Only to people of lesser value.
People of equal value, but people that were responsible for their own defense. We can’t defend everybody, and ultimately China wasn’t any better off.
There seems to be a continuing belief that the U.S. wanted to scare the Soviets and picked Hiroshima as the way to do it. This is just plain wrong. And here’s my argument.
It’s July 1945 and the Allies are meeting in Potsdam to talk about what to do with the defeated Germany and the soon-to-be defeated Japan. Iwo Jima and Okinawa have already fallen to the Allies. The U.S. has successfully tested the bomb, and Truman has informed Stalin and Atlee.
So here they were, in that three-week period after the U.S. knew they had a bomb but before they used it. Under the “let’s show Stalin a thing or two” theory, this would have been the perfect time to tell the Soviets NOT to declare war on Japan and invade Manchuria. Not only would they have shown Stalin who’s boss, but they would have robbed him of any influence in postwar discussions about Asia.
At this point, does Truman tell Stalin, “hey, thanks for all the help in Europe. You’ve already lost 20 million lives, and we have a big, big, bomb, so we’ll take it from here”?
No. Instead Truman says, “hey, remember that agreement you made at Yalta, to declare war on Japan three months after V-E Day? That’s August 8. Is that still good for you? Sure, we know declaring war on Japan will strengthen your claims in the Far East, but we don’t know what the hell it will take to make the Japanese surrender.”
Dropping the bomb was meant to make the Japanese surrender. Period. Any idea that it was some chess piece in the Cold War ignores the facts in evidence. Any argument for or against the Bomb that uses that idea as a debating point is fatally flawed.
Then hurray for evil.
I’ll chose not to argue with isolationism. Have at it, hoss.
The only reply I can think to that, kunilou, was that Truman may not have been convinced that Japan would indeed surrender to the bomb alone.
The multiple pyscological blows of the Bomb, the Soviet entry, the defeat of the Army on the Asian mainland, the blockade, all were tools needed to convince Japan to surrender.
No, we did force them to avoid it. So you are wrong there.
What you are saying is that we should not have forced them to do anything, since that involves the death of innocents, and the death of innocents is wrong. So we cannot take action designed to prevent the death of innocents, even if that means a larger number of innocents will die and be tortured.
So you are arguing that any action leading to the death of onnocents is wrong, no matter what the aim or the goal. IOW, the insurgents in Iraq are in the wrong, because their actions lead to the death of innocents, and are thereby unjustifiable.
Regards,
Shodan
Bolding mine.
Japan was no threat to us?
How about to the tens of thousands of American and allied prisoners (civilian and military) in the Phillipines and elsewhere?
That would have really been taking the high, moral road.
Think those folks would have some abandonment issues?
I’m sure the Japanese Armed Forces would have returned them in perfect condition had we asked. Or done “medical” experiments on them.
We did? The Rape of Nanking never happened?
Luckily for the long term survival of civilization, cooler heads have determined that this might not be the best way to think. I give you Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. Articles 51 through 54 are of particular interest. It was in large part due to the events of WW2 and the large scale use of aerial bombardment as well as the potential for mass destruction made available by The Bomb that the modern rules of war were re-codified starting in 1949.
Having said that, I think that under the constraints of time and information available to the Allies in 1945 and given the tenacity seen from Japanese forces in campaigns as recent as Okinawa, the bombing was justified. Hardly non-tragic, but justified.
The Rape of Delhi didn’t.
Your logic is faulty. Why should we have been involved in the European side of the conflict then? After all, American bombers were blowing the crap out of German (and other Western European countries occupied by the Germans) and Italian cities. Why should we have been involved at all, based on your own logic? We had much more actual motive for being at war with Japan, after all, than we did with Germany and especially with Italy.
So, if we didn’t need to fight the Japanese, why do you think we should have been involved in the war in Europe?? Why should we have provided weapons and material to any of the allies, for that matter, since they were also blowing the crap out of German cities and killing innocent babies and all that nasty war related stuff?
-XT
NO, we put an end to such shenanigans by, among other things, making loud booming noises over Hiroshima. Which you are arguing we should not have done, because it involved the death of innocents.
I believe you also argued that the same logic should have been applied to the Dresden firestorm, even if it was done to end the Holocaust. So the death of 25-45,000, some of whom were innocent, is the moral equivalent of the deaths of six million, all of whom were innocent. Or is that another instance where we should simply have done nothing?
Regards,
Shodan
Hitler actually was a real threat, and had a real chance to get the bomb first.
Why was Hitler a ‘real threat’ but Tojo wasn’t? Neither was a ‘real threat’ the US, at least as far as the survival of the country or threat of invasion. So what do you base this fantasy of Germany/Hitler being a ‘real threat’ but Japan/Tojo not being one??
-XT
The firebombing of Dresden was immoral too. It was another “area bombing” of a militarily insignificant target, and it wasn’t done to end the holocaust. Ending the holocaust was incidental to the goals of the allies.
Hitler could have gotten the bomb. If you want to argue that our involvement in the European theater was not defensively necessary to the US, I can listen to that, though.
So, again, why were WE involved in Europe? Since our allies were obviously immoral and evil people, based on your own logic we shouldn’t have been involved in any way in either conflict. We should have just done the Jesus thingy and turned the other cheek when the Japanese smacked us down (or, maybe we shouldn’t have even embargoed them in the first place, since, after all, they were only killing Chinese).
-XT
So what? We could have pursued getting a bomb of our own without joining the fray. Besides, since we are all using our 20/20 hindsight machines here, Hitler et al were not really pursuing a bomb with any great success anyway. Being out of the war would have given us more time and resources to put towards developing one of our own.
What I’m asking you is why you think the European theater was more ‘defensively necessary’ that the Pacific one. Neither country had any hope in hell of ever directly attacking us via a forced entry invasion, and as much of our trade flowed through the Pacific as came in from Europe. So, why do YOU think Europe was more important (or, seemingly, the ONLY important theater) to the US and our interests?
Myself, I’d say that Japan and the Pacific were obviously MORE important or vital to the US, since they, you know, attacked us and sunk our Pacific fleet, and were poised to cut off our trade in any number of different ways to the Pacific Rim and the Far East.
-XT
Like I said, Hitler could have gotten the bomb.