Its not too likely that they have anything that would stand up to serious scrutiny. The evidence is all pretty solidly in favor of the conclusion that the point of dropping the bombs was to make Japan surrender.(Original post by quadruple_twist)
I've visited the Peace Memorial Museum in Hiroshima, and some of the documents and footage they have suggest the bombings had more sinister motives than merely ending the war. However, I still think the Holocaust was undeniably the most horrific out of the two, if only because more people were killed and there was no justifiable reason for it.
Turn on thread page Beta
Hiroshima/Nagasaki Bombing compered to the holocaust watch
- 17-08-2009 06:12
(Original post by IQ Test)
- 17-08-2009 06:23
Its a bit too late for me to give a proper answer to this important question, but I think that the Hiroshima bomb ONLY was justified. This is because it gave the Japanese a reason and motivation to surrender and because I think that the fear induced by the bomb may have made Japanese civilians want to en the war, thus pressurising officials into doing so(?).
The Nagasaki bomb, in my view, was unjustified because I feel that only one bomb of such terrible proportions was neede to end the war, where as the second was to me, just a weapons test for the Americans at the expense of innocent life, even more so that the Hiroshima bomb. After Hiroshima, the Americans may have had a little more knowledge of the side effects of the bomb also. I also dont feel as if the Japanese were given sufficient time in which to surrender after "Little Boy" was dropped.
Did that make any sense?
There was no lack of knowledge regarding the fact that radiation was deadly.
The dangers of radiation were known ever since Hermann Joseph Muller published a paper (which later earned him a Nobel Prize) on it in 1927.
Plus there had been a number of prominent deaths from radiation, the most notable being Marie Curie.
Also, Japan knew by August 7 that we had destroyed the entire city of Hiroshima with a single bomb, and that we had claimed it was an A-bomb.
That gave them two days to react if they wanted to, and they did nothing.
On the other hand, when Japan decided late on August 9 to attempt a conditional surrender, they managed to have the surrender offer in our hands the morning of August 10.
(Original post by Mrm.)
- 17-08-2009 06:24
Unless I am mistaken, the warning was issued after the first bomb had been dropped.
It wasn't a case of the American military demanding the surrender of the Japanese people; this offer had already been made... The issue was that the military wanted an unconditional surrender and this was not offered... the sticking point was largely to do with what would happen to the emperor himself..
It was only after the A-bombs that Japan sent us an offer to surrender so long as we granted a guarantee for the Emperor.