Do you personally believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary? Why or why not? Personally...

Yes.
Bomb 1 produced a conditional surrender request.
Bomb 2 produced an unconditional surrender.

>The briefings show they were way more concerned about the Soviet invasion and the bombs were minor details.
Please cite to these briefings.

>war crime
Not under the geneva convention at the time senpai.

... But it wouldn't have been. A few hundred thousand more is nothing compared to the Soviet or Chinese sacrifices and the economic damage in those countries. The US mainland was never relevant as a theater in any World War and hadn't been existentially threatened for hundreds of years.

America could count on the Aussies and Other Allies to help, and the USSR could've produced a proper lander fleet in half a year. Zero oil producing Japan under a total embargo and a total bombing campaign easily falls to a 100% Soviet invasion. Anyone could do it if you starve and firebomb them long enough. This argument doesn't hold up, geopolitical motivation does.

So.... you're saying that the only way to avoid the atomic bombs would have been a continuation of the blockade and firebombing that would have killed hundreds of thousands of civillians anyways?

>implying countries hadn't been bombing the citizens of others for decades prior.
What does the size of the bomb matter? There wasn't a way that any unilateral body who decide what is and isn't a war crime could have possibly conceived of a weapon like this.

>Zero oil producing Japan under a total embargo and a total bombing campaign easily falls to a 100% Soviet invasion
Please pull your head out of your ass and look at how difficult of a time the Soviets had at the Kurils, and then remember that even Hokkaido was enormously more well defended.

The Soviet invasion "plans" included
>Ask the Americans for more ships
as a rather necessary step.

"If your major concern was casualties, then yes. The bombs helped save GIs and Japanese civilians" (maybe).
The main concern for Japan was the fate of the emperor(GOD). Unconditional surrender meant we could demand his death, killing their god essentially. They were seeking an end to the war before the bombs, hoping to hold on to some of the territory they took. All of their major cities were destroyed, we firebombed and killed tens of thousands of japanese civilians. These two bombs didn't do shit to change the minds of the civilians or the government. The Soviet entry into the war was the straw that broke the camel's back. Some say that Truman dropped the bombs to intimidate Russian and if you look at how Truman behaved at the negotiations (denying the Russians a lot of what Roosevelt promised Stalin) it seems obvious that he got a huge confidence boost from learning that the bombs worked. He imagined he held all the cards and could bully Russia. Instead the Russians built their own bombs and the Cold War started.

The big six didn't cave in to unconditional surrender until after the second bomb dropped/

bump

I hate saying it but Nagasaki proved Hiroshima was no fluke. As well as proving it would happen again and again until Japan surrendered (although the US didn't have enough enriched fuel for another bomb at the time).

The japs actually thought we had a thousand nukes after some captured pilot told them that. Also, weren't 9 other bombs being worked on at the time?

They were certainly working on making more at the time, but after the second bomb fell, they didn't have any more ready, would've been a few months if I recall.

They were necessary because they stopped the Soviet Union from imposing communism everywhere.

The next bomb was scheduled to be ready like 15 days after Nagasaki, and after that production went up to three a month.

Come on guys, you could at least post bait shit. A thread where everyone agrees and is civil is no fun at all.

I disagree with this post

Of course you would, you revisionist faggot.

Why don't you make like your buttbuddy Foucalt and go die of AIDS?

fuck you nigger

You're right -- it has the reason and the ability to.

start shit get hit. they dont want to be bombed? then dont start a war

Notice how OP said
>inb4 weebs

user if you scare the weeb away we won't have anyone to argue with

Could busting out the second bomb in say the outskirts of a city have caused unconditional surrender?

Did Nagasaki really need to be rekt?

They weren't necessary, especially not the second one.
The US didn't necessarily know that.

By the time the decision to drop the bombs came, the US had ALREADY killed millions of Japanese with indiscriminate firebombing. The nukes were essentially just a more efficient way to do something that the US had already been doing. No effort was made to avoid killing Japanese civilians, although to be fair they did drop leaflets that told which cities would be bombed.

Dropping those bombs was needed the U.S cant fight a population that is willing to die.

