• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why we had to drop the A bombs on Japan

Wait for Japan to build more jet fighters?

Wait so the military could more fortify Japan against invasion?

Wait until Japan more built up their mountain fortifications and factories?

Wait because Japan hadn't killed enough Chinese yet? Wait until all American POWs in Japan were dead?

Wait until Russia had permanently annexed Manchuria for your love of Stalin?

Wait because we weren't killing enough Japan in fire bombings - more than with the A-bombs?

How much more time did you want to give Japan to prepare for invasion?
Invasion was never going to be necessary according to the military experts. One said wait no.more than 2 weeks. Once russia entered the war it was over....according to the greatest military minds of the time
 
I don't recommend posting any revealing information on the internet. If you really are desperate to prove you serve you can always use photographic proof or something.

But this is a red herring. I don't care if you served or not, it's irrelevant to your argument and doesn't give you any weight or standing just because.



I've backed up my statements several times with sources. My primary sources are "The Rising Sun" By John Toland, and the "Fall of Japan" by William Craig. I also have a number of smaller excerpts and records from interviews and reports that I have shared here before.
Have a wonderful day
 
I have the others if you need them
:) Yeah, Curtis Le May appears to definitely be continuing his contention for the utter destruction of the Japanese people through starving them to death and burning their cities to the ground, which was his strategy during the war. I wouldn't recommend citing him as a source against the point that we would have ended up killing a lot more Japanese without the A-Bombs, given that killing a lot more Japanese by not using the A-Bombs was his preferred plan.

Your own claims fit well here:

Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn't go off.'

Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can't we get one sooner?'...

As do mine:

... Even after the triple shock of the Soviet intervention and two atomic bombs, the Japanese cabinet was still deadlocked, incapable of deciding upon a course of action due to the power of the Army and Navy factions in cabinet, and of their unwillingness to even consider surrender. Following the personal intervention of the emperor to break the deadlock in favour of surrender, there were no less than three separate coup attempts by senior Japanese officers to try to prevent the surrender and take the Emperor into 'protective custody'. Once these coup attempts had failed, senior leaders of the air force and Navy ordered bombing and kamikaze raids on the U.S. fleet (in which some Japanese generals personally participated) to try to derail any possibility of peace. It is clear from these accounts that while many in the civilian government knew the war could not be won, the power of the military in the Japanese government kept surrender from even being considered as a real option prior to the two atomic bombs.[73] ...


And, of course, we are able to now cite the actual text of Emperor Hirohito's surrender speech:

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.
 
:) Yeah, Curtis Le May appears to definitely be continuing his contention for the utter destruction of the Japanese people through starving them to death and burning their cities to the ground, which was his strategy during the war. I wouldn't recommend citing him as a source against the point that we would have ended up killing a lot more Japanese without the A-Bombs, given that killing a lot more Japanese by not using the A-Bombs was his preferred plan.

Your own claims fit well here:

Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn't go off.'
Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can't we get one sooner?'...

As do mine:

... Even after the triple shock of the Soviet intervention and two atomic bombs, the Japanese cabinet was still deadlocked, incapable of deciding upon a course of action due to the power of the Army and Navy factions in cabinet, and of their unwillingness to even consider surrender. Following the personal intervention of the emperor to break the deadlock in favour of surrender, there were no less than three separate coup attempts by senior Japanese officers to try to prevent the surrender and take the Emperor into 'protective custody'. Once these coup attempts had failed, senior leaders of the air force and Navy ordered bombing and kamikaze raids on the U.S. fleet (in which some Japanese generals personally participated) to try to derail any possibility of peace. It is clear from these accounts that while many in the civilian government knew the war could not be won, the power of the military in the Japanese government kept surrender from even being considered as a real option prior to the two atomic bombs.[73] ...


And, of course, we are able to now cite the actual text of Emperor Hirohito's surrender speech:

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.
It is probably true that truman never even asked our military leaders on the bombing missions. He knew the answer already. He did not want a surrender....he had a message to send to Russia first.

The bombs were dropped for political reasons not military ones.
 
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71. Hiroshima: Quotes
 
It is probably true that truman never even asked our military leaders on the bombing missions. He knew the answer already. He did not want a surrender....he had a message to send to Russia first.

Uhuh. And is that why MacArthur wanted an invasion to go forward even after Hiroshima and Nimitz wanted to see if it was possible to drop an A-Bomb sooner than we even did?

The bombs were dropped for political reasons not military ones.

As the man said, war is politics by other means - specifically, the bombs were dropped to try to force the political decision to accept the Potsdam Declaration and surrender.
 
You have been dismissed

Sorry, you don't have that authority. So I'll ask again; What was the point of making a show to the Soviets if Truman had already informed Stalin about the bomb?
 
Uhuh. And is that why MacArthur wanted an invasion to go forward even after Hiroshima and Nimitz wanted to see if it was possible to drop an A-Bomb sooner than we even did?



As the man said, war is politics by other means - specifically, the bombs were dropped to try to force the political decision to accept the Potsdam Declaration and surrender.
They both were quite clear that the bombs were not necessary along with the other generals.

Is it your intention that they are all lying?
 
They both were quite clear that the bombs were not necessary along with the other generals.

Is it your intention that they are all lying?

It is my contention that you are incorrect, and that you are incorrectly using at least some of those references - I have laid out at some length why this is true of Curtis Le May and cited for you (using your own link) why your citation of Nimitz and MacArthur is at least heavily flawed.

