Did the Japanese deserve the Atomic Bomb?

[LostKingdom]

(I'm not sure if this belongs here... this is more of the Pacific War than WW2... )

First of all, I am a pure Japanese citizen. I've lived abroad for more than half my life though, but I still speak Japanese at home.

Anyway, what I want to talk about it the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was dropped by the US at the end of WW2. My grandmother was from Hiroshima and she was a survivor of the bomb - although she died quite early from leukemia - and it had a big impact on me.

I think you know what my opinion is about them considering I am Japanese, but what are your views on it? Do you think we deserved it? Or do you think otherwise?

(I won't be angry, I promise )

[Friedrich H]

Of course the Japanese did not deserve it. But it was a much necessary thing to do to end the war and prevent many millions from dying.

Unfortunately some 100.000 people died from the atomic explosions. But that —and the Soviet sweeping of Japanese positions in Asia— brought a quick end to a conflict which could have last until 1947 and which would have meant the death of more than 200.000 American soldiers, many thousands of Soviet soldiers and millions of Japanese —mostly civilians—, as well as the complete destruction of Japan and a post-war division like that of Korea, Vietnam and Germany. A Tokio Wall...

Ironically, those 100.000 Japanese killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of millions of people and allowed many more millions to live in a post-war Japan which rapidly recovered and became the 2nd richest country in the world.

[Thomas McCall]

I agree with Friedrich the Japanese didn't deserve the bomb, but by the bomb being dropped it saved the lives of British, American, Soviet and further loss of Japenese lives. The bombs forced Japan to surrender therefore stopping a Soviet invasion of Japenese territory as the Soviets were going to invade the northen Japenese island the name slips my mind at the moment. If the Soviets had landed there would have been a situation like Germany in the 50's with Japan divided.
From,
Thomas McCall.

[CROONAERT]

Just to add a statistic about the planned "Operation Olympic" (Invasion of the Japanese mainland).... The US government were (conservatively) estimating a loss of 1,000,000 lives during this operation. I believe that this figure is much lower than what the reality would have been. These (both allied and Japanese)were all saved by "the bombs".

Would the possible casualties of "Olympic" have ever been allowed by public opinion in the US or other allied nations?, or would the Atom bombs have continued (a third bomb was, I believe, scheduled for Tokyo on the day of the Japanese surrender).

My opinion is that, although no nation actually "deserves" to be nuked, theres no argument about the fact that they did end the war and save millions of lives.

B.

[Friedrich H]

The US government were (conservatively) estimating a loss of 1,000,000 lives during this operation.

I think this number is way-too high. Maybe a million casualties, not dead. But still, 200.000 men killed are already 2/3 of the total human losses of the USA since Pearl Harbour to Okinawa...

Would the possible casualties of "Olympic" have ever been allowed by public opinion in the US or other allied nations?

I don't think the US people would have tolerated so many casualties. And that was precisely what the Japanese strategy was seeking. If the Americans invaded Japan, every single person was going to kill as many invaders as possible to make the American people, back home to force the war to a quick termination. There were 900.000 regular troops, fully armed, 9.000 aircraft ready to be used in Kamikaze attacks and some 21.000.000 militia men awaiting for the Americans.

[Jeff Floyd]

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the additional aspect of stopping the incendiary raids on Japanese cities. Had the US decided not to attack these two cities, bombing raids would have devastated every major and most minor cities in Japan. The incendiary raids on Tokyo killed more people than the two atomic weapons combined. The Japanese suffered mightily in the atomic raids, but far less than if the incendiary raids had continued.

[CROONAERT]

Originally posted by Friedrich H@Mar 4 2004, 10:53 AM

I think this number is way-too high. Maybe a million casualties, not dead. But still, 200.000 men killed are already 2/3 of the total human losses of the USA since Pearl Harbour to Okinawa...

Friedrich.

The US estimate was referring to total dead (U.S., other Allied, Russian? and Japanese). It possibly (though I'm uncertain) may have also taken into consideration civilian deaths.

B.

[Friedrich H]

Oh, excuse me then. Sorry,

But then the number might be too low...

Anyway, let's not discuss such cyphers. We should be glad the invasion never happened.

[Will O'Brien]

I would suggest that with hindsight, the world today owes a great debt to the people of Hiroshima & Nagasaki.................The use of Atomic weopons when still in their infancy showed how terrible the consequences were.............and perhaps stopped future generations from using them again when the weopons became many many times more powerful.

[Charles Fair]

Ohayo Gozaimas LostKingdom-san

Originally posted by LostKingdom+Feb 26 2004, 12:15 AM-->

Welcome to the forum. Your question most certainly belongs here - what the Japanese call the Pacific War is very much a part of WW2 to the British or Americans.
<!--QuoteBegin-LostKingdom@Feb 26 2004, 12:15 AM
I think you know what my opinion is about them considering I am Japanese, but what are your views on it? Do you think we deserved it? Or do you think otherwise?

I made several good Japanese friends when I studied in Paris a few years ago. More recently I lived and worked in Japan for a few months in 2002, and had the opportunity to travel around Japan. I think Japan is a wonderful country and found the Japanese to be the most peace-loving, courteous and helpful people that I have ever met. I certainly felt far safer late at night in Tokyo than I would ever feel in much of London. I hope to go back one day to travel round the rest of Japan.

Hiroshima was one place that I visited. It was a very moving place to visit, particularly the testimony of the eyewitnesses displayed in the museum. Having now been there, the A-bomb seems even more unreal than it does from black and white films. I visited on a sunny day, and it was hard to believe that someone could ever have taken a decision to visit instantaneous destruction on such a bustling city.

I dont think the Japanese deserved it - no civilian population could ever deserve such a fate. However, as other posters have pointed out, it did shorten the war and probably saved many hundreds of thousands more lives as well as probable partition. It may well have helped prevent the cold war from becoming hot.

I believe the Soviets had already occupied Sakhalin and had designs on Hokkaido. Keeping the Soviets out of Japan was a key reason for bringing the war to a rapid end. Truman and Churchill had observed the iron curtain descending over Europe and could see that the USSR was shaping up to be the next enemy. I have read that the Nagasaki bomb was as much for Soviet eyes (to give the impression that the West had many more than one A-bomb and an unassailable lead in nuclear research) as it was for those of the Japanese government. There is also the fact that Britain and the USA felt that they had prior 'rights' in forcing a surrender since they had been at war for nearly 4 years whereas the USSR had only declared war on Japan in about June 1945.

I have long wondered on the effect of the bombing on the Japanese national self-image. Did the humiliation of an unconditional surrender lead to an immense 'loss of face'? If so, has Japan recovered?

Charles