Not that user, but check out Racing the Enemy by Hasegawa. What that user fails to mention is that there were several different groups within Japanese brass (and officials) vying to push their agendas. A powerful group of war hawks refused surrender at all cost as I'm sure you know of the coup attempt on the Emperor. Some were simply willing to eat the bombs and force an invasion (or at least the appearance of a willingness to go on) in hopes of negotiating a better peace treaty.

It's not technically incorrect to say that the Japanese feared a Soviet invasion, but the bombs had a devastating effect on the Japanese public. They almost certainly had substantial impact on the decision to surrender.

Were they necessary? Maybe not, but they would not have been necessary if the Japs had surrendered a bit faster. Leaders willing to sacrifice millions of their citizens for muh honor when the burgers let them keep their God anyway.

Not with the Japanese High Command being what it was.

Niggas was crazy.

this

the reason they were necessary was precisely because firebombing and carpeting most major japanese cities didnt ''work''

it did reduce most of japan to smoldering rubble and decimated the population and the economy was near collapse, but the fuckers just wouldnt give up

so the atom bombs were used rhetorically - we can do this with ONE(1) plane with ONE(1) bomb - get it yet???

and then japan surrendered

Nagasaki was selected specifically because it was a major industrial city that had escaped american bombing efforts up to that point, so if the bombs didn't work at least we'd further crippled japanese industrial output.

I thought they left Nagasaki alone to test the strength of the atomic bomb?

Or am I mistaken Senpai?

>Do you personally believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary?

It prevented a west vs USSR war.
It also stopped christianity from spreading in Japan, since the two cities nuked were the two christian strongholds in the country.

So yeah, good job.

I'd like to point out that Eisenhower was against the bombs and that Japan couldn't hold on as long as we thought they could, but I don't think its an unreasonable argument for dropping the bombs. I would like to note that it is not as simple as "an invasion would of been worse" when making that choice.

Japan surrendered when their army in the North lost to the USSR, not when they got bombed. They had been getting bombed for months. Tokyo was a burning ember.

It saved millions of lives that would have been lost during an invasion or siege of the Japanese mainland. It also forced surrender before Stalin Invaded.

fuck they japanese
they didn't nuke them hard enough if you ask me

The soviets would not have been able to naval invade Japan. The high command in moscow did not have a plan for the invasion of honshu and had not made industrial plan for production of invasion craft and a fleet to support it etc.
Not that the Japanese command knew this though, so they thought they were fucked after the invasion of manchuria.

Necessary? No.

Justified? Yes.

japan had send conditional surrender requests through soviets for months, potsdam declaration only allowed unconditional surrender(only difference here was that japanese were trying to maintain the role of emperor in conditional surrender). With the soviet declaration, japan had no other option but to accept unconditional surrender because of no major mediator.
>inb4 why did they surrender to murifats
Would you prefer to become communist puppet and get fucked like eastern europe?

foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
good read 2bh, very logical

I dislike weebs. But I dislike warmongering and WMD more.

>navaly invade japan
japan only had 2 of their shittiest divisions in hokaido, they could practically walk in some troops then cross the narrow straight into honshu in days

I am assuming US army point of view for this.

>Do you personally believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary?
Yes.

>Why?
To decrease American casualties as much as possible for the rest of the war.
Counting on Japanese internal turmoil to overthrow the government is too risky, you don't know when or if that is going to happen at all and you certainly don't know who would represent the Empire of Japan when they just deposed the emperor.
Waiting for the Japs to drop dead or starving them out opens up the possibility for the Soviets to get a piece of the pie, once again too risky.

See
Didn't need to bomb anyway, Japanese would have surrendered without the bombs.

Was it necessary to win the war? no, but it would be much more costly in lives and materiel to accomplish it

The atomic bombings was the quickest way to force an unconditional surrender, along with the Soviet entry into the Pacific War, as an Operation Downfall would secure the victory the Allies desired, but at more extreme cost.

and after 6 years of nonstop war and 70 million dead, any option that could end the war as quickly as possible was much more preferable as all sides were absolutely sick and tired of fighting.

> Do you personally believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary?

I do. The Japanese high command was still debating whether to surrender even after we dropped the first bomb and the nukes guaranteed there’d be no internal opposition to their surrender.

