Turn on thread page Beta

Hiroshima/Nagasaki Bombing compered to the holocaust watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Yeah, killing 200,000 out of 140,000,000 is killing an entire nation, especially when you consider the fact that the daily (non-nuclear) bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were killing about 100,000.



    In that case, how dare Britain fight back against Hitler. Who are we to decide what's the greater good. Should have just surrendered. :rolleyes:
    thats why i said in my post before that American bombing was doing a pretty good job at destroying Japan not just the A Bombs. yeahit was the greater good to maim a country when it was alreday defeated.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lessthanzero)
    thats why i said in my post before that American bombing was doing a pretty good job at destroying Japan not just the A Bombs. yeahit was the greater good to maim a country when it was alreday defeated.
    We heard you the first time, we still think you're wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    "greater good"
    :rip: Dumbledore.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is the reason I find it hypocritical when America says some other countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons, America is the only country to use it against another country.
    I cannot remember the name of the TV program I watched but what it basically said was that Japan was loosing the war, they were ready to surrender, but America had to use it to show the Russians their power. Even if this was not the case, why use 2 nuclear bombs? I think 1 would've been enough to make the Japanese scared as hell their might be another one.
    The other thing you lot are forgetting the environmental effects and children being born disabled.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved more lives than they took. Plus the casualties were of an enemy country, and those deaths are the responsibility of the Japanese Government that attacked America without declaration, themselves with Hitler and refused to back down after an ultimatum and even after Hiroshima. After such a huge war that had gone on for so long and had crippled so many countries, I don't think anyone today is in a position to condemn America for electing a swift end to the war. There is only so much room for honour and rules in a war that massive, especially when Japan had broken the rules at the start.

    So no, those bombings don't compare to the Holocaust. They were not war crimes, and they were not designed to exterminate several groups of people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geetar)
    the holocaust, the greatest mass murder in the history of humanity?
    Weren't Stalin's purges greater in terms of numbers? I might be wrong though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You really wouldn't have this view if Japan decided to drop 2 bigass bombs in England as retaliation (suppose). I think there is a fair bit of bias in this argument.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lessthanzero)
    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.
    So Japan is not longer a nation??

    Ending one of the worst wars in history is a very good reason to drop two atomic bombs - besides why should the US particularly care about Japanese civilians when Japan did not give a damn about US civilians when they attacked Pearl Harbor PREEMPTIVELY, nor did Japan give a damn about US POWs. They started the war against the US and so why should the US have really cared about Japan.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    Weren't Stalin's purges greater in terms of numbers? I might be wrong though.
    Yes the purges were greater in terms of number, but I think there is a difference in motive and action which makes the holocaust sickening.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swi1ch)
    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.
    It is illogical to say that just becasue they dropped bombs on us excuses us to do the same, the idea of acting with morality is the basis of society. It is like saying "because there are people who steal, it won't matter if i do the same"

    Also how was it tactical to attack an all civilian city, i could better understand an attack on a military base, trading port, something which would demonstrate the power as well as cripple army. Attacking innocent civilians seems a common theme between the holocaust and these bombings regardless of numbers. I'm not trying to rank them in order of severity, rather ask why America is allowed to be excused these crimes and those who made and delivered the bombs made out to be heroes. Whereas the germans are repeatedly depicted as evil.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by graham11238)
    It is illogical to say that just becasue they dropped bombs on us excuses us to do the same, the idea of acting with morality is the basis of society. It is like saying "because there are people who steal, it won't matter if i do the same"

    Also how was it tactical to attack an all civilian city, i could better understand an attack on a military base, trading port, something which would demonstrate the power as well as cripple army. Attacking innocent civilians seems a common theme between the holocaust and these bombings regardless of numbers. I'm not trying to rank them in order of severity, rather ask why America is allowed to be excused these crimes and those who made and delivered the bombs made out to be heroes. Whereas the germans are repeatedly depicted as evil.
    This, but they didn't they went after civilians, it goes from ending the war, protecting themselves etc to murder.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    So Japan is not longer a nation??

