Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Crimes or Reasonable Use of Force?

[The Aries Empire]

Aaand thanks for showing us you really don't know what you're talking about. The Soviets DID invade Japan.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_(1945)

[Terio]

The atomic bombing were the absolute right thing to do. I will always stand by this.
Firstly, the bombing saved civilian and military lives. An estimated 1 million American and many more Japanese troops would of been killed of Japan was invaded. This does not include civilian casualties.
Secondly, It prevented the Soviet Union from gaining any influence in Japan. If the Soviets invaded Japan too (which was a possibility, and they did actually invade the Kuril Islands), it could of caused much more Cold War tension and divided Japan similar to Germany.
While it CAN be debatable that the civilian targets were not the best option and that the second bomb wasn't required, It was the right thing in general to do. 200,000 civilians dead, even by an atom bomb, is better than 2,000,000 civilian dead from massacres and air raids.

Aaand thanks for showing us you really don't know what you're talking about. The Soviets DID invade Japan.

The Soviets did NOT invade mainland Japan. They invaded Manchuria/Manchukuo, a separate political entity, and the Kurils, which had little importance to Japan. If you base my whole post off of one "mistake" by the way, you are pretty foolish.

[AETEN II]

I still never understand why everyone bemoans the nukes and ignores the napalm bombings of Tokyo. Those were far, far worse.

[Mavorpen]

The Soviets did NOT invade mainland Japan. They invaded Manchuria/Manchukuo, a separate political entity, and the Kurils, which had little importance to Japan. If you base my whole post off of one "mistake" by the way, you are pretty foolish.

Which doesn't matter one bit considering that the invasion dealt the final blow to Japan and made them realize that they were fucked. The Soviets defeated the Japanese's Kwantung Army, which was one of the significant factors leading to Japans surrender, due to the fact that the Soviets could have easily entered the mainland with major Japanese forces being destroyed. Lrn2history.

[Pahatya]

It was crime on the behalf of Japan to do what they did. It was also crime on the behalf on what the United States did. They BOTH committed a crime.

[United States of Peace]

The Soviets did NOT invade mainland Japan. They invaded Manchuria/Manchukuo, a separate political entity, and the Kurils, which had little importance to Japan. If you base my whole post off of one "mistake" by the way, you are pretty foolish.

Which doesn't matter one bit considering that the invasion dealt the final blow to Japan and made them realize that they were fucked. The Soviets defeated the Japanese's Kwantung Army, which was one of the significant factors leading to Japans surrender, due to the fact that the Soviets could have easily entered the mainland with major Japanese forces being destroyed. Lrn2history.

separate political entity? You mean a puppet state of Japan, whom which exploited resources that were needed for her Empire? Manchuria was seized by Japan for the natural resources which Japan required for her economy. Although, I do doubt that invading the Japanese mainland would be easier for the Soviets than the Americans.

[Terio]

The Soviets did NOT invade mainland Japan. They invaded Manchuria/Manchukuo, a separate political entity, and the Kurils, which had little importance to Japan. If you base my whole post off of one "mistake" by the way, you are pretty foolish.

Which doesn't matter one bit considering that the invasion dealt the final blow to Japan and made them realize that they were fucked. I lol'd at the little importance part. Seriously, I did. The Soviets defeated the Japanese's Kwantung Army, which was one of the significant factors leading to Japans surrender, due to the fact that the Soviets could have easily entered the mainland with major Japanese forces being destroyed. Lrn2history.

We could talk all day about what "led" to Japan's surrender, but that was not the point of my post. What i was originally saying was IF the Soviets invaded MAINLAND JAPAN, it could of been divided between Communist and Capitalist rule, thus bringing more casualties and conflict to the area, thus proving my point that the atomic bombs were the correct thing to do. My post was not to say what made Japan surrender or "realize that they were fucked." They were already between a rock and a hard place when Germany and Italy fell.

[American Nexus]

if u ask me if they wanted to make an impression they should have bombed Tokyo before Nagasaki to affect the government more
look back on the firebombing on Tokyo in early 1945 6 months before atom bombs.