And the fact is, the two nukes we did drop on Japan caused less damage and fewer deaths then the conventional bombing campaign we had been running and guaranteed the U.S. and BritComm wouldn't suffer massive casualties in an invasion of Japan.

And in the end, we needed to know if nukes were viable weapons and while Truman was Soviet apologist, (like his boos FDR) it insured that Stalin wouldn’t get any ideas.

>the USSR could've produced a proper lander fleet in half a year.

LOL, no they couldn't!

The U.S. had to give them an entire fleet just so they could invade Sakhalin Island (unopposed).

>We dropped the first bomb
Stopped reading there, bias confirmed
Murifat schools are basically propaganda camps

No it wasn't. There were many other options. It's just the US wanted a quick, unconditional surrender before the Japanese would negotiate something with the Soviets (Or the soviets would land in Japan), they also wanted to flap their dick infront of the USSR to make sure they appear to be the dominant male, so they dropped two, not one, and they dropped them on cities, not countryside or ocean.

>we
Accurate posts with facts

>only difference here was that japanese were trying to maintain the role of emperor in conditional surrender
Why the fuck do weebs always say this like it's the only thing the requested. They also asked to retain their imperial holdings, a.k.a. Status Quo Antebellum. It wasn't just the retention of the Emperor.

Nah, its position in the mountains prevented bombing raids by the allies

this is an argument

it argueably created a lot more problems then it solved and possibly because it was only a half measure

>the US wanted quick, unconditional surrender before the japanese would negotiate something with the soviets
There was 0 possibility of any form of negotiated peace with the soviets. They were comitted to sticking with the cairo conference.
>soviets would land in japan
The soviets were completely incapeable of an amphibious invasion. The kurill islands proved to the russian high command that it couldn't undertake an effective amphibious invasion of japan.
>dropped them on cities
You mean a major millitary base and a major industrial center, the destruction of which had massive consequences for the japanese war machine and would have made operation downfall a hell of a lot easier if the bombs didn't work.

Unlike glorious bias-free European/SouthAmerican/Asian schools right

This article is such horse shit its not even funny
>Japan’s leaders had wanted to surrender anyway and likely would have done so before the American invasion planned for Nov. 1.
This is retarded, considering that A: the postdam declaration was met with complete silence on the part of the japanese, and B: japanese preparations for the defences of the home islands were still underway. Even if the japanese were planning on surrendering, there was no way the US could have known that.
>hiroshima happened 74 hours before the big six met together
Because, although the japanese were aware of the sheer power of the nuclear weapon, the prevailing consensus was that the americans couldn't have many more of such weapons( Frank, 270-271, citing Daikichi Irokawa, The Age of Hirohito: In Search of Modern Japan (New York: Free Press, 1995; ISBN 978-0-02-915665-0).)
>the russian invasion of manchuria was the only thing that got the big six to start discussions on surrender
Suzuki and Togo decided to call the council together based on both hiroshima and the invasion of manchuria ( Sadao Asada. "The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration". The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Nov. 1998), pp. 477–512.)
>drop in the ocean
Except propaganda leaflets dropped on the 13th discussing the destructive power of the atomic bombs, in addition to a report that the americans in fact had a hundred more bombs ready to go, were what convinced hirohito to accept unconditional surrender (frank, 314). The leaflets convinced him that he either had to accept the american terms of surrender or face a coup.

Sure, why not?

Con't
In his speech to the big six in which he announced his intention to surrender, Hirohito made no specific reference to the soviet entry into the war, but DID mention the increased destructive power of the atomic bomb.(frank, 295-296)

Additionally, his capitulation speech AGAIN mentioned the atomic bombs, and NOT the soviet invasion of manchuria.
"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. 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."
"Text of Hirohito's Radio Rescript", The New York Times, p. 3, 15 August 1945,

>inability to defend against the russian invasion was what axed the plan of the final battle
Again, wrong. It was the unpreparedness of the defences which were meant to face the american landings which convinced hirohito of the futility of resisting. He specifically cited the fact that the defences for kujukuri beach had not been completed( Bix, Herbert P. (2009). Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. HarperCollins. p. 515.). Additionally, most of the japanese high command was in favor of fighting on, except for Hata, who commanded the southern islands, and whose testimony that the defences were insufficient to hold off an american invasion (frank, 314).

