Hiroshima

Was the bombing of Hiroshima justified

  • No, it was a disgraceful warcrime

    Votes: 39 53.4%
  • Yes, it saved American lives

    Votes: 29 39.7%
  • Yes, it was war against all Japanese

    Votes: 5 6.8%

  • Total voters
    73

ríomhaire

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
435
I personaly think it was a terrible warcrime.
 
even after that alot japanese generals didnt want to give up alot more people would have died if the US was forced to do another invasion.
 
eh, arguments either way. i'd rather 800,000 japanese civilians died than X amount of american soldiers die invading japan. contrary to popular belief though, japan was not on the verge of surrender, and would not have unless we had a direct confrontation. japanese military > japanese government, the government was on the verge of surrender, the military had continued fighting well after the last atomic bomb was dropped.
 
They could have droped the bomb on a Japanese army base, then I wouldn't have any complaints.
 
Back then it stopped the war. Today it would be concidered a warcrime. But tell that to WW2 veterains and they would very likely rip your head off.
 
Lemonking said:
after me the flood ey gh0st? jeez
im sorry was that english? please translate so i can reply to it.
 
dream431ca said:
Back then it stopped the war. Today it would be concidered a warcrime. But tell that to WW2 veterains and they would very likely rip your head off.


I think WW2 veterans would like it best if you didn't remind them of pain and suffering.
 
Lemonking said:
Dont try to evade its obvious what I ment.
im not evading, stupid ass, i'm asking you what the hell you meant by

"after me the flood ey gh0st? jeez"

i doubt i'm the only one who doesnt understand what that means. unfortunatly babelfish lacks "dumbass" as a translation.
 
Eh, on the one side it was a bombing of a civilian target. On the other side it was in a country that was part of the Axis powers. I'm torn, but veering towards the not justified area just a little bit. But I did feel that the second A-bomb on Nagasaki was wrong.


EDIT: Thirded for Lemonking's response.
 
So when you cant get something in your head you call people names?


"after me flood" means That I dont give a **** I want it know I dont care whats happening tomarrow, I dont care if my children will have to deal with it in the future
bla bla bla thats what you are and this Dirk dude uneducated thats what you are.
 
Lemonking said:
So when you cant get something in your head you call people names?


"after me flood" means That I dont give a **** I want it know I dont care whats happening tomarrow, I dont care if my children will have to deal with it in the future
bla bla bla thats what you are and this Dirk dude uneducated thats what you are.
well excuse me all to hell, i didnt know what "after me flood" means. and yeah whatever to the rest of your post.
 
Lemonking said:
So when you cant get something in your head you call people names?


"after me flood" means That I dont give a **** I want it know I dont care whats happening tomarrow, I dont care if my children will have to deal with it in the future
bla bla bla thats what you are and this Dirk dude uneducated thats what you are.

Is this a German term you've tried to translate?
 
I've just looked it up, and I think the term you are after is "After me, the flood". Which is not in common usage here.
 
by the way feath, that was the easiest surgical operation ive ever had. no pain, discomfort and only a little swelling. bah all those people made me nervous too.. easy as pie.
 
I'm leaning towards the first option, but I can certainly understand the second option.
 
Well, you could say I'm alive because of the bombing. At the time my grandfather was a marine being trained for the Japaneese mainland assault.

Personally I think it saved many American lives and would have saved Japeneese lives. The book "Hiroshima" was read in school and actually reinforced my belief that the bombing was necessary.
 
Japan wanted the war to end long before Hiroshima, they even asked the Soviet Union to be a neutral party to help with peace talks between Japan and the Allies, but they refused and declared war on the Soviet Union. The Japanese sent letters and messages to America to tell them that most of the civilian government has no interest in fighting on and that as long as they can keep their emperor, they would surrender. America either ignored them or just replied with no thankyou.

Hiroshima and Nagasaka was not needed and the imminent invasion by the Soviet Union would of caused more damage on the Japanese people then any superweapon ever could, and the Japanese knew it and the Americans knew it.

A lot of people believe that America only dropped the bomb to test it on an actually target to look at what sort of devastation it could truely offer and to show Stalin that America not only had a nuclear weapon but was fully capable and willing to use it against the Soviet Union if needed.
 