OVER 20,000 PEOPLE DIED FROM IT IN ONLY A HALF AN HOUR

THINK WHAT AN ATOM BOMB COULD DO THERE!

[Mavorpen]

We could talk all day about what "led" to Japan's surrender, but that was not the point of my post. What i was originally saying was IF the Soviets invaded MAINLAND JAPAN, it could of been divided between Communist and Capitalist rule, thus bringing more casualties and conflict to the area, thus proving my point that the atomic bombs were the correct thing to do. My post was not to say what made Japan surrender or "realize that they were fucked." They were already between a rock and a hard place when Germany and Italy fell.

Are you even reading your own posts? If the atomic bombs didn't make Japan surrender, why were they the correct thing to do? Japan surrendered BEFORE the Soviets reached the mainland. If you agree that the Soviet invasion led to the surrender, then the bombs did nothing but take more lives unnecessarily, considering Japan was already surrendering.

[United States of Peace]

if u ask me if they wanted to make an impression they should have bombed Tokyo before Nagasaki to affect the government more
look back on the firebombing on Tokyo in early 1945 6 months before atom bombs.

OVER 20,000 PEOPLE DIED FROM IT IN ONLY A HALF AN HOUR

THINK WHAT AN ATOM BOMB COULD DO THERE!

If my reading was correct, the US wanted to better gauge the effects of the atomic bombs so they dropped the bombs on less bombed out cities than Tokyo. Not sure if the US wanted to actively hit the Japanese Government like that.

[United Federation of Canada]

Both bombs were completely unjustified.

They were dropped to prove a point to the Soviet Union plain and simple, and were used to gain concessions from the Soviets.

The Americans wanted to occupy ALL of Japan, and used the fear of nuclear destruction to keep the Russians out of Japan.

They were war crimes plain and simple. But as we all know, the victors always mete out "justice".

[Terio]

We could talk all day about what "led" to Japan's surrender, but that was not the point of my post. What i was originally saying was IF the Soviets invaded MAINLAND JAPAN, it could of been divided between Communist and Capitalist rule, thus bringing more casualties and conflict to the area, thus proving my point that the atomic bombs were the correct thing to do. My post was not to say what made Japan surrender or "realize that they were fucked." They were already between a rock and a hard place when Germany and Italy fell.

Are you even reading your own posts? If the atomic bombs didn't make Japan surrender, why were they the correct thing to do?

No, i'm obviously hitting the submit button before re-reading, as if it made the slightest bit of importance to the point of i'm trying to make.
What seems more logical to surrender to? A nuclear weapon being dropped on your homeland, killing 75,000 people in the blink of an eye, or the invasion of a puppet state? Even if you want to keep saying the Soviets made Japan surrender, the a-bombs were still needed, because it contributed to the end of the conflict, and that cannot be argued.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

if u ask me if they wanted to make an impression they should have bombed Tokyo before Nagasaki to affect the government more
look back on the firebombing on Tokyo in early 1945 6 months before atom bombs.

OVER 20,000 PEOPLE DIED FROM IT IN ONLY A HALF AN HOUR

THINK WHAT AN ATOM BOMB COULD DO THERE!

WE COULD'VE KILLED EVEN MORE PEOPLE.

WICKED COOL.

[Mavorpen]

No, i'm obviously hitting the submit button before re-reading, as if it made the slightest bit of importance to the point of i'm trying to make.
What seems more logical to surrender to? A nuclear weapon being dropped on your homeland, killing 75,000 people in the blink of an eye, or the invasion of a puppet state? Even if you want to keep saying the Soviets made Japan surrender, the a-bombs were still needed, because it contributed to the end of the conflict, and that cannot be argued.

I'm going with the Soviet invasion, because a) the Japanese feared the Soviet invasion more than anything, and constantly tried to negotiate peace through it b) the Japanese's Naval forces were DISMANTLED, while their ground forces were getting destroyed and the Soviets were knocking on their door.

