Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Hiroshima/Nagasaki Bombing compered to the holocaust Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How do you think the two compare in terms of "war crimes" obviously the death toll of the holocaust was far greater but does this make it much worse, or conversly Americas bombings more excusable.

    Where the German's targeted a specific race and had their motives for the actions, America were far more indiscrimnate unnecessarily targeting a civilian city.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAPOIa4uR-0
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    You could argue that the bombings were designed to put an end to a war, and therefore have at least some justification on pragmatic grounds. Whereas the holocaust was an act designed to eleminate entire groups of people based on nothing more than the abstract desire to get rid of those people.

    Basically, the bombings were designed with a more 'honourable' purpose: to end the war. The holocaust was the killing of people for its own sake.

    At least that's what some people would say.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by graham11238)
    How do you think the two compare in terms of "war crimes" obviously the death toll of the holocaust was far greater but does this make it much worse, or conversly Americas bombings more excusable.

    Where the German's targeted a specific race and had their motives for the actions, America were far more indiscrimnate unnecessarily targeting a civilian city.
    I believe that as tragic as the killing of ~220000 innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, the act of dropping those bombs ended the war and saved hundreds of thousands more being killed. Killing 6 millions Jews and countless millions of Russians, Poles, disabled people, gay people and other opponents to the Nazi regime, had no such "greater good" rationale. It only served to further Hitler's megalomaniacal vision of his utopian, Aryan world. Besides, the Geneva Convention had not been written at that point, so there were no rules governing the killing of civilians during military action.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geetar)
    You could argue that the bombings were designed to put an end to a war, and therefore have at least some justification on pragmatic grounds. Whereas the holocaust was an act designed to eleminate entire groups of people based on nothing more than the abstract desire to get rid of those people.

    Basically, the bombings were designed with a more 'honourable' purpose: to end the war. The holocaust was the killing of people for its own sake.

    At least that's what some people would say.
    I agree. Maybe the bombing of Nagasaki could have been delayed a little, though, as Japan might have withdrawn after Hiroshima.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The ending the war arguement is weak.

    How did it end it? By showing america had the power to do that.
    Surely one bombing would have done that?
    And the killing of civilians and a whole destruction of a city is not really ending the war, its a demonstration of power
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What America did to Japan was far worse imo, Truman was aware that the Japan was already defeated he just wanted to show his new toy off to the USSR. Robert Mcnamara the then sectary of defence has said that if the allies had lost the war the americn government would be put on trail for crimes against humanity. He just burnt a country to ashes and then for good measure made sure that he made it radioactive. What happened to the Jews was bad but it ended in when the allies won tne war. What happened to the japanese had further reaching consequences.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    not much a comparison. The invasion of Japan was estimated to cause the death of millions of US soldiers and Japanese civilians - far greater than the combined death toll from dropping the bombs. Not to mention the fact that Japan had attacked the USA preemptively in 1941, the victims in the holocaust never did declared war on Germany.

    Lets not forget that the intended aim of the Holocaust was to eliminate groups in society that Hitler saw as detrimental to society - eg Jews, gypsies. The atomic bomb was dropped to end one of the worst wars in history - oh ye and it was not a war crime.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lessthanzero)
    What America did to Japan was far worse imo, Truman was aware that the Japan was already defeated he just wanted to show his new toy off to the USSR.
    He was? Because there's still enough doubt that common historical opinion says that they weren't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lessthanzero)
    What happened to the Jews was bad but it ended in when the allies won tne war. What happened to the japanese had further reaching consequences.
    Japan is now the 2nd largest economy in the world. Six million Jews were killed, 1/3 of the entire Jewish population. The Jews never declared war on Germany, Japan preemptively attacked the USA. There is no comparison at all.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It's slightly nicer than the holocaust as, while both were mass killings, the US weren't being racist about it. (well actually I suppose you could argue they were being racist against japanese but I wouldn't)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    He was? Because there's still enough doubt that common historical opinion says that they weren't.
    He took over from roosevelt who ahd already won the war and Japan had been raised to the ground by American bombing. Truman just wanted to show American Nuclear power imo. LIke i said Bob Mcnamarma said that they would have been tretaed as war criminals for what they did ( was in his film the Fog of War).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by graham11238)
    How do you think the two compare in terms of "war crimes" obviously the death toll of the holocaust was far greater but does this make it much worse, or conversly Americas bombings more excusable.