    Ending one of the worst wars in history is a very good reason to drop two atomic bombs - besides why should the US particularly care about Japanese civilians when Japan did not give a damn about US civilians when they attacked Pearl Harbor PREEMPTIVELY, nor did Japan give a damn about US POWs. They started the war against the US and so why should the US have really cared about Japan.
    America weren't exactly innocent, Japan didn't attack for no reason, had their roles been reversed and Japan sanctioning vital resources for a war USA was waging, USA would no doubt have reacted similarly. Also the attack on pearl harbour was an attack on a naval base with the sole objective to destroy American Navy. It is not as if they went to New York and razed it. Do you really think the American's treated japanese prisoners of war well, perhaps you only mention japanese camps because they are more widely shown in films, documentaries etc made by Americans.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The yanks offered the Japs a chance to surrender after dropping the first A-bomb in Hiroshima. After taking heavy casualties on in the Pacific, the yanks had no other choice to end the war quickly and to save lives.

    The routine Kamizake attacks proved the Japs were willing to go to any length to ensure victory. Dying for the country was the most honourable way for a Jap to die. At the time there were 70 million Japs.

    200,000+ 125,000 or so dead does not equal the potential 70million Jap Kamikazes or the Allied troops potential death toll.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    The yanks offered the Japs a chance to surrender after dropping the first A-bomb in Hiroshima. After taking heavy casualties on in the Pacific, the yanks had no other choice to end the war quickly and to save lives.

    The routine Kamizake attacks proved the Japs were willing to go to any length to ensure victory. Dying for the country was the most honourable way for a Jap to die. At the time there were 70 million Japs.

    200,000+ 125,000 or so dead does not equal the potential 70million Jap Kamikazes or the Allied troops potential death toll.
    Citation needed
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    The yanks offered the Japs a chance to surrender after dropping the first A-bomb in Hiroshima. After taking heavy casualties on in the Pacific, the yanks had no other choice to end the war quickly and to save lives.

    The routine Kamizake attacks proved the Japs were willing to go to any length to ensure victory. Dying for the country was the most honourable way for a Jap to die. At the time there were 70 million Japs.

    200,000+ 125,000 or so dead does not equal the potential 70million Jap Kamikazes or the Allied troops potential death toll.
    How could dropping the second bomb be the only option. What about setting up a blockade, stopping any resources from entering the country or even dropping it somewhere which is not just innocent civilians.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by graham11238)
    How could dropping the second bomb be the only option. What about setting up a blockade, stopping any resources from entering the country or even dropping it somewhere which is not just innocent civilians.
    I said the only other option to end the war quickly. Setting up a blockade and stopping trade to force them to surrender would not be quick.

    What's the use of an A-bomb if you're not going to drop it on civillians? The japs were well aware of the US's A-bomb capability so dropping another where no civililans would be a waste of a good resource in The US's eyes.

    The Japs traded very little during the War. The US cut off their oil trade and the Japanese coped for a good 4 years, so a blockade wouldn't be that effective.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    What if Hitler had killed all the Jews? How many lives could that have saved in the long run....no Israel / Palestine conflict, peace in the Middle East, no terrorism....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren't war crimes, the US told them to surrender twice and the proud Japanese emperor declined on both occasions, the US proceeded to drop leaflets over the two cities prior to blowing both cities the **** up.

    Also, the Japs attacked Pearl Harbour without declaring war, they had it coming.

    It was also a message to the world that the US and it's allies are not to be ****** with.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    Weren't Stalin's purges greater in terms of numbers? I might be wrong though.
    Yes, you might be right (or Mao's projects like the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward). I suppose it depends how you define one 'instance' of genocide.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    I said the only other option to end the war quickly. Setting up a blockade and stopping trade to force them to surrender would not be quick.

    What's the use of an A-bomb if you're not going to drop it on civillians? The japs were well aware of the US's A-bomb capability so dropping another where no civililans would be a waste of a good resource in The US's eyes.

    The Japs traded very little during the War. The US cut off their oil trade and the Japanese coped for a good 4 years, so a blockade wouldn't be that effective.
    How can you say you must drop it on civilians, thats ridiculous and a bit disturbing. Why would you do this, do you understand wars are fought for control, of either poulation or resources etc. You don't invade a country killing anyone in sight.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

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.