Of course I can argue that the bombs weren't needed... because they weren't. The first bomb obviously didn't lead to a surrender. Yet, somehow by a miracle, a second one did? What was different the day the second one hit? Gee, I wonder. Maybe the invasion of the Soviets, something the Japanese actually feared? Maybe the complete defeat of Japan's largest and most prestigious command? No, it was obviously a bomb that killed civilians that the Japanese elite barely batted an eyelash at, because the country viewed it a necessary risk.

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

The bombs were atrocitys plain and simple

[United States of Peace]

No, i'm obviously hitting the submit button before re-reading, as if it made the slightest bit of importance to the point of i'm trying to make.
What seems more logical to surrender to? A nuclear weapon being dropped on your homeland, killing 75,000 people in the blink of an eye, or the invasion of a puppet state? Even if you want to keep saying the Soviets made Japan surrender, the a-bombs were still needed, because it contributed to the end of the conflict, and that cannot be argued.

I'm going with the Soviet invasion, because a) the Japanese feared the Soviet invasion more than anything, and constantly tried to negotiate peace through it b) the Japanese's Naval forces were DISMANTLED, while their ground forces were getting destroyed and the Soviets were knocking on their door.

Of course I can argue that the bombs weren't needed... because they weren't. The first bomb obviously didn't lead to a surrender. Yet, somehow by a miracle, a second one did? What was different the day the second one hit? Gee, I wonder. Maybe the invasion of the Soviets, something the Japanese actually feared? Maybe the complete defeat of Japan's largest and most prestigious command? No, it was obviously a bomb that killed civilians that the Japanese elite barely batted an eyelash at, because the country viewed it a necessary risk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_ ... _Hiroshima

Perhaps it was a combination of both the atomic bombs and the Invasion of Manchuria? While Manchuria was extremely valuable to the Japanese war effort, and the impending loss of one of the last bastions of Japanese power aside from the mainland itself was a huge kink to the war effort, at least, Wikipedia states that it was the combination of the nuclear attacks and the invasion of Manchuria that finally ended it.

[Dilange]

Dont know. American generals speculated that invading Japan would cause even more deaths than the two atomic bombs combined.

[Jassysworth 1]

No, i'm obviously hitting the submit button before re-reading, as if it made the slightest bit of importance to the point of i'm trying to make.
What seems more logical to surrender to? A nuclear weapon being dropped on your homeland, killing 75,000 people in the blink of an eye, or the invasion of a puppet state? Even if you want to keep saying the Soviets made Japan surrender, the a-bombs were still needed, because it contributed to the end of the conflict, and that cannot be argued.

I'm going with the Soviet invasion, because a) the Japanese feared the Soviet invasion more than anything, and constantly tried to negotiate peace through it b) the Japanese's Naval forces were DISMANTLED, while their ground forces were getting destroyed and the Soviets were knocking on their door.

Of course I can argue that the bombs weren't needed... because they weren't. The first bomb obviously didn't lead to a surrender. Yet, somehow by a miracle, a second one did? What was different the day the second one hit? Gee, I wonder. Maybe the invasion of the Soviets, something the Japanese actually feared? Maybe the complete defeat of Japan's largest and most prestigious command? No, it was obviously a bomb that killed civilians that the Japanese elite barely batted an eyelash at, because the country viewed it a necessary risk.

Maybe it wasn't the Soviets?

The difference between the two bombs?

Oh I don't know... how about the dropping of the second bomb confirmed to the Japanese that the US had the ability to drop more than one bomb?

Maybe when the first bomb hit Hiroshima they said... ''That sucked but it's a one time trick''... then comes Nagasaki... ''OH SHIT! THEY CAN DO IT AGAIN! I'M SURRENDERING!''

[Jassysworth 1]

The bombs were atrocitys plain and simple

The bombs shortened the war... it's that plain and simple.

Why kick up such a big fuss about the bombs when they killed less people than in the fire bombings of Tokyo and other use of conventional weapons against civilians?

You know... what was an atrocity in World War II?

How about EVERY BLOODY SINGLE ACTION AGAINST CIVILIANS?!

LIKE THE WHOLE WAR?!!!

What's so special about the atomic bombings? It's just a more efficient way of doing what was being done throughout the entire war (terror bombing).