Well the use of these two atomic weapons was largely to demonstrate to the Soviets that the US had the capability and were not afraid to use it.

The second bomb was to demonstrate that they could mass produce the weapons, ie it was not a one off fluke.
 
kirovman said:
Well the use of these two atomic weapons was largely to demonstrate to the Soviets that the US had the capability and were not afraid to use it.

The second bomb was to demonstrate that they could mass produce the weapons, ie it was not a one off fluke.


Precisely, Hiroshima and Nagasaka were both warcrimes against the Japanese people. As were the bombings of civilian targets by both sides with conventional weapons.
 
Razor said:
Precisely, Hiroshima and Nagasaka were both warcrimes against the Japanese people. As were the bombings of civilian targets by both sides with conventional weapons.
well, since the victor gets to write the history for that time, they were not warcrimes, but events that saved thousands, if not millions of lives, and that's the way things go
 
dresdon comes to mind. ive been there, cant imagine a place like that completely blown apart.
 
Of course it was a war crime. No Geneva law would call it "justified" through any means. But America rebuilt everything they destroyed as reperations. Whether its justified or not really doesn't mean anything and is totally dependant on the person who views it.

It was a war crime then, it's a war crime now, it'll always be a war crime. The number of civilian lives lost was extraordinary, and whether it saved more lives in the long run is something we won't know. The important thing to remember is that we took it upon OURSELVES to help Japan rebuild, to the very last building and road. It means little in comparison to the lives lost, but it's better than nuking the island and leaving them to fend for themselves.
 
It's a hard decision for me. I don't like it at all, but I think overall it actually saved lives on both sides of the conflict so I understand why it had to be done.
 
Grey Fox said:
but who wrote that book.
I think it was written by a Japaneese reporter, not sure though. And also, i think it was meant to have an anti-war feel to it, but certain dialogues i picked up left me with my feeling.
 
Japan wouldn't be anything it was today if we didn't bomb them. it saved lives on both sides and with japan out of the way we could concentrate on germany more. We also rebuilt everything and gave them many patents to get their economy booming and Japan shows that today.
 
Glirk Dient said:
Japan wouldn't be anything it was today if we didn't bomb them. it saved lives on both sides and with japan out of the way we could concentrate on germany more. We also rebuilt everything and gave them many patents to get their economy booming and Japan shows that today.
the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki occured after Germany had already been defeated
 
Glirk Dient said:
Japan wouldn't be anything it was today if we didn't bomb them. it saved lives on both sides and with japan out of the way we could concentrate on germany more. We also rebuilt everything and gave them many patents to get their economy booming and Japan shows that today.

How do you know? Are you psykic? (Can't spell it.) How do you know Japan wouldn't have developed a WMD on thier own, and bombed us? You can't tell what history would have done. It's not a math problem, you can't just say, "Well, if they had done this, the world would be better."
To those that think the Atomic bombings are a War Crime-
What would you people have rather happened? Have thousands, to millions killed on each side in the Invasion? Or have all of Japan starve due to the blockade? You people who say its a terrible warcrime, but why? Because lots of people died? It's war, that happens, and many more would have died in the invasion. Because of radiation deaths? What about the other kinds of death that would come out of invasion, getting toasted with a flame thrower? Skewered on a Bamboo stick? Tortured when caught? Because it leveled a city and caused damage to many homes? If there had been an invasion, the whole of Japan would be destroyed, not just 2 cities. Millions would die. Japan would probably be worse than Berlin. So what would you have done?
 
Glirk Dient said:
Japan wouldn't be anything it was today if we didn't bomb them. it saved lives on both sides and with japan out of the way we could concentrate on germany more. We also rebuilt everything and gave them many patents to get their economy booming and Japan shows that today.



I dont feel like discussing this topic but .... are you ****ing insane? I'm sure the japanese were greatful that a large part of their population were instantly incinerated :upstare:
 
CptStern said:
I dont feel like discussing this topic but .... are you ****ing insane? I'm sure the japanese were greatful that a large part of their population were instantly incinerated :upstare:

You know, I've heard that the US Ecomony isn't in great shape...
 
hmmm ...how to interpret that?

ummm meaning they should drop more bombs? ;)
 
Back
Top