.
So we are talking of 3 months after the war in Europe ended the bomb was dropped on Japan.I cannot see how you could have been protecting us against the Germans at this time.

If the dropping of the bomb on Japan has taught us something, its that it must never happen again.

http://www.clark.edu/~history/HIROSHIMI/

http://www.macksites.com

[nonchalant]

i stand corrected after germany surrendered the bombs were used, but our forces-ground troops were still needed (to clean up the mess), just like in iraq. we had to ensure the safety of our allies and disarmorment of germany. also many of the high ranking officials had fled the country and our intelligence operations could not just pack up and leave. you are right about the timeline-thanks!

You really are for bombing? I would not of thought that of you looks like we have more subjects to talk about

[DruidSmith]

My understanding of the decision to drop the bomb was that in looking at the massive casualties in the European theatres (in the millions), the US wanted to avoid similar numbers of casualties in the Pacific theatre, and desperately hoped that the shock of The Bomb would prevent similar millions of Japanese and US forces from dying in the Pacific. The Soviets army was virtually decimated, and the US was running out of steam, and there was virtually nobody left to turn to to stem the Japanese expansion. They took a gamble, and it worked, at least in one sense. The fear of the bomb also curtailed the expansion of subsequent superpowers in the 60 years since.

I still can't condone these weapons, though... and it is truly frightening to think that the weapons the US has today are several orders of magnitude more powerful than those used against Japan.

When there is a war it's always the innocent
people who die the most. Especially bombs don't have
the good way of asking folks whether they are bad
or good before exploding. In Japan there are still
people who have problems for the bombs dropped in
the world war two. And clearly they have no blame
for what happened. War should always be avoided.
And bombs especially at any rate.

After saying that, it's also difficult to sustain
that it was possible to deal with adolf hitler and
the Japanese leaders in that period peacefully.

To end with, I think it's a very controversial
debate. And from what I can gather, The Dresden
bombing was a revenge after the many English
cities bombing. Especially Coventry. It was
revenge to me. I'm not holding it was bad or
good. But it was revenge.

Lycka till.

[ninswe104]

Revenge is always bad...

.....and Skåne is always wonderful !

So much better we think about Skåne or any other
wonderful thing, girl, guy, country a person loves.

Lycka till och...ha det så jättebra !

[ninswe104]

No it isnt... nothing is always beautifull common sense.