Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Could the bombing ofJapan by the Americans be avoided?

Discussion in 'WWII General' started by SlickAG, Mar 12, 2001.

  1. SlickAG

    SlickAG Guest

    Did the United States have to Bomb the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was it necessary or not? What could have been another option?
     
  2. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    886
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    If you are referring to the use of the A-bomb, I would have to say yes if they wanted a quick end to the war with as little casualties as possible.

    ------------------
    "They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war there is nothing sweet or fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."
     
  3. Ron

    Ron Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yes, in order to end the war quickly they had too. That was the whole point of using the bomb. At the Potsdam conference Japan was asked to surrender or suffer complete destruction. Japan refused. We warned of a super weapon..they ignored it...thus we dropped a bomb...waited a few days...still no response...we had to drop another...that woke them up and they sued for peace.
     
  4. Snefru

    Snefru Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    The other option was to throw away hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives. The diplomatic option was closed by the Japanese. Force was the only option... the bomb or the invasion. I am sorry for having the US use the bomb..... but it was necessary. The Japenese gave us no choice.

    ------------------
    Carthage must be destroyed!
     
  5. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    We dropped the bomb for a good cause. To save AMERICAN lives. Was it worth it to kill hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent civilians. I don't think so. I do believe, however, that it was the only choice.
     
  6. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Definately I think it was wise to have dropped the 2 A-bombs. My uncle would have been with the invasion forces and might have been killed. They started it-We finished it. The Japanese wanted to play lumberjack, so they should have learned how to handle their end of the log.

    [This message has been edited by C.Evans (edited 13 March 2001).]
     
  7. JoCon

    JoCon Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    the bpmbing of Japan could not have been prevented because one the americans didn't want to invade Japan two the americans would of had a higher death toll and three the americans wanted to try out their new toy which we have grown to know very well the necular warhead.
     
  8. A.GREG

    A.GREG Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2001
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do agree that the loss of life would be much greater and that was the main reason for using the bombs. But I don't think that they intentionally killed millions and destroyed billions of dollars worth of damage just to try out "their toy".
     
  9. Nikki

    Nikki Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    <font color=#9900FF>
    <blockquote> I have recently heard that the
    theory that we dropped the bomb on Japan
    because they "would never surrender" is
    becoming out of date. Many historians are
    now saying that the possibility that
    Japan would have surrendered is larger
    than previously expected. The
    belief stems from

    1.1942 visits by Japanese diplomats to Sweden
    and U.S.S.R ( because they were neutral towards Japan)
    seeking a settlement with the US.


    2. Japanese officials meet with OSS
    agents with the terms for a Japanese surrender.


    If this is correct it really brings
    to question the motives behind the bombing.



    And in my opinion Japan probably would have surrendered anyway since Russia declared war
    on them the same day we dropped the bomb.
    If we hadn't dropped the bomb I think
    the prospect of war with the U.S.S.R
    may have caused Japan to reconsider continuing any further.

    </blockquote>
    </font>
     
  10. Nikki

    Nikki Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    <font color=#9900FF>
    Just to clarify something ..I don't know the exact terms of surrender offered by the Japanese in the examples I gave and I'm not sure that rejecting them was a bad decision on our I'm just offering the idea that peace was possible without the A-bombs.</font>
     
  11. Ron

    Ron Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    3
    That is some good thinking Nikki [​IMG] I'm sure Russia declaring war on Japan contibuted to Japan's surrender. But i don't think they would have surrendered without the bombs as well, I also don't think Russia would have invaded Japan being that the US already had an invasion set in only 3 months from the time in question. Once Russia was in the war what were some reason's the US wanted to end the war as fast as possible?
     
  12. Nikki

    Nikki Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0



    Actually Ron there is a new theory put out by a man named Bix who brings new information. When the emperor of Japan read his speech over Japanese radio announcing the surrender of Japan he had two versions. In one he named the U.S.A as the reason for surrender and in the other he named Russia. Then he just decided which to use. ( He used the one naming America as the cause and disregarded the other one. Unfortunately I don't know much else about Bix or his ideas. Does anyone else know?


    Well I think that instead of invading Japan Russia would have fought Japan in Manchuria. It's doubtless that Russia would have won and that would threaten democracy. Because Russia could begin it's own expansion in the area thus spreading communism, and of course the US was going through a Red Scare and relations with Stalin were faltering.

    [This message has been edited by Ron (edited 20 March 2001).]

    [This message has been edited by Nikki (edited 21 March 2001).]
     
  13. A.GREG

    A.GREG Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2001
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did the US have any relations with Stalin, the guy was crazy.
     
  14. Ron

    Ron Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    3
    oh sure the US had relations with stalin. Stalin's Russia was an ally till the end of the war...and not until the last year of the war did relations start to tense up. We gave them arms and war material..through lend lease. Stalin was part of the big 3. Churchill, Roosevelt, and stalin. Sure the US and other allies had many talks with stalin. through talks stalin urged second fronts to ease the presure on his front. And things went well until it was obviose to the allies it was only a matter of time till Germany lost and russia would eat up it's territory. than they started eyeing each other alittle.
     
  15. A.GREG

    A.GREG Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2001
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the US was allied to Russia. But didn't Russia have some type of alliance with Germany up until Hitler decided to lead an attack in Stalin's ground? I thought they had something like a "you dont attack us, we won't attack you" agreement. I just still wonder why Hitler was so in to attacking the countries he didn't have any problems with at the time, like Poland and Russia.
     
  16. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Basically what you said is sorrect. The Germans and Russians also "shared" the attack on Poland. Ive seen photos of German and Russ combat troops together and drinking, shaking hands etc. :rolleyes:
     
  17. A.GREG

    A.GREG Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2001
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    SO Germany and Russia had almost a full alliance with each other up until Hitler made his mistake on attacking them.
     
  18. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Yep-pretty much. One thing not very wellknown is the fact that the Germans secretly trained with the Russians in the late 20's or early to mid 30's.

    That would be a very interesting book dont you think?
     
  19. Dub

    Dub Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2001
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Soviets couldn't invade Japan because they couldn't cross the sea. They were consequently a very minor factor in Japan's decision to surrender.

    Also, I do not think this discussion has given adequate credit for all the Japanese lives that were saved by the US avoiding an invasion. Granted, when in war enemy lives run a very poor second to the lives of your own countrymen, but it's always good to make nice when it doesn't hurt anything.
     
  20. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Good post and welcome aboard. [​IMG] ;) [​IMG]
     

Share This Page