I Thought We Were Better Than The Japanese

[Ellis]

I would like to bring up the debate over whether America should have dropped both atomic bombs on Japan.

Although it was a quick way to end the war, what makes us better than the Japanese?

Americans were outraged by Pear Harbor. We knew it was a terrible act and couldn’t believe how the Japanese could kill many people like that.

The irony is that just a few years later we would drop two atomic bombs on them, killing way more people than those who were killed in Pearl Harbor.

What makes us any better than the Japanese? We don’t like how they killed our people, so we kill them in an even more brutal way.

Now, obviously when we are at war with them, we are going to have to kill them. But did we have to drop an atomic bomb their cities full of innocent children and civilians?

Although we did tell them that if they didn’t surrender we would use a type of offense that has never been seen, how could they have really expected something like the atomic bomb?

We flew one, or maybe two, planes over Japan the day we dropped the first one and there was no way of them knowing that we were going to strike.

The key to war is deception. But was it fair to be deceptive when we held a bomb that was going to take out a whole city?

I know that some say that we saved lives by dropping them, but was it really the right thing to do?

The Japanese say it was the second worst act during World War 2, next to the holocaust.

I know that Sun Tzu said not to attack fortified cities and we probably would have had to by pulling another d-day on Japan, but I don’t know if dropping the bomb so deceptively was the right thing to do.

Also, was dropping the last one the right thing to do? Although they hadn’t surrendered, keep in mind the after the second bomb, it was an unconditional surrender. Could we have given them more time to surrender? Should we have warned them better of a second bomb?

The scientists who built the bomb said not to drop it. The political leaders said we should have done it.

Was this Humane?

[jhuerbin88]

The A-Bomb saved millions of American lives by not having to use them to invade Japan. There is a very good article about how the A-Bomb was used to save American soldiers lives. I'll edit this whenever I find it.

EDIT
Ok, here we go.

http://www.neswa.org.au/Library/Articles/olympic.htm

This talks about Operation Olympic (Never heard of it? That's because it's "An Invasion Not Found In History Books"). It's very interesting and shows what would have happened to American soldiers (There were a lot, and I mean A LOT more Japanese military bases than the US military had originally thought) if the US military opted to invade Japan rather than dopping the atomic bomb. I know it's a pretty long article, but it's very good and I hope that you will read most, if not all, of it.

EDIT (PART 2)
What do you think American families, who lost loved ones in an invasion that could have been avoided with a simple push of the button, would say? They would have been outraged that the president (Truman) wouldn't end it and chose to sacrafice American lives for something that could have been done so easily?

EDIT (PART 3)
Just one more thing: This means a lot more to me than it may to others because my grandfather was in the US Navy when the atomic bomb was dropped. Also, he was (and did throughout the enitre war) serve in the Pacific. I'm sure that if the bomb wasn't used and Truman decided to send in American troops that my grandfather would have been sent in and, as much as hurts to say it, he may not be with me today. Hell, I wouldn't even be here today if it wasn't for that atomic bomb (so maybe the A-Bomb saved not only present lives at the time but future generations of lives).

[Jose Gaspar]

Humane....no. Necesary....absolutely. It stopped what was sure to be a 10 year war. The circumstances were justify because it was during a time of war. We as a nation have learned from it over the years. If we hadn't, we would have turned most of the middle east into an ashtray following 9/11

[Ellis]

Originally posted by jhuerbin88

EDIT (PART 2)
What do you think American families, who lost loved ones in an invasion that could have been avoided with a simple push of the button, would say? They would have been outraged that the president (Truman) wouldn't end it and chose to sacrafice American lives for something that could have been done so easily?

Agreed, but on the same token, what do you think Japanese families felt like who lost family members in the one of most violent military attacks ever?

I do think that it was Necessary, but did we have to be so deceptive about it? Couldn’t we have done a better job warning them of this or demonstrated the power of the bomb before we dropped it?

