sort by best latest
Eric Cramer says
Rohan Rinaldo Felix says
It wasn't speculation. it was history. Japan was getting more aggressive and had no intent of surrendering. The only other alternative was an invasion of mainland Japan...unless you would have preferred the US to surrender.
It WAS speculation because the US was acting under the assumption of future events that were uncertain. Regardless of how well-thought or not it was, the US speculated what could happen and made a decision based on that.
It was NOT speculation, because it is a matter of historical record that Japan increased their attacks after the first bomb was dropped. And the military command objected to Hirohito surrendering even after the second bomb was dropped.
That doesn't make it any less speculative, but moreover, it doesn't make it any more justifiable to me. Like I said, there's not a single reason I could think to justify so many innocent lives lost. Lives of civilians, not soldiers.
Without Japanese surrender there was nothing left to do but invade mainland Japan. In the battle of Okinawa alone 225k Non-US soldiers died. (150k civilians) . That one single battle alone equaled the casualties of both bombs. You do the math.
- See all 5 commentsHide extra comments
Peter V says
Precisely...The Japanese used to throw themselves off of cliffs in places like Saipan rather than surrender. It was not in their vocabulary. They had no intention of surrender. Very different culture.
Indeed, it was a very sad situation, the Japanese government brainwashed its citizens and soldiers to think that if they surrendered to Americans they would be tortured and killed.
They used to tell them that in order to become a US Marine, you had to kill your parents. My uncle watched civilians jump off of cliffs with their infants rather than be captured even when no harm would have come to them.
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
James Ang says
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
Chuck Bluestein says
Japan's goal was to push America out of the South Pacific giving Japan resources. They believed that the Pearl Harbor attack would take out the Pacific fleet and the US would sue for peace succeeding everything the Japanese had already seized.
Angela Kane says
You forget that America entered on its free will. It wasn't its concern. In no way it is justifiable. You don't know your own history, why are you answering?
It's own free will...??? I assume you never heard of the attack on the the USS Panay or Pearl Harbor. My grandfathers brother died there, we imagined that I guess. I suggest you study some history. Or the USS Reuben, USS Kearney for that matter.
Landmarkwealth, it sounds to personal for you to see the greater good.
maxoxam41....... Have you ever heard of Pearl Harbor?? What an extremely idiotic statement you have made!! LOOK IT UP!! And dantex... Worry about your own Country and your new baby. Hogwash!!
It's should be personal for all Americans when their country is attacked repeatedly, not just Pearl Harbor and then condemned for retaliating. And it doesn't change the fact that invasion would have cost far more lives on both sides.
We initiated Pearl Harbor. You definitely will not teach me history. Pearl Harbor was the Sept 11 of the Second World war.
The attack on Pearl Harbor[nb 4] was a surprise military strike conducted by the Imperial Japanese Navy against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on the morning of December 7, 1941. The attack led to the Us into WW II.
Dear lord you are lost...Pearl Harbor was only one of several unprovoked Japanese attacks against the US that started with the USS Panay which was on a rescue mission to evacuate diplomats while imperial Japan was destroying the people of Nanking.
Being the closest military base, being the oldest, which admiral will not think to defend it first?
maxoxam41 ......... Did you ever attend any history classes in your life? You are pulling stuff out of your (well you know)!!
Then answer my question!
What are you talking about ??? The Panay was not a base...it was a ship. And pearl harbor was a Naval port on sovereign US land. Perhaps next you'll tell us the US was at fault for not selling oil to an imperial nation that aligned with the Nazi's
You should teach that to Jeff. However for your knowledge since we "did not" collaborate with the enemy who did manufacture German if not GM? But as I referred to it subtly you need to read books for that!
maxoxam41, your replies are barely legible, so it's hard to reply when you are not asking an actual question. Please don't use convicted drug addicts like Oliver Stone as your source. I hold a masters in US history, please cite a credible source.
I asked you two questions, answer them! I don't judge a man for his marijuana consumption but for his ability to think! You just regurgitate what you learned from whoever.
I have yet to see a legible question to discern...perhaps you'd like to ask it in a coherent sentence.
And you want to give me lessons! QED (quod erat demonstrandum)!
You need them from someone. May as well be someone with a master's degree in history.
You'll have this privilege. I rationally select mine.
So shall I assume that means you do not have a direct question ??? Again I will ask you to cite a credible source as a military historian. Perhaps a pier reviewed paper on the topic.
You're wasting my time with your circumvolutions. Go and play with Jeff in the same playground and stop wasting my time and energy!
