? asked in Politics & GovernmentMilitary · 1 decade ago

lets hear your opinion about world war 2?

was it correct for truman to drop the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki? please explain.

8 Answers

Relevance
  • Beau
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Dropping atomic bombs was wrong at the time and wrong in hindsight.

    "The atomic bombs ended the war and saved lives" - this statement is not historical fact, but really the work of politics and revised history to suit American audiences. No historical facts suggest that atomic bombs ended WWII or saved any lives. People who say the atomic bombs ended the war and saved lives are hypocrites. If a Nazi leader dropped an atomic bomb on the US, Americans would've labelled it as one of the most atrocious acts of WWII on par with the Holocaust, and the Nazi leader would've been sentenced at Nuremberg. At Nuremberg, the Nazi leader might say he was trying to end the war and save German lives. Do you honestly believe that the American public would listen to that? If Germany won the war, Hitler would've used "ending the war" and "saving lives" as part of Nazi propaganda to justify nuking American cities. Truman committed a war crime by using atomic bombs but he was saved from hanging because he was on the winning side. Gen. Curtis LeMay lamented that if the US lost the war he would've been tried for war crimes for the firebombing of Japanese cities, let alone the atomic bombings.

    If the moral side isn't enough to make the atomic bombs unjustified, the unnecessity of using atomic bombs definitely makes it unjustified.

    It was militarily unnecessary to use atomic bombs to end WWII. Generals including Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur were against atomic bombs on the reasoning that Japan was defeated and their surrender was inevitable. Eisenhower believed atomic bombs were not the answer to save American lives and refused to support the idea of killing civilians en masse. MacArthur believed that Japan would surrender if the Allies simply told Japan that they could keep their emperor after the war. Japan thought that an unconditional surrender meant that their emperor was to be tried as a war criminal. This was not the case but the Allies failed to tell Japan. Had they done so, MacArthur believed Japan would've surrendered much earlier. If Truman was serious about quickly ending WWII he should've taken MacArthur's advice and publicly said that the Japanese emperor would be saved.

    It was also militarily unnecessary to invade Japan. Gen. Carl Spaatz believed that Japan was in fact hoping for a US invasion because it would mean American casualties which could lead to a negotiated surrender (what Japan was hoping for). Spaatz wanted the US to publicly deny any US invasion. No invasion - he believed - would've forced Japan to surrender. The US Navy led by Fleet Admirals Chester Nimitz and William Leahy were of the opinion that the sea blockade was enough to get a Japanese surrender since they were facing starvation.

    With no navy, no air force, their armies being beaten by the Chinese, their people at home starving to death, American bombers ruling their skies, an effective American sea blockade in place, Russia declaring war on them, and with martial law imposed, Japan was essentially defeated by August 1945. Looking at this situation I understand why those US military commanders were against the atomic bombs. How other people justify the atomic bombs as necessary to end the war is beyond me.

    Russia's declaration of war on Japan on 9 August, 1945 and the subsequent Russian invasion of Manchuria was really the key reason for Japan's surrender. If you studied the Pacific War you'll find that the evidence supporting this is overwhelming. Looking back, historians now believe that Japan surrendered specifically on August 15 due to the Russian intervention. By that date all hope in Manchuria was lost and Japan faced a potential Russian invasion. The Russian intervention had a much more profound effect than the atomic bombings (Japan imposed martial law after Russia declared war). If Truman did not use atomic bombs and simply waited to see if Japan would surrender in the wake of the Russian intervention, he would've still received the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945. Therefore, how some people can justify the atomic bombs as saving lives is beyond me when they were clearly unnecessary.

    Ultimately, the atomic bombs did nothing but kill 250,000 people, of which 20,000 of them were Koreans and 3,200 of them were Japanese Americans. The fact that 3,200 Americans were killed by the atomic bombings compared to 2,300 Americans killed at Pearl Harbor, means that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed more American citizens than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did. The decision to use atomic bombs was simply a total disregard for human life.

    Unless you agree with war crimes and disagree with some top Allied military commanders of WWII, you cannot possibly see the use of atomic bombs as justified. They never ended the war and they never saved lives. If you seriously want to have an understanding of this subject you must read about Russia's involvement in the final days of the Pacific War.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes ! Unfortunately, the cost of invasion would have been more costly in lives lost, than by dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. It was estimated that over 1 million casualties could be expected with an invasion of the Japanese homeland.

    Following the bombing of Hiroshima, the US waited for two days for a response from the Emperor of Japan and his intentions to surrender. The response did not come, so the US dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki. This time the Japanese responded with its intention to surrender.

    The bomb over Hiroshima was indeed an American decision. The bomb over Nagasaki can be credited to the Emperor of Japan and his decision to procrastinate.

  • 1 decade ago

    Very much so. Truman was the president of the United States and had the responsibility of looking out for U.S. citizens interests. This went hand in hand with a responsibility to end any war with as little loss of American life. Estimates by the brass of the military put casualty estimates for Operation Downfall, the invasion of mainland Japan, in the millions. That is millions on either side of the battle, both American and Japanese lives. Truman had those American lives in mind when he made the decision to drop the bomb.

    If you believe the Japanese loss of civilian life to be unfair, please acknowledge the Japanese atrocities during the invasion of China, primarily the "Rape of Nanking". During this Japanese capture of the Chinese capital over 300,000 Chinese civilians were massacred by the Japanese army. Over 80,000 women were raped. This is but a fraction of the civilian loss of life during the entire time the Japanese occupied portions of China. Ultimately around 9,530,000 Chinese civilians were killed along with 3,200,000 Chinese soldiers.

    So all together Truman, with American soldier's lives in mind (and possibly the lives of brainwashed Japanese civilians), he made the correct choice to drop the bomb.

    Source(s): James Bradley's Flyboys is a good source of information on the Japanese invasion of China.
  • 1 decade ago

    The dropping of the atomic bombs killed thousands its true, but the proposed invasion would have cost way more lives. Including more Japanese lives, as a large amount of women and children were drafted to fight US troops in case of invasion. The so called civil defenders were armed with blunt objects, made sometimes out of wood. Plus the US would have had to invade all the islands instead of just 2 cities.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    i think that it was a neccessary move, because without the dropping of the atomic bomb there would have been a lot more civilian casualties in the future. but for the japanese civilians who were affected by the atomic bomb, it was a really cruel and brutal way to end a war. but its for the greater good, isnt it?

    my grandparents from my mom and dads side were involved with WWII, so i dont know which side to take. but i do know that the US only wanted the best way to end the war without inflicting terrible civilian casualties.

  • 1 decade ago

    In all things considered the deployment and use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese forces by the United States was 'correct' as you put it. From the standpoint of the United States they faced a very grim future, with losses in the millions, both on the US side, and the Japanese, should they invade the Japanese homeland. The Japanese Empire had forced propaganda into the minds of its citizens and they believed the Americans were a bunch of brutes, who would torture and eat them, so they were afraid and would fight to the death, all of them, civilians and militants alike. This was far from their fault, the Japanese machine was very good at propaganda, and not all believed this, but many did. All things considered the use of atomic weapons actually saved lives, both American AND Japanese, but the cost was still great, and the outcome grim.

  • 1 decade ago

    This has to be THE MOST OVER-ASKED question on YA. Day after day after day it shows up 4 or 5 times. Enough already. There are already thousands of answers out there. Do a freakin search.

  • 1 decade ago

    Opinions are like buttholes......

    There are at least 491,716(sic) topics about your question here on YA........Use the friggin search function.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.