I love studying war strategy and I read about many books about it, and Sun Tzu clearly stated not to attack fortified cities. We probably would have lost a lot of Americans trying to attack them on their own turf.

I am coming around to the fact that we needed to do it, but was it the right thing to do and could we have warned them about?

[jhuerbin88]

Originally posted by Ellis
Couldn’t we have done a better job warning them of this or demonstrated the power of the bomb before we dropped it?

And tell them our plan...

Originally posted by Ellis
I love studying war strategy and I read about many books about it, and Sun Tzu clearly stated not to attack fortified cities. We probably would have lost a lot of Americans trying to attack them on their own turf

Yeah, me too. That's why I'm loving what we are learning in History right now (WWII Oral History is going to be the best class next year, Rob ).

[ESP0704]

As a child of a WWII European Theater veteran who might have had to participate in Operation Olympic, I can find some justification in using the atomic bomb to save the lives of American soldiers.

The decision might lead to accusations that we placed a greater value on the lives of American servicemen than those of Japanese civilians, including children. Well, yeah. That's one of the reasons war is a moral abomination, which is why it should be a matter of last resort, Mr. President.

But here's another matter no one mentions when talking about whether it was right to talk about dropping the bomb ...

It saved millions of Japanese lives.

In the U.S. invasions of the Japanese fringe islands of Okinawa and Iwo Jima (which began 60 years ago this month), the defenders fought to the last person, civilians included. U.S. military newsreel footage shows Japanese women flinging their babies off cliffs to their deaths to avoid them being taken prisoner.

It would be reasonable to assume that an invasion of the home islands would have gone pretty much the same way, with those old or young enough to defend the homeland being conscripted with orders to defend to their deaths.

Those too young or too old might have committed ritual suicide, or been sacrificed.

None of those assumptions are unreasonable, based on Japanese WWII actions like the kamikaze, soldiers committing ritual suicide rather than being taken prisoner, and the aforementioned examples with the babies.

The fact is, sick as it sounds, the Japanese fared much better the way things went, than they would have had there been an invasion.

[buckeyefan78]

I can't believe someone hasn't brought up the notion of the bomb as a show of force to the Soviets. In recent years, most historians are starting to put their two cents in the bucket claiming the bombs were dropped to show the Soviet Union that the U.S. was ahead of them. The Russians didn't get their own bomb til...wanna say 48? 49?...little rusty here.

Anyway, there are three aspects of U.S. history regarding WWII that are starting to become more mainstream, all of which I agree with and have for years ( old 78 is ahead of his time with his conspiracies...LOL)

1. The U.S. provoked the Japanese to attack an American entity ( I'm still on the fringe group claiming FDR not only provoked, but encouraged and ALLOWED the attack).

2. The U.S. dropped the A-bombs first as a show of force and secondly, to save American lives in an invasion of Japanese mainland.

3. The Soviets were CLEARLY the ones who won this war for the allies, if you want to give credit or put up percentages. Their contributions have long been overlooked due to communism, but now are getting some more credit due to the collapse over there.

It's hard to argue with the fact that saving lives wasn't the main cause for the use of the bombs though, I'll admit that. I believe estimates had U.S. fatalities at around 225,000 by goverment officials. Those numbers vary a little depending on who and when you ask them.

[jhuerbin88]

Originally posted by buckeyefan78
1. The U.S. provoked the Japanese to attack an American entity ( I'm still on the fringe group claiming FDR not only provoked, but encouraged and ALLOWED the attack).

I believe the US provoked the Japanese by cutting of trade with Japan, but saying FDR "encouraged and ALLOWED" Japan to attack Pearl Harbor is way out there (I guess that's why it's called a "fring group" ). I just can't seem to come to my senses with the fact that the US should have seen it coming. They tried to stay neutral during WWI but that didn't last long. Hmmm...Sitting here writing this now, 78, I'm starting to think that maybe FDR did in fact encourage (but still not allow) the Japanese to attack; why else would you put such a powerful naval base in the Pacific (almost like he was waiting to attack first)? I don't know. It's very interesting either way.

