Was the use of the Atomic Bomb in WWII justified?

[unmerged(9422)]

Originally posted by OttoVonBismark
Alperovitz is one of the biggest opponents of the A-bomb yes, but his book is where I read a direct transcript of a telegram in which it was stated peace was only possible through preservation of the imperial system.

Even if my memory somehow is completely wrong, which I won't believe til I flip through my book and find that it is, I don't care.

Fact of the matter is, the Japanese were given a clear warning at Potsdam. They got nuked for refusing, I don't care if Potsdam was too harsh, imo nothing is too harsh for the Japanese. They systematically tortured, murdered, and enslaved allied PoWs, they attacked a nation that was at peace with them, they used biological weapons on civilian populations, they in short executed one of the most brutal, inhuman offensive campaigns of conquest in the history of man. All because they felt "shame" at not being as good as the west? Sorry, but I wouldn't have minded if Japan was nothing more than a heap of irradiated rocks at the end of WW2, the Japanese *deserved* the Atomic bomb, now, I'm not sure that the U.S. was entirely justified in using it politically and strategically, but morally I see it is a simple patent giving what you got, and the Japanese got theirs.

No, Japan did not feel "shame at not being "as good" as the west" as far as I remember. I find that your opinion of not minding if Japan "was nothing more than a heap of irradiated rocks at the end of WW2" completely disgusting, as well as this post quite offensive.

Yes, Japan did attack a nation that was at peace: The same nation that embargoed Japan of the raw materials that Japan bought from it, as well as freezing Japanese assets sold in the U.S., which hurt Japan's economy. As you said earlier, the United States does have the right to do so; however that does not mean that it is still not an aggressive action. Japan's economy was hurt by the world-wide economic depression quite badly, and needed resources badly. As there was no oil in Japan or its colonies, Japan bought oil (along with other resources, such as scrap metal and also food supplies, which Japan needed because of food shortages at the time) from the United States.

Japan just did not attack the United States immediately after the trade embargo. Japan spent months using diplomacy with the United States, which would not lift the embargo unless Japan ceded to high demands. Don't forget also that in November, 1941 Prince Konoe Fumimaro traveled to the White House to meet President Roosevelt for a summit meeting to improve the worsening relations between the two nations, but Roosevelt refused to see him. It was after Japan tried to handle things diplomatically that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor: Japan believed that a war with America had become inevitable. Japan needed resources that the United States would not allow Japan to buy, and so Japan planned to supply itself with resources by advancing south to the Dutch colony of Indonesia and other European colonies. The United States also moved its Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, which was viewed by Japan as an act of aggression. Japan believed after the advance south began, the United States would enter the war; therefore, the leaders of Japan decided to begin this war with America by a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor, therefore disabling the enemy's fleet at the beginning of the war.

I don't understand at all how you think that the bombing of a military base at Pearl Harbor and the death of about 3000 U.S. sailors and soldiers, somehow "justifies" the United States A-Bombing over 100,000 civilians of a vanquished foe at Hiroshima.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Meiji-Tenno
Yes, Japan did attack a nation that was at peace: The same nation that embargoed Japan of the raw materials that Japan bought from it, as well as freezing Japanese assets sold in the U.S., which hurt Japan's economy. As you said earlier, the United States does have the right to do so; however that does not mean that it is still not an aggressive action. Japan's economy was hurt by the world-wide economic depression quite badly, and needed resources badly. As there was no oil in Japan or its colonies, Japan bought oil (along with other resources, such as scrap metal and also food supplies, which Japan needed because of food shortages at the time) from the United States.

If by aggressive action you mean a policy designed to influence Japan's conduct, yes. If by aggressive action you mean legitimate grounds for attacking a non-belligerent, no. We need to keep in mind that the embargo did not occur in a vacuum, it was brought on by several years of expansionary, aggressive, aggrandizing Japanese campaigning in Manchuria and China, and
spurred by moves in French Indochina that clearly were aimed at British and Dutch imperial possessions in SE Asia.

I don't understand at all how you think that the bombing of a military base at Pearl Harbor and the death of about 3000 U.S. sailors and soldiers, somehow "justifies" the United States A-Bombing over 100,000 civilians of a vanquished foe at Hiroshima.

I don't think the Pearl Harbor attack "justifies" the atomic bombs, but when one examines the long list of Japanese barbarism and atrocity during the war, it does raise the serious question of how one should conduct oneself while fighting an enemy who has placed himself outside the conventions of civilized warfare, one who has for all intents and purposes initiated a no-holds-barred fight to the death.