What's your point of view in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb?

[KichiVerde]

bazmeistergen said:

KichiVerde said:

bazmeistergen said:

This information is fine and all, but only if you accept the incorrect assumption that the Japanese didn't want to surrender. They did, but not in the way the politicians of the allies were willing to accept.

Right. The Japanese did not want to surrender unconditionally because it would have led to the removal of the Emperor from power and his possible indictment in war crimes tribunal. The same applied to all high ranking military leaders in the country. They had hoped to prolong the war long enough to force an armistice with the Allies (Operation Ketsugo).  They even anticipated the invasion course the Americans would take and were planning countermeasures. Their predicitons were very close to what was laid out in Operation Downfall.

In any event it was necessary for the Allies to demand unconditional surrender. They had demanded it of Germany. So why not Japan?  Since the Meiji Restoration Japan had become an Imperial player hellbent on expansion. Why take the risk of giving them a second chance? That was the lesson learned during WWI. The armistice resolved nothing in the long run and Germany went on to invade Austria in spite of the treaties. Then when they invaded Poland the Second World War began. Japan could have just as easily tried to pull the same thing with Korea and China.

Moreover, Japan were the aggressors. Their unprovoked attack of Pearl Harbor demonstrated they were not to be trusted.

 

The Japanese would not have surrendered anytime soon had the Hiroshima bomb not been dropped. An abrupt end to the war was best for everyone.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was hardly unprovoked. The US had been supporting and supplying the Chinese, handing out oil embargos on the Japanese. From the Japanese perspective, that IS provocation.

George Kennan (after learning from his mistakes) suggested that we try to see things through our 'opponents' eyes because we expect them to see through ours.

The Japanese did not have to attack territories within the US sphere of influence. They could have focused on French, Dutch and British colonial interests instead, and America aside from imposing their embargo likely would have cared less. The average American at the time had an isolationist view on the war and did not want to get involved. It would have been very difficult to get public support behind a war effort had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor. There was plenty of oil and other resources in South East Asia the Japanese could have exploited without starting a full scale military conflict with the US.

Japan attacked America because it felt threatened and thought that by eliminating the US' largest Naval presence in the Pacific, that it would A, set America back at least a year logistically, and B, possibly deter them from becoming involved in continued violence. Interestingly, Isoroku Yamamoto, the man who designed the attack, was against it because he knew Japan could never defeat America in an all out war, but his superiors insisted on carrying out the plan anyway.

Plain and simple. Japan was not provoked. They could have made due with Southeast Asia and China. They were imperialists. They tried to take what was not theirs at the expense of others. Over 20 million Asians victims perished as a direct result. The 300,000 Japanese that died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki pales in comparison. America had to put a stop to the carnage that the Japanese started. They brought it upon themselves.