[buckeyefan78]

jhuerbin88...

I did a paper on it in college 18some years ago. It's somehwere in my "junk." If found, I'll read it over and see what I had in detail.

[ESP0704]

I'm not sure I agree that FDR encouraged and allowed the Pearl Harbor attack, but if he did, it was a masterstroke, particularly because the Navy's aircraft carriers (conveniently, some say) were out of harm's way when the attack came).

However (and this is where I think the conspiracy theory breaks down to an extent), much conventional wisdom in December 1941 held that the battleship was still the major naval weapon, and the battleships were all sitting in Pearl. The Japanese attack went a long way in exploding that myth (literally) and clearing the way for carriers to be the kings of naval warfare.

However, as I said, I'm still open to arguments. And even if the conspiracy is true, FDR carried out a masterstroke in drawing the Japanese into a major military blunder at Pearl because it drew us into a two-front war we had the resources, in terms of manpower and industrial base, to win. Additionally, the attack put Germany and Japan, into a two-front war they couldn't win.

I've also considered that the A-bombs were a message to the Soviet Union, which had already made the transition from ally to enemy in the two-months between the victory in Europe and victory in Japan.

I just don't think it's as important, from a moral standpoint as the fact that Japanese culture, to a great extent, exists today because we dropped (at least the first, because the second one might not have been necessary to bring about the surrender) the atomic bomb.

78: I agree wholeheartedly with your contention that the Soviet Union, through the sacrifice of more than 20 million of its soldiers and civilians -- by the far the greatest loss of life of any WWII combatant -- did nothing less than save the world. Had the Germans been able to make quick work of the Russians, as happened in WWI (mostly because of Russia's political turmoil), they would have been able to turn on Britain, which was reeling from its losses across Europe.

[Shawndo]

Ellis, what made you think we were (or are) better than the Japanese?

[buckeyefan78]

ESP...

The battleship theory falls short in one crucial aspect: ALL military intelligence around the world believed that the battleship was invulnerable to attack by air. FDR still had them there because everyone thought an air attack wasn't a feasible way to destroy them. Yeah, that one was proved wrong about 5 minutes into the attack, but that was the thinking before December 7th.

FDR's main objective was to draw the U.S. into war to defeat the facist states of Europe. Japan was secondary, very secondary. The man needed something to get public opinion on his side ( some outlets have the people at 80% in favor of neutrality, spurned on by Republican Senator Nye and his commission before the 7th). The U.S. was already getting attacked, sometimes daily, by German subs in the North Atlantic while helping out the Brits with supplies, but FDR knew he couldn't use that angle. He had "twisted' the Neutrality Act, against great public outcry along with the right, to send help to Britian and felt that if he used these attacks, his plans would be WAY TOOOOO transparent.

He needed another stage. How could the U.S. not know about the attack? Japanese codes were broke two years earlier clearly giving signals, and sometimes outright attack plans, but nothing was done.

There's much more on this stuff, just the tip there. One thing can be said for sure: FDR was a man of very questionable morals. This is the same guy who tried to pack the Supreme Court to get his New Deal programs accepted. A history of trickery to counter public and political opinion is all over this guy. He's dirty. I just take the natural progression and call him guilty in this matter.

Also ESP...

The Soviets were clearly U.S. enemies way before the end of the war in Europe. Several years ago, I used to teach a lesson plan entitled "seeds of mistrust," about the awkward position of the Soviets, Brits, and Americans during WWII. I don't question the U.S. goverment killing thousands of people to "send messages" to other, unrelated peoples. In fact, something like that is going on today....hmmmm.

[jhuerbin88]

FDR was a benevolent dictator, whether you want to admit it or not. The people of America needed somebody to get them out of the Depression and they would do whatever it takes. Hitler got his start by having plans to get Germany out of a depression. However, he used his in the wrong way. FDR had a plan to get out of the Depression and the people trusted him.

FDR could have become a Hitler.