    Where the German's targeted a specific race and had their motives for the actions, America were far more indiscrimnate unnecessarily targeting a civilian city.

    Proper weird... was reading about this on wikipedia earlier today!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    Japan is now the 2nd largest economy in the world. Six million Jews were killed, 1/3 of the entire Jewish population. The Jews never declared war on Germany, Japan preemptively attacked the USA. There is no comparison at all.
    Thats an excuse to destroy a nation and its civilisation, a more pathetic one to make it radioactive when there was no justification for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    I believe that as tragic as the killing of ~220000 innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, the act of dropping those bombs ended the war and saved hundreds of thousands more being killed. Killing 6 millions Jews and countless millions of Russians, Poles, disabled people, gay people and other opponents to the Nazi regime, had no such "greater good" rationale. It only served to further Hitler's megalomaniacal vision of his utopian, Aryan world. Besides, the Geneva Convention had not been written at that point, so there were no rules governing the killing of civilians during military action.
    'greater good' eh? death in any form is inexcusable imo. Who are we to play god? Why should we as a world 'sacrifice' millions of Japanese people for 'greater good'?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lessthanzero)
    He took over from roosevelt who ahd already won the war and Japan had been raised to the ground by American bombing. Truman just wanted to show American Nuclear power imo. LIke i said Bob Mcnamarma said that they would have been tretaed as war criminals for what they did ( was in his film the Fog of War).
    Just repeating it doesn't make it true...

    For ***** sake, you think McNamara was the SecDef when he was 29? :curious:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lessthanzero)
    What America did to Japan was far worse imo, Truman was aware that the Japan was already defeated he just wanted to show his new toy off to the USSR. Robert Mcnamara the then sectary of defence has said that if the allies had lost the war the americn government would be put on trail for crimes against humanity. He just burnt a country to ashes and then for good measure made sure that he made it radioactive. What happened to the Jews was bad but it ended in when the allies won tne war. What happened to the japanese had further reaching consequences.
    Really?

    If you don't think that the bombings were justified, fair enough, there are certainly arguments that could point that way. But do you seriously think that they were worse than the holocaust, the greatest mass murder in the history of humanity?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As Sun Tzu said, a Country/Nation/Army must have the support of it's people in order to be victorious. Deplete the morale of it's people and it can no longer function.

    Should those bombs not have been dropped, the war would likely have taken to Japanese soil anyway and civilians would have been killed.

    Plus, civilians died by the bucketload, from indiscriminate bombs dropped on England, France, Germany, Russia and elsewhere. Just so happened that in Japan more died in one swoop.

    The Holocaust was an organised and methodical execution of a targeted group of people. The nuclear bombings were a tactical option to end the war.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ronaldo91)
    'greater good' eh? death in any form is inexcusable imo. Who are we to play god? Why should we as a world 'sacrifice' millions thousands of Japanese people for 'greater good'?
    You'd prefer to sacrifice millions for the same? :curious:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lessthanzero)
    He took over from roosevelt who ahd already won the war and Japan had been raised to the ground by American bombing.
    *Razed to the ground.

    Truman just wanted to show American Nuclear power imo. LIke i said Bob Mcnamarma said that they would have been tretaed as war criminals for what they did ( was in his film the Fog of War).
    As Bismarck said, those in charge of the Japanese war effort had no plans to surrender. The bombs ended the war in the Pacific.

    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Yeah, killing 200,000 out of 140,000,000 is killing an entire nation [...]
    The population of Japan was only about 70 million in 1945 but your point still stands.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 17, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.