That was the type of reply I would have expected from someone who makes outlandish statements and no evidence to back it up, while citing only Oliver Stone as a credible source. Perhaps next you can tell us how wonderful Mao Tse-tung was.
No only Chiang Kai-Shek!
That wouldn't surprise me in the least. Most people spewing this anti-American propaganda have an affinity for oppressive regimes.
Are you sure you studied history? You seem to forget that we supported him. If I referred to him is to entrap you and you fell straight.
Some entrapment...LOL. Any support was out of the lesser of evils. The same reason we aligned ourselves with Stalin during WW2. Not out of a love for Communist...but a necessary ally of the moment.
Therefore we are oppressors. You said it yourself talking about Chiang Kai-Shek. It does also show that our democracy has no ethic.
That hardly makes the US oppressors. We supported the Afghan Mujahideen against the soviets in the 70's and 80's because the USSR was the larger threat of the day. Sometimes there are no good choices, only less bad ones.
How can you say that? If you look at all our involvement none is justifiable. None was/is in the name of honorable values. We always responded to an economic or strategic urge.
Economic and strategic reasons are often aligned with honorable reasons, such as the Nazi's annihilating millions across Europe, or the Imperial Japanese aggression towards the Chinese and the US.
If I understood your reasoning we are the Nazis of 2013.
That's utter nonsense. The US is the only major world power in modern history to defeat foreign army on their land and return governance to the indigenous population. If we were Nazi's we would have annihilated the entire middle east long ago.
Return governance to the indigenous people or are we puppeteering? According to you the middle east is not annihilated. I am pretty sure that we killed more middle eastern than the Nazis killed jews.
Really, the US controls the elections in Japan and Germany. That's news to Abe and Merkel. Another outrageous and unverifiable claim. And the 6 million Jews just scratched the surface of Nazi atrocities. I've been to the middle east. Its still there
Everywhere you will find an American military base, you can count the country as our puppet. I've been to Israel and they are thriving, I've never felt any threat or fear.
Yeah, the US has such a great relationship with the Castro brothers in Cuba. Must be because we have a base in Guantanamo Bay. And why the Germans have been at odds with the US on monetary policy for years now....LOL...Some puppets.
I guess Cuba is as happy with the American presence on their soil as Argentina with the Falkland Islands. You have to acknowledge that when it comes to intervene with NATO, UN... Merkel is not that demanding, is she?
I don't care if they are happy, The US was there before the Castro regime. The point is the US presence doesn't imply cooperation and Gov't puppets. If that were true we'd get the Saudi Royals to crack down on islamic terrorist.
- See all 39 commentsHide extra comments
AMAZING THINKER says
I walked into my college world history class with your first line. My professor sneered and told me to research the subject. I did . He was the person who taught me to look further... you should too, Jeff. You may change your view.
Your professor should have researched the USS Panay. Pearl Harbor was just one of many aggressive acts by imperial Japan as they slaughtered Nanking and expanded their empire.
Did your professor claim that the Japanese were somehow justified in the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor before they declared war?
The Japanese got what they asked for nothing more.
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
Yes, you were there. Isn't America your country?
That was an idiotic response. Using that logic, Duffsmom was also their and helped craft the bill of rights. So let me then applaud you on the brilliance of developing our founding documents. I bet you didn't know how close you were to Ben Franklin
Yes, America is my country but that does not mean all of the idiotic things that have transpired in the past rest on my back. @LandmarkWealth-thank you.
What I meant is that as an American she's justifying the attack on Japanese soil by refusing/denying her ancestors' actions by removing herself from her history! I guess you were not smart enough to understand me landmarkwealth.
Your logic is so irrational. One's ancestors actions have nothing to do with an individual. And she was not denying anything. She was just not making judgments as you have about something you clearly know little about...young Chamberlain
So then by your logic, if I had an ancestor that was related to Lizzie Borden, then I am responsible for the hacking of her parents? Really this logic is flawed. I was not born during WW2 so my taking responsibility for it makes little sense.
Lizzy couldn't have done it without you...I bet you helped her sharpen the axe by manipulating the space time continuum. I hope they cut you in on the family money she was after. lol
- See all 7 commentsHide extra comments
In all my travels worldwide, I've always found people to be friendly towards myself and love Americans. However, this question always comes up. Why does America think we are wisest and smartest of all when it comes to nuclear weapons?
Sheila, your comment has special impact considering your profile. (I looked it up because of your answer here.) Your experience as a Navy Hospital Corpsman has most likely given you an insight that others may not have. Loved your hub titles. Cheers
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
Recognizing that hindsight is 20/20, how should America have dealt with ending the war in Japan?
