Was the USA right to drop the Bomb on Japan to end WW2?

by stillajwexelder 131 Replies latest members politics

• 

  FreeWilly

  Sixofnine:

  It's fascinating to me, to see people find their own opinions more interesting and compelling than Dwight Eisenhower's, or Grew's, or MacArthur's, etc, etc. Arrogance, thy name is dummy.

  Indeed it is. A cursory search of the prevailing opinons of that day show anything but a consensus.

  Recommendations on the Immediate Use of Nuclear Weapons, by the Scientific Panel of the Interim Committee on Nuclear Power, June 16, 1945: ( A. H. Compton, E. O. Lawrence, J. R. Oppenheimer, E. Fermi )

  ?Those who advocate a purely technical demonstration would wish to outlaw the use of atomic weapons, and have feared that if we use the weapons now our position in future negotiations will be prejudiced. Others emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use, and believe that such use will improve the international prospects, in that they are more concerned with the prevention of war than with the elimination of this specific weapon. We find ourselves closer to these latter views; we can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use.?

  If you are of the opinion that an alternate solution, such as a diluted Japanese surrender agreement or a demonstration of atomic power would have been ?better?, then it is assumed (as is the nature of hindsight) that the results of such an alternative too would have been ?better?. Considering the ?results? of post war Japan, don?t you think that your hindsight solution is a bit ambitious?
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  And, with US and Allied support, look what Japan did with little engine and tractor companies like Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, et.al, since allied occupation. They have become a significant economic world power.

  That's not an excuse, but reality.
• 

  upside/down

  Yeah, the poor Japanese and Germans.

  They laugh all the way to the bank about losing the war. They are economic GIANTS and lost a war. Any nation that loses in battle to the USA is almost always better off! And they know it!

  Japan owns more US real estate than you can shake a stick at...

  I wonder who really lost?

  u/d
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  Of the allies, the only real winner was the US. Property, industry, economy in GB and Europe were completely destroyed. GB was the biggest looser. The US developed an incredible industrial machine and greatly profited after the war. This was not by intention, but by need, as the US provided most of the equipment and supplies by the end of the war because the US still had resources.
• 

  seven006

  ***btw: germany and japan were not "axis partners" as someone else stated before.***

  Hey google, someone else here, have you ever picked up a history book in your life or are you just going to give us your own personal version of the history of the world?

  Dave
• 

  FreeWilly

  Brenda:

  Sorry, Freewilly, but Germany declared war on the US on 11 Dec 1941

  No need to apologize, it's only a discussion. They key to my statement was "the US entered a war in a capacity that they arguably did not have to", Germany's declaration of war aside. I don't think you will find many historians alleging that the US entry into the European segment of WWII was deliberated solely and simply as a matter of self-defense. Strategically speaking, if self-preservation were the only factor, the US could have, and likely would have acted differently at the expense of our European friends. Instead, we came to the aid of our allies by entering the war in a large capacity, devoting resources and soldiers in a way that exceeded the sole interests of US homeland defense. That was my point anyway.
• 

  upside/down

  Have none of you ever been in a playground skirmish?

  When your "friend" is attacked you jump (you and all you friends) in and hash out the detail later- school yard justice!

  Not saying it's right- it's what happens.

  u/d
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  They key to my statement was "the US entered a war in a capacity that they arguably did not have to", Germany's declaration of war aside. I don't think you will find many historians alleging that the US entry into the European segment of WWII was deliberated solely and simply as a matter of self-defense. Strategically speaking, if self-preservation were the only factor, the US could have, and likely would have acted differently at the expense of our European friends. Instead, we came to the aid of our allies by entering the war in a large capacity, devoting resources and soldiers in a way that exceeded the sole interests of US homeland defense. That was my point anyway.

  Tx for the clarification. However, some self-defense was necessary with the Uboat attacks on mechant shipping off the US coastline. Albeit after the US started supplying GB with equipment etc. It was Roosevelt that wanted to enter the war in support of GB. It was Congress that kept him at bay.

  edited to add

  Instead, we came to the aid of our allies by entering the war in a large capacity, devoting resources and soldiers in a way that exceeded the sole interests of US homeland defense. That was my point anyway.

  Before our official entry into the European Theater, we were already supplying equipment and manpower.

  Sadly, when Pearl Harbour was attacked, Churchill was privately pleased.

  Even with the US involved, the Allies almost lost the war - in both theaters! The two major turning points being the Battle of the Bulge in Europe, and Midway Island in the Pacific. Yet they were no guarantee.

  A deeper question as to the European war is: What would have happened if Hitler had stopped with France and Poland? Afterall, the Fr. rolled over with the first invaision at the Maginot Line, and the Germans marched into Paris without a shot.
• 

  fleaman uk

  The two major turning points being the Battle of the Bulge in Europe, and Midway Island in the Pacific. Yet they were no guarantee.

  Interesting observations Brenda,but ive got to disagree with the real importance of the Battle of the Bulge.It really was the last throw of the dice from Hitler and though the Allies suffered terribly at the hands of the Panzer divisions (Bastogne,st vith etc)the reality was that the German Army just didnt have the Petrol to break through allied lines to the ultimate target ,Antwerp.

  Militaristically (sp) Hitler was crazy instigating the bulge.His last remaining troops would have been better used against the Russians....

  Ah yes,the Russians...sorry,but they won the War and made the hugest sacrifices.

  Midway and the Coral Sea,gotta agree with that.Though we Brits did hard work too dont forget
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  Though we Brits did hard work too dont forget

  Yes, I know and appreciate what you Brits endured and the hard work you did! That's why I try to refer to the Allies instead of the US when discussing the war, unless it was US specific.

  Battle of the bulge. Indeed Germany was overextended and deperately needed the resources of the portions of Europe it lost with the D-Day invasion and progression. The US 101st Airborne barely held their ground, for (weeks?) before reinforcements could reach them, in the dead of winter.

  What has amazed me are the German intelligence foulups that allowed D-Day to be successful and the similarity to the intelligence foulups by the US that allowed Pearl Harbor attack to be successful.