Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Was the use of the atomic bomb against Japan justified? [View all]sarisataka
(18,923 posts)23. Nagasaki is debatable
As the entry of the U.S.S.R. into the war against Japan had pushed the impetus to seek an end to the war.
It was not yet a sure thing
Until 9 August the war council had still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. On that day Hirohito ordered Kido to "quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet Union has declared war against us." He then held an Imperial conference during which he authorized minister Tōgō to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration "does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler."[109]
On 10 August the Japanese government presented a letter of protest for the atomic bombings to the government of the United States via the government of Switzerland.[110] On 12 August the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. One of his uncles, Prince Asaka, then asked whether the war would be continued if the kokutai could not be preserved. Hirohito simply replied "Of course."[111] As the Allied terms seemed to leave intact the principle of the preservation of the Throne, Hirohito recorded on 14 August his capitulation announcement which was broadcast to the Japanese nation the next day despite a short rebellion by militarists opposed to the surrender.
In his declaration, Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings:
On 10 August the Japanese government presented a letter of protest for the atomic bombings to the government of the United States via the government of Switzerland.[110] On 12 August the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. One of his uncles, Prince Asaka, then asked whether the war would be continued if the kokutai could not be preserved. Hirohito simply replied "Of course."[111] As the Allied terms seemed to leave intact the principle of the preservation of the Throne, Hirohito recorded on 14 August his capitulation announcement which was broadcast to the Japanese nation the next day despite a short rebellion by militarists opposed to the surrender.
In his declaration, Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings:
Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Surrender_of_Japan_and_subsequent_occupation
Had Japan presented those terms it is very questionable that the U.S. would have accepted them. If war fatigue was sufficient and the estimated casualties deemed too high the U.S. may have accepted the terms. I would envision a certain disquiet among the U.S. population, as in post WW1 Germany. There would be questioning of why prosecute the war so far then stop short of total victory, IMO.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
191 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I can honestly say that I would not have wanted to be a part of Truman's circle then
Taverner
Aug 2012
#122
Will an attack nuculular or otherwise against Iran be justified? Whether it saves 100 lives or
2on2u
Jul 2012
#14
Well it's not like there's a lot of new data coming out every year
4th law of robotics
Aug 2012
#168
The chances are we wouldn't be here, but then again, we wouldn't know the difference.
neverforget
Aug 2012
#146
They were already killing POWs and performing grotesque medical experiments on them.
Selatius
Aug 2012
#94
They could have at least given them a little more time before dropping the second one. nt
Incitatus
Jul 2012
#34
They only had two but wanted to give the impression that they had an endless supply
Motown_Johnny
Jul 2012
#37
Even after two A-bombs dropped, the Imperial Council was tied on whether or not to continue the war
OmahaBlueDog
Jul 2012
#59
OK, it was necessary to prove that the gun-design Uranium bomb actually detonated, and...
slackmaster
Jul 2012
#62
There were no Japanese troops remaining in the China theater in the summer of '45?
Marengo
Aug 2012
#144
The Soviets crushed the Kwantung Army in Manzhouguo, not the entire Japanese presence in China
Marengo
Aug 2012
#150
They were done for. They had no supplies, no transport, no ability to go on the offensive.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Aug 2012
#155
Forget what we know now, and put yourself in Harry Truman's shoes, for a moment.
OmahaBlueDog
Jul 2012
#65
It's quite possible that, if the U.S. had detonated the two bombs on unpopulated islands
zbdent
Jul 2012
#66
The question is whether or not dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified.
Bonobo
Jul 2012
#81
Yes. Because Truman was a democrat and if you criticize him Sarah Palin will win.
Puregonzo1188
Jul 2012
#82
Japan also practiced genocide on the Asian mainland, killing 10,000,000 civilians. nt
Romulox
Aug 2012
#118
Was it any more or less justified than the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities?
hobbit709
Aug 2012
#106
Since American lives were, at the time, more valuable than Japanese lives: Yes.
Grave Grumbler
Aug 2012
#119
Welcome to Du. Why do you say Am lives > Japanese lives? And how about now, looking
uppityperson
Aug 2012
#120
Because we were at war. When one is at war, the lives of your enemies are less valuable than
Grave Grumbler
Aug 2012
#123
From the point of view of American military planners American lives *ought* to be worth more
4th law of robotics
Aug 2012
#125
I'd pay attention if it were dropped by foreign bombers in the middle of a massive war
4th law of robotics
Aug 2012
#167