I have also laid out for you the actual order of events WRT the Japanese decision to surrender that flatly contradict your claims.

Because - and this is sort of important - this isn't a debate over what Nimitz thought. It's a debate over what the highest levels of the Japanese government thought.
 
The Japanese Empire had it coming, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets. Whatever it took to end the war as soon as possible was acceptable.

Nazi Germany had it coming a bit more, but, sadly, we did not complete the bombs soon enough so they surrendered before we could reduce the Reich and as many Nazis as possible to radioactive ash.

The Germans were at least rational enough to surrender when the outcome was a given. Cannot say the same about the Japanese at the time. They were prepared to fight it out to every last street corner, cave, or underground tunnel. The kamikazi pilots were as insane as modern day suicide bombers. And as late as the 1980s there were still aging fanatical Japanese soldiers found in island jungles. Dropping the bombs resulted in far fewer Japanese(and allied) deaths and far less destruction then would have occurred with a land invasion.
 
It is my contention that you are incorrect, and that you are incorrectly using at least some of those references - I have laid out at some length why this is true of Curtis Le May and cited for you (using your own link) why your citation of Nimitz and MacArthur is at least heavily flawed.

I have also laid out for you the actual order of events WRT the Japanese decision to surrender that flatly contradict your claims.

Because - and this is sort of important - this isn't a debate over what Nimitz thought. It's a debate over what the highest levels of the Japanese government thought.
So you dismiss the quotes of leahy, Nimitz, eisenhower, MacArthur, Arnold, halsey, secretary bard and lemay? You dismiss the army bombing survey done after the war that said the bombs were not necessary?
 
So you dismiss the quotes of leahy, Nimitz, eisenhower, MacArthur, Arnold, halsey, secretary bard and lemay?

Clearly several of them had no problems with the bombs when they were about to be dropped.

You dismiss the army bombing survey done after the war that said the bombs were not necessary?

Which would have killed more people than died in the atomic bombs.
 
Clearly several of them had no problems with the bombs when they were about to be dropped.



Which would have killed more people than died in the atomic bombs.
Thank you for your opinion
 
So you dismiss the quotes of leahy, Nimitz, eisenhower, MacArthur, Arnold, halsey, secretary bard and lemay? You dismiss the army bombing survey done after the war that said the bombs were not necessary?
I have explained to you the problems with your citations (specifically Leahy, Nimitiz, and MacArthur) and pointed out to you that you are incorrect in how you are describing Japanese decision-making. I have also pointed out to you how some of those citations (the survey, Curtis Le May) were, in fact, explicitly agreeing with my point that not dropping the A-Bombs would have resulted in greater death.

Why do you dismiss Japanese sources and the Japanese leaders themselves?
 
I have explained to you the problems with your citations and pointed out to you that you are incorrect in how you are describing Japanese decision-making.

Why do you dismiss Japanese sources and the Japanese leaders themselves?
You can dismiss the opinions of the greatest military minds at the time. People who knew more about what was happening than anyone on earth.

You can dismiss the conclusions of the army bombing survey who studied this in detail after the war too

I choose not to dismiss them.
 
I have explained to you the problems with your citations (specifically Leahy, Nimitiz, and MacArthur) and pointed out to you that you are incorrect in how you are describing Japanese decision-making. I have also pointed out to you how some of those citations (the survey, Curtis Le May) were, in fact, explicitly agreeing with my point that not dropping the A-Bombs would have resulted in greater death.

Why do you dismiss Japanese sources and the Japanese leaders themselves?
We can go thru the quotes one at a time if you want and you can Express your concerns. As long as you are polite and respectful.....and you have been....that is fine with me. Let's start with leahy.

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [99]
 
You can dismiss the opinions of the greatest military minds at the time

I don't. I also don't mis-cite them or try to use them to support an argument they didn't make.

People who knew more about what was happening than anyone on earth.

Wrong. The people who knew the most about what was going on in the Japanese government were the senior members of the Japanese government.

Whom you dismiss and ignore.... presumably because their actual expertise and actions tells you something you don't want to hear. :(

You can dismiss the conclusions of the army bombing survey who studied this in detail after the war too

I don't dismiss this, either, just as I don't dismiss Curtis Le May's point that he could have simply used phosphorous to burn the Japanese islands and people into charred ash, instead.

I choose not to dismiss them.

:) I've noticed you've stopped citing Le May after that point was made to you. Could it be you've chosen to dismiss him?
 
I don't. I also don't mis-cite them or try to use them to support an argument they didn't make.



Wrong. The people who knew the most about what was going on in the Japanese government were the senior members of the Japanese government.

Whom you dismiss and ignore.... presumably because their actual expertise and actions tells you something you don't want to hear. :(



I don't dismiss this, either, just as I don't dismiss Curtis Le May's point that he could have simply used phosphorous to burn the Japanese islands and people into charred ash, instead.



:) I've noticed you've stopped citing Le May after that point was made to you. Could it be you've chosen to dismiss him?
Not at all. I see no evidence for your claims about lemay. Here is his direct quote on the subject.

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [100]


is he lying?
 
Thank you for your opinion

It's not opinion that many of the people you quoted did not object to the bombing when it happened. Nimitz asked for it even sooner. Why do you think that is?
 
It's not opinion that many of the people you quoted did not object to the bombing when it happened. Nimitz asked for it even sooner. Why do you think that is?
Thank you for your opinion
 
Back
Top Bottom