[Mavorpen]

Maybe it wasn't the Soviets?

The difference between the two bombs?

Oh I don't know... how about the dropping of the second bomb confirmed to the Japanese that the US had the ability to drop more than one bomb?

Maybe when the first bomb hit Hiroshima they said... ''That sucked but it's a one time trick''... then comes Nagasaki... ''OH SHIT! THEY CAN DO IT AGAIN! I'M SURRENDERING!''

Except the Japanese elites didn't express much if ANY concern over the first bomb at all. You'd think that they would at least meet to discuss their next form of action and to assess the damage of the "shocking" bomb. But nope, the Supreme War Council didn't convent after the first bomb, and only did so AFTER the Soviets invaded. Not only did they meet, they met immediately after the invasion, the morning of August 9. The speed of which they convened showed the utmost urgency of the situation at hand, and the fear the Japanese had of the Soviets.

So no, actually looking at historical facts, I'm going to disagree with the notion that the second bomb had a larger impact than the Soviets did.

[NERVUN]

No, i'm obviously hitting the submit button before re-reading, as if it made the slightest bit of importance to the point of i'm trying to make.
What seems more logical to surrender to? A nuclear weapon being dropped on your homeland, killing 75,000 people in the blink of an eye, or the invasion of a puppet state? Even if you want to keep saying the Soviets made Japan surrender, the a-bombs were still needed, because it contributed to the end of the conflict, and that cannot be argued.

I'm going with the Soviet invasion, because a) the Japanese feared the Soviet invasion more than anything, and constantly tried to negotiate peace through it b) the Japanese's Naval forces were DISMANTLED, while their ground forces were getting destroyed and the Soviets were knocking on their door.

Invading two islands off of Hokkaido was a bit different than knocking on their door. The Soviets weren't going to make mainland Japan anytime soon.

Of course I can argue that the bombs weren't needed... because they weren't. The first bomb obviously didn't lead to a surrender. Yet, somehow by a miracle, a second one did? What was different the day the second one hit? Gee, I wonder. Maybe the invasion of the Soviets, something the Japanese actually feared? Maybe the complete defeat of Japan's largest and most prestigious command? No, it was obviously a bomb that killed civilians that the Japanese elite barely batted an eyelash at, because the country viewed it a necessary risk.

Or maybe the situation is far more complex than you're giving credit to involving a number of different factors of which the Soviet entry into the war was indeed an important one, but not the way you're thinking (It was more along the lines that the attack meant that the Showa Emperor's hopes were well and truly dashed that Moscow could arrange a ceasefire) just as the bombs did end the war, just not in the OMG! NUKES! way that many Americans claim.

[NERVUN]

Maybe it wasn't the Soviets?

The difference between the two bombs?

Oh I don't know... how about the dropping of the second bomb confirmed to the Japanese that the US had the ability to drop more than one bomb?

Maybe when the first bomb hit Hiroshima they said... ''That sucked but it's a one time trick''... then comes Nagasaki... ''OH SHIT! THEY CAN DO IT AGAIN! I'M SURRENDERING!''

Except the Japanese elites didn't express much if ANY concern over the first bomb at all. You'd think that they would at least meet to discuss their next form of action and to assess the damage of the "shocking" bomb. But nope, the Supreme War Council didn't convent after the first bomb, and only did so AFTER the Soviets invaded. Not only did they meet, they met immediately after the invasion, the morning of August 9. The speed of which they convened showed the utmost urgency of the situation at hand, and the fear the Japanese had of the Soviets.

So no, actually looking at historical facts, I'm going to disagree with the notion that the second bomb had a larger impact than the Soviets did.

Ah, no.

Sorry, that's not how it happened.

[AETEN II]

I'm going with the Soviet invasion, because a) the Japanese feared the Soviet invasion more than anything, and constantly tried to negotiate peace through it b) the Japanese's Naval forces were DISMANTLED, while their ground forces were getting destroyed and the Soviets were knocking on their door.

Invading two islands off of Hokkaido was a bit different than knocking on their door. The Soviets weren't going to make mainland Japan anytime soon.