The entire premise that the japanese were somehow more worried about the russian invasion of the northern part of the islands than allied invasions in the south is false. First of all, the article only deals with a planned soviet invasion of hokkaido, not the northern part of the japanese mainland itself, which was much better defended and had divisions which were capeable of being re-deployed in the event of a soviet invasion.

Con't again
Additionally, there was overlap between many of the japanese airbases that were designated to defend against an allied assault from kyushu and the region that the russians would have had to go through. The allies estimated that it would take 30 divisions to conquer japan, while russia had only 11 with which to undertake their proposed invasion. Additionally, fleet support was extremely limited, a factor which the japanese were well aware of. Therefore, the japanese were far more concerned with the poor state of the defences which were meant to resist the allied invasion, and cared far less about a russian invasion of hokkaido.

Some even argue that day never happened. Japan was incorporated into the new power axis. And needs to justify itself as a once enemy of america to continue the farce of the anglo-phone world. Which is why Japans advertising and anime are important to keep an eye on as they more oft than not indirectly curse US citizens.

t. Takashi

>There was 0 possibility of any form of negotiated peace with the soviets. They were comitted to sticking with the cairo conference

There was possibility if they capitulated to the USSR than to the US. And the US was afraid of that

>The soviets were completely incapeable of an amphibious invasion. The kurill islands proved to the russian high command that it couldn't undertake an effective amphibious invasion of japan

?? The Kurile Islands was a successful and a very swift invasion. And it doesn't matter really, letting the war last longer meant the USSR would've landgrabbed more territory from Japan on Manchuria and eventually China. Open a fucking book you retarded burger.

>You mean a major millitary base and a major industrial center, the destruction of which had massive consequences for the japanese war machine and would have made operation downfall a hell of a lot easier if the bombs didn't work

Neither of the cities was a military base nor Industrial center, Nagasaki was literally almost untouched by the entire civilian-targeting fire bombing campaign because it had no strategic value or purpose, it was a fucking fishing town with relatively small population. It was chosen along with Hiroshima because they were largely untouched by the air campaign BECAUSE THERE'S NO POINT BOMBING CITIES WITH NO INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE NOR MILITARY VALUE

Plus, you didn't respond to the original argument, the purpose of the nuclear bombs was to coerce Japan into surrendering, a demonstrational value as most apologists put it, if so, than why didn't the US just drop them off the coast or in the countryside? would've been just as good to forcing the Japanese surrender. But they didn't. Because you're wrong and I'm right. They want to dickflap the shit out of the USSR

This
Burger eternally btfo, shame they continue to flop their dick around to this day, both militarily and on internet forums

>there was a possibility
No, there wasn't. The russian foreign ministers intentionally misled the japanese. There was never any possibility of a negotiated settlement.
>neither of the cities was a major military or industrial significance
>At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military units were located nearby, the most important of which was the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan,[110] and was located in Hiroshima Castle. Hata's command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly anticipated
>The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry.[188] Although an important industrial city, Nagasaki had been spared from firebombing because its geography made it difficult to locate at night with AN/APQ-13 radar.[117]
>why not just drop them off the coast or in the countryside
Did you read my post? That's right, you didnt, because you're a filthy yuropoor. The targets were selected because they had major strategic and industrial significance, so that in the event that the atomic bombs failed to bring about an end to the war, less american casualties would be sustained during operation downfall.

Eternal Soviet, leave

>Wanting to end a war is warmongering

>do we have to drop nukes on an island thats isolated, have no allies left and can barely feed itself?

>Do se have to nuke the island that has milions of inhabitants that are fanatized to the point when they believe their Emperor is a god and will rather all die than surrender

Should a countries have nukes that has millions of indoctrinated drones as 'voters' and the belief that all there imperialist warmongering is justified and successful?

Japs were going to die anyways. At least the bombs got it over quicker.
Yes, because absolutely none of what you just said is true

>?? The Kurile Islands was a successful and a very swift invasion
Not the guy you're responding to, but the invasion lasted over a month, and fighting only stopped a few days after the official surrender. They were not directly militarily subdued, and had the Japanese continued resisting, there is no telling how long the campaign would have lasted.

this, the ruskis suffered 10% casualties in five days

POST MOAR bersaglieri