Did the Japanese deserve the Atomic Bombs?

[spidge]

For me , the only possible question is why did the US select Hiroshima , not whether it should have been dropped at all?

This from Los Alamos National Laboratory:

Los Alamos National Laboratory: History: Building the Atomic Bomb: Victory

The Target Committee

The targets for the Little Boy and Fat Man had been selected months earlier. A committee formed by General Groves selected four cities based on the following criteria:

1. Targets had to possess sentimental value in the mind of the Japanese people.
2. Targets had to have some military significance.
3. Targets had to be largely intact, to demonstrate the awesome destructive power of an atomic bomb.
4. The target had to be large in size, suitable for attack by a weapon of an atomic bomb's magnitude.

Hiroshima was selected because it was the largest target available with the largest population. In addition, it served as a port of embarkation for the Japanese Army and was an industrial center, complete with large factories and many smaller production facilities. Hiroshima was also the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Army, which stood poised to meet an Allied invasion.

[Trincomalee]

Thanks Spidge . That was interesting to know .
Linden

[General Mayhem]

Originally Posted by 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.

To quote William Money in the unforgiven "deserves got nothing to do with it. Asking westerners about this is the wrong polling group. Better to ask the Vietnamese, Korean's, Burmese, Chinese and Philipino's if the Japanese deserved the Atom Bomb. As FH points out the saving of Japanese lives was potentially tremendous. The disregard for the lives of Japanese citizens was primarily displayed by te ruling military class. (Also true of Hitler's Germany) Magic intercepts show that even after the dropping of the bombs the Japanese Military STILL wanted to wait for the invasion and fight one last "face saving" costly battle. They were overruled by the Emperor. In point of fact the Fire bombing of Tokyo killed more civilians outright than THE BOMB. The fire bombing of Dresden equaled the intial casualties of Hiroshima. Japan was the aggresor state and the tragic waste of lives in suicidal resistence (Iwo Jima, Tarawa and the sacrifice of their navy in battles with no air cover any longer available) can only be laid at the feet of it's goverment.

[General Mayhem]

Originally Posted by Herroberst

Wars are fought to be ended, not dragged on.

If a peaceful nation was attacked then any and all means to end the war is acceptable. From Incendiary bombs to atomic bombs anything goes. But this doctrine is changed when multiple nations have atomic weapons as there would be little left in a full nuclear exchange. So the use today of NBC is very different than in 1945.

Can't agree with any and all means are acceptable which implies that the Geneva convention be tossed out and is the justification for USA's current policies in the bogus was on terror. As Norman Davies points out in his "War in Europe" even the noblest intentions are tarnished and sullied by war. The ending of slavery in the United States was a noble and neccesary goal, but Sherman' March through the South may hae shortened the war, but the peoe who paid for that over the next 100 years were the former slaves and their descendants. In Japan the use of the Atom Bomb ended the war and saved lives. The terror bombing of German cities less often addressed is another matter that historians debate the merits of.

[General Mayhem]

Originally Posted by 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 )

You know I got to thinking more about this post LK and I think that it is an important question. All nations and peoples who have gone to war should ask themselves similar questions. and ask them often. I don't retract my earlier remarks, but I wish to be far less glib about it. Given the structure and history of Japanese society up to the war, the average japanese civilian bore far less responsibility for the actions of their government than say the germans or any of the western democracies. I still place the blame for the hideous loss of innocent lives upon the military government, but that doesn't mean I or anyone else can or should ever feel "good" about the use of the bombs, regardless of "expedient neccessity." The bombs would have been used against the german's (as was originally intended), but weren't "needed." While I may beleve that using the bombs against japan was justified it doesn't keep me from feeling a great deal of sympathy for those innocent men women and children just going about their daily lives who were not involved or even knowledgeable of what their government was up to (I've read that at the time of the surrender the japanese populace were stunned since they had little idea if any that the war was being lost.) But you must see that I have a problem with any government that exploits and sacrifices the lives of the many for the benefit of the few. But then my friend that is the one constant thread of all human history. Keep making us think about such things.
sincerely GM

[craftsmanx]

I agree that the average japanese civilian did not deserve to die but by the same token neither did any civilians anywhere but the Japanese were given the option to surrender and refused. It would appear that to save face the Japanese government were prepared to allow countless others to lose their lives. The blame , if blame is being apportioned, lies entirely with the Japamese governmemt. I would hope that if the situation arose again the Allies would do the same thing and , while sadly condemning the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a horrible death (is there any other sort) would save the lives of many many more innocents. As one who's Uncle died a lingering death from starvation and mistreatment on the Burma -Siam railway ,I find it very difficult to feel any sympathy for the Japanese nation while feeling lots for the innocent civilians , of all nationalities , who died ,it would appear , to save japanese face.

[J.A. Costigan]

Necessary - Japan absolutely refused to surrender to the Allies in August 1945. A conventional invasion would have prolonged the war at least another year or more and killed several million more people. More Japanese civilians would most likely have been killed through conventional means instead compared to the Atomic Bomb.

Option A: Kill 120,000 Japenese (risking civilians) with an Atomic Bomb and end the war in a week.

Option B: Sustain over 1,000,000 Allied casualties and and unknown amount (most likely also in the millions or at least upper 100,000's) through conventional means and end the war in a year.

I choose Option A.

[Elven6]

I'm not at liberty to say weather they deserved it or not since, well I wasn't around during WWII to know. Although the Japanese had a very distinct way of fighting, the "Bushido Code" made them relentless. From footage and documentaries released after the war, it really looked like the civilian population was ready and willing to use the tactics the Imperial army used in the pacific.

Just imagine how they fought on foreign soil, imagine how they would would fight on home territory! In the end the allies probably thought it would be too huge of a loss to actually invade Japans shores so they decided the bomb was better. How much info did the world have regarding the atomic bomb and its affect on a population? Would they really have known before hand the amount of destruction it would have casued?

I would hate to think what would have happened to a allied soldier captured in Japan had we invaded,

[James S]

I can't say knowing what we know now that anyone deserves the use of an atomic weapon - deserve is not perhaps how I would view it.

[Smudger Jnr]

Originally Posted by Elven6

I would hate to think what would have happened to a allied soldier captured in Japan had we invaded,

Look no further than the treatment of the Aircrew captured following Doolittles raid. It makes you weep.

We all know what happened under dictatorships during WW2 and so much has been gone over in the life of this thread.

No one deserves to have a nuclear bomb exploded on their doorstep and I have sympathy for those killed and bady effected by the two bombs dropped, which ended the war with Japan.

Given all the statistics projected for an invasion of mainlan Japan, it was the only decision that could be accepted at the time.

I also agree that it must have saved many more lives in the longterm.

War is always a very nasty business, but not signing up to the Geneva convention would not have helped Japans cause, when survivors from the POW camps told of their atrocity stories.

Let us all hope that there is never another atomic weapon used in anger.

Regards

Tom