Should the US apologise for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I think we should also apologise for what we did to the Germans.



We entered that war on a lie!

Poland was invaded, so what? at least Germany had some kind of claim to it given their history.

Once defeated, the British let the Communists have it.


British like to act like they are on the right side of history and superior to the rest. Have you seen what they were doing in Palestine? What about the Bengal famine in India...

I've never understood why an atomic bomb couldn't have been dropped on some remote, uninhabited island as a show of power. I'd expect that Hirohito would have surrendered at that point, knowing that his cities were next.

Summed up perfectly.

They should absolutely not apologise, or even consider the possibility until the Japanese apologise properly for their actions.

There is no justification ever, for killing tens of thousands civilians.
Period.
We see history through Western eyes

Except, there is, and he just gave you the justification.

So you're saying it'd be a better idea to invade Japan and kill millions rather than drop two nukes and kill at most a couple hundred thousand?

The rules of engagement of an army is not to kill civilians.

Your comment highlighted in red, is truly shameful.
Goodbye.

Whilst I don't necessarily think an apology is due either, the argument "they're not apologising so I won't either" is ridiculous and immature.

It isn't just a case of that though, the lack of a serious apology from the Japanese for their army's war crimes is an ongoing issue for their neighbors.

"The U.S. had already intercepted communications from Japan showing that the emperor had asked the Russians to mediate a surrender, and almost every top U.S. military leader from the time later came forward saying that Japan was already defeated before the bombs were dropped. The remaining debate between historians is less about whether Japan was already going to surrender, and more about why the U.S. used the atomic bombs at all. On the one hand, some argue that President Truman saw the bomb as just one more legitimate weapon to continue fighting with until the end, but others insist that the actual purpose was to intimidate the Russians and secure the U.S. as the winner at the beginning of the Cold War."

Possibly the worst single action ever undertaken by the human race.

Any sources on this arguement? Moreover, does it explain why Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima? If they were already preparing to surrender, why did it take two bombs?

I've never understood why an atomic bomb couldn't have been dropped on some remote, uninhabited island as a show of power. I'd expect that Hirohito would have surrendered at that point, knowing that his cities were next.

When questioned about whether the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, people always seem to present a dichotomy: If the bombs hadn't been dropped, the only alternative was many more years of war and millions of Japanese and Allied casualties. But all dichotomies are false and those are pretty clearly not the only two options.

There is no justification ever, for killing tens of thousands civilians.
Period.
We see history through Western eyes