World History debates

[London Blue]

Did the Allies need to drop the atomic bombs to force Japan to surrender?

 

[Cornish Steve]

14 hours ago, London Blue said:

Did the Allies need to drop the atomic bombs to force Japan to surrender?

 

Yes 

[Palfy]

20 hours ago, London Blue said:

Did the Allies need to drop the atomic bombs to force Japan to surrender?

 

No definitely not there where many options available to them to end the war in a more humane way, with far less deaths, particularly to innocent women and children. It was a politician decision taken out of the hands of the military who expressed their concerns against it. But unfortunately like today politicians lie to the public to get what they want, and don't take advice from the true experts and came up with what can only be described as un-instantiated figures on deaths to Americans if the war was to continue. There were 3 main reasons why Truman was so focused on ending war as quickly as possible. 
1) Was to try and save his own political career, he wasn't doing to well with the American public who were sick and tired of how long the war was dragging out, understandably but still no excuse for such a terrible conclusion to force the Japanese to surrender unconditionally, when they were prepared to negotiate a surrender. 
2) The financial cost of the war was starting to have a real impact on the civilian population, so the need to end the war quickly by politicians was paramount to keep the citizens from protesting. 
3) The Russians had declared war on Japan after the war in Europe had ended, and the American government didn't want Japan to to surrender to the Russians who were already engaged in battles with the Japanese, so used the bombs to guarantee the Japanese would surrender to them. 

[Matt]

22 hours ago, London Blue said:

Did the Allies need to drop the atomic bombs to force Japan to surrender?

 

Yes. On a population? No. 

[London Blue]

I think it is important to remember that around 300,000 people had died in air-raids excluding the atomic bombings and over 500,000 injured, and countless thousands homeless. These raids would have continued until the Japanese surrendered, which without the atomic bombings may of taken months or an invasion. At the same time due to the blockade there was food shortage and probably famine.

Could the war of ended without the atomic bombs being dropped, yes, but would it of cost more lives undoubtedly just due to the terrible cost in lives of the war.

Another reason for the Japanese surrendering was the invasion of Japanese gains in China. If that had continued then the cost in more killed in that campaign would have been very high. The Russians were fighting in Manchuria not Japan, and the Japanese had not surrendered in any campaign so the fight with them would have continued, even though it would have been a bloodbath given the mismatch in equipment.

Even then given the fact that the majority of the Japanese cabinet favoured a fight to the end, the majority of the Japanese people were prepared to fight to the end the only way the Japanese would have surrendered was if the allies invaded.

War is Hell, the atomic gene was out of the bottle before the Americans used it as the Germans, and then the Russians were developing it. Did the atomic weapons shorten the war, almost certainly yes in my opinion.

 

[Palfy]

15 hours ago, London Blue said:

I think it is important to remember that around 300,000 people had died in air-raids excluding the atomic bombings and over 500,000 injured, and countless thousands homeless. These raids would have continued until the Japanese surrendered, which without the atomic bombings may of taken months or an invasion. At the same time due to the blockade there was food shortage and probably famine.

Could the war of ended without the atomic bombs being dropped, yes, but would it of cost more lives undoubtedly just due to the terrible cost in lives of the war.

Another reason for the Japanese surrendering was the invasion of Japanese gains in China. If that had continued then the cost in more killed in that campaign would have been very high. The Russians were fighting in Manchuria not Japan, and the Japanese had not surrendered in any campaign so the fight with them would have continued, even though it would have been a bloodbath given the mismatch in equipment.

Even then given the fact that the majority of the Japanese cabinet favoured a fight to the end, the majority of the Japanese people were prepared to fight to the end the only way the Japanese would have surrendered was if the allies invaded.

War is Hell, the atomic gene was out of the bottle before the Americans used it as the Germans, and then the Russians were developing it. Did the atomic weapons shorten the war, almost certainly yes in my opinion.

 

On the basis you are using then you would have no qualms with Russians using a nuclear weapon against Ukraine if they said it would save many more Russian lives, and for Christ sake don't try and convince me the Americans had any concerns about the deaths of Japanese civilians in a conventional war, they fire bombed Tokyo some months earlier killing 40,000 civilians, and the two bombs they dropped weren't aimed at military targets they were dropped in areas of mass civilian populations with minimal military targets. Like I said Politicians making up the facts so they could carry out a heinous crime against humanity, to further their own goals.