The dropping of the bombs saved thousands of our soldiers lives.
Like it did everywhere else, fighting the enemy or helping the armies already engaged in battles. Or diplomatically, given that all the Nazified or the Axis powers territories were taken one by one by the Allies!
Japan surrendering was impossible diplomatically. Attacking Japan would have been suicide for thousands of American soldiers. The bombs were necessary because of their stubbornness.
About 500k American lives was the best estimate at that time. One of my uncles trained for 6 months off of Hawaii for that invasion. Thank God they never sent them in.
maxoxam41 - what you are saying is naive and unrealistic. In the Battle of Okinawa, US lost 12,000 soldiers but Japan lost 100,000 solders and another 100,000 civilians. If the US had invaded Japan, Japanese loses would have been in the millions.
Perhaps maxoxam41 is a descendant of the Tokyo Rose broadcast team, and just carrying on the tradition.
I am British and i completely agree with Maxoxam41 at least someone here has sense.
Of course the Brit's weren't the ones who would have had to invade mainland Japan, so who cares about 500k marines. We'd all be speaking German and/or Japanese if we had the both of you heading the War Room back then.
- See all 9 commentsHide extra comments
Billie Kelpin says
"Men and their incessant need to blow things up". That is a sexist and bigoted statement. If you come from a military family, you know that nobody hates war more than the men who blow things up. I have never met a man in uniform who enjoys war.
It's not sexist if the person saying it is a woman. I understand we as women have an equal opportunity to blow things up and the scientific knowledge to do that. And yes, those who wear a uniform hate war the most - and many become protesters of it
Sexism is not restricted to men being sexist towards women. It can be vice versa. And your comments implied men are war mongers as opposed to women who are not. There have been some pretty brutal female dictators throughout history.
ist's exist depending on who wields the power at the time - When 50% of the leaders of the world are women (or a percentage reflective of the population statistics at whatever time in history that may be), we can speak to this issue again.
Sexism by definition is discrimination based on gender. How many female world leaders can you name that haven't waged war. In many cases justified. But female leaders have been more aggressive throughout history.
L, you can't make a generalization based on those statistics. (Well, you can, but it doesn't hold water.) That segment of women who have had control, may or may not be representative of women leaders if there were a representative population.
And you can't generalize men as "having a need to blow things up" Since most Men have never served in combat or participated in war of any kind. But that didn't stop you from slandering an entire gender.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em n at this age, the more I sees 'em, the less I like 'em. Call it slander,call it racist,call it whatever u want. Men,on the whole, r destroying our planet. I love my husband dearly and the men in my life, but as a grp?
Which makes you a bigot. Men also invented I-pads and surgical techniques that save lives, along with countless other things that improve our lives. But I forgot that liberals are allowed to be prejudice & discriminate. Just not everyone else.
Thank God for all of the pathetic, ignorant, the one's for destroying the planet for your "FREEDOM." You are spitting on the graves of the brave men who have fought and died for our freedom.
Forget about the soldiers...She just hates men period. That's obvious from these warped comments. It's too bad she wasn't around to give Hirohito a good female talking to after Pearl Harbor. That would have been effective. LOL
So now boys, u can see how it is to be on the defensive. I'm taking my marbles n going home. Thanks for playing w/ me 2day. U probably each are stellar human beings, but today I'm super-saturated w/ the violence to children -to women-to other men.
When you get home...try not to be to hard on your husband and sons for their very existence. It may be a while before we can create the all female society.
Easily the most entertaining sub-thread I've seen to date.
I agree with you Billie. In this American, I feel proud to be American.
What a joke!!
I am with you Billie. Well said! I am an Army brat, grand brat and was an Army wife... Enough is enough.
Its all about the money and the profiteers don't care who wins or loses or how many die.
- See all 19 commentsHide extra comments
Janie Mullens says
When tension was existing between the US and USSR during the Bay of pigs event as for shall we use the atomic bomb against the enemy, Krushchev retracted. But we Americans, especially the military branch was ready to launch our bombs.
What ??? If the US was so excited to launch, they would have. No nukes were launched against the USSR for the same reason they didn't launch at us...The Doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.
For who doesn't know their history and who doesn't like books I advise our controversial filmmaker Oliver Stone.
Yeah, that's a real reliable source to use. Stone is a real modern day Von Clausewitz...LOL.
- See all 4 commentsHide extra comments
J, exactly. ("Viewer discretion advised" for link) Oppenheimer in tears;Carl Sagan asking, "And who speaks for the human species...Who speaks for earth." http://drlorax.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/we-are-one...
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Show
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Hide