Of course I can argue that the bombs weren't needed... because they weren't. The first bomb obviously didn't lead to a surrender. Yet, somehow by a miracle, a second one did? What was different the day the second one hit? Gee, I wonder. Maybe the invasion of the Soviets, something the Japanese actually feared? Maybe the complete defeat of Japan's largest and most prestigious command? No, it was obviously a bomb that killed civilians that the Japanese elite barely batted an eyelash at, because the country viewed it a necessary risk.

Or maybe the situation is far more complex than you're giving credit to involving a number of different factors of which the Soviet entry into the war was indeed an important one, but not the way you're thinking (It was more along the lines that the attack meant that the Showa Emperor's hopes were well and truly dashed that Moscow could arrange a ceasefire) just as the bombs did end the war, just not in the OMG! NUKES! way that many Americans claim.

Which is fairly suprising though. Clearly the hierarchy wasn't sane, when your enemy has the ability to annhilate you via super-bomb that wipes out the majority of a city, I'd be begging for allowing me the ability to surrender. Not only do I not want my balls dropping off from radiation, I also don't like being vaporized instantly via nuclear blast. Then again, the Japanese didn't make that many wise moves in the first place during the war.

[Mavorpen]

Invading two islands off of Hokkaido was a bit different than knocking on their door. The Soviets weren't going to make mainland Japan anytime soon.

Poor wording on my part.

Or maybe the situation is far more complex than you're giving credit to involving a number of different factors of which the Soviet entry into the war was indeed an important one, but not the way you're thinking (It was more along the lines that the attack meant that the Showa Emperor's hopes were well and truly dashed that Moscow could arrange a ceasefire) just as the bombs did end the war, just not in the OMG! NUKES! way that many Americans claim.

Not sure why you're arguing against something I'm not claiming. Nowhere am I claiming that the bombs didn't play a factor in the surrender. I AM claiming, that the notion that the bombs played a larger role than the Soviet breaking their neutrality pact isn't that historically backed up. Again, I'm not seeing how the bombs ended the war, when the Japanese policies for terminating the war didn't change, as well as their apparent lack of showing any sort of significant "shock value."

[Jassysworth 1]

Maybe it wasn't the Soviets?

The difference between the two bombs?

Oh I don't know... how about the dropping of the second bomb confirmed to the Japanese that the US had the ability to drop more than one bomb?

Maybe when the first bomb hit Hiroshima they said... ''That sucked but it's a one time trick''... then comes Nagasaki... ''OH SHIT! THEY CAN DO IT AGAIN! I'M SURRENDERING!''

Except the Japanese elites didn't express much if ANY concern over the first bomb at all. You'd think that they would at least meet to discuss their next form of action and to assess the damage of the "shocking" bomb. But nope, the Supreme War Council didn't convent after the first bomb, and only did so AFTER the Soviets invaded. Not only did they meet, they met immediately after the invasion, the morning of August 9. The speed of which they convened showed the utmost urgency of the situation at hand, and the fear the Japanese had of the Soviets.

So no, actually looking at historical facts, I'm going to disagree with the notion that the second bomb had a larger impact than the Soviets did.

The only problem with that is that the second bomb was dropped on the same day the Soviets started their invasion of Manchuria (August 9). So it's really impossible to say which had the greater effect...

Furthermore, the Emperor's own intervention in the final decision to surrender had a far greater effect on the final decision than any of the councillor's meeting on their own... and THAT personal intervention by the Emperor definitely happened AFTER the second bomb was dropped and not during the Soviet invasion before the second bombing.

The general consensus among historians seems to be that both events played a part in forcing Japan to surrender. You can theorize about whether one of these (Soviet attack or second bomb) by itself could have forced a surrender on its own but that's just speculation...

I think saying that the bombs were completely unnecessary might be overstretching it. After all... who cares if the Soviets took out Manchuria? The Japanese could still fight to the death on their home islands as they had planned to do long before.

The A Bomb showed the Japanese that the US had the capability to decimate entire cities without losing a single of their own soldiers. That's a HUGE psychological blow one would think (and especially because japan did not KNOW the US only had two bombs)...