Was the US justified in using atomic bombs in Japan? 

Going off hindsight, allowing the USSR to simply enter the war & start attacking Japan may have had far worse long term consequences than the 2 bombs did. They'd expect equal weight in how to deal with Japan, whether that's dividing territory, implementing Communism, taking their "spoils of war," etc. You could end up with an East/West Germany situation, North/South Korea situation, or something else entirely. They may want to bring war criminals to trial, they may want to execute Hirohito, you never know... Also, Japan was pretty adamant they were willing to fight out an Allied invasion. Despite some interest in surrender, many in leadership wanted to keep fighting, hold out & force the US to commit to a costly invasion. As you said, the US had been bombing for months. 60+ bombing missions, a naval blockade, & losing other territories still hadn't convinced them to surrender, so why would Truman think just continuing that avenue would be better (if anything, it likely kills even more Japanese people than the 2 atomic bombs, still prolongs the war & gets the USSR involved). The fact their was a SECOND atomic bomb dropped speaks volumes to me alone. Even after repeated warnings from the US to Japan telling them what was to unfold (the 1st time), dropping leaflets over the city calling for evacuation for days in advance, then dropping the Hiroshima bomb... still no surrender 3 days later. That about tells you the mindset & resolve of the Japanese command at that point. Even after Nagasaki, it took intervention by Hirohito himself to convince leadership to surrender. So the idea they would surrender eventually isn't the issue. It's how long were they willing to drag it out, how many lives would that cost, & how would that impact Japan post-war? Definitely biased here, but I feel like the US ending it at that point was the best thing that could've happened for Japan. No Soviet division & interference, cooperation in rebuilding, reforming their society, building a strong economy, and kept their royal family.

My dad was home from 8th Air Force bombing missions over Germany in B17G. He was scheduled to train on the B 29 then go to the Pacific. He and friends were sitting in a dark movie theater in the Bronx when Jap surrender was announced. Since it was dark he cried out of a sense of relief that he'd live.

Imagine US go starving Japan with a blockade. Imagine historians, now, asking if US had the right to do it! Unfortunately, war is war and not an exercise of good intentions!

Japan was planning on sustaining 20 million casualties from the Allied invasion. They were defeated, but they hadn't surrendered, which is quite different.

When one judges historical wars, one has to take two things into account. • Chrono-Diplomatic norms (Allowing for societal war norms in that time) PLUS cultural differences. • And then the basic mathematical formula of the needs of the many versus the needs of the few. To me, it was always a lose-lose for the U.S. We'd win eventually, but how bad a hand would we be left with after we stop? The Japanese had said they intended to bleed us dry in a war of attrition. Bring us to a negotiation table because of the losses. And the only modern pro-con arguments are based on how the Japanese *may* have responded. No guarantees. So what move to make? No way to know or debate now. Every counter-argumenrt has always relied on a different U.S. response, ultimately resulting in a different Japanese response forgoing the bombs, but *assuming* the Japanese respond how you assume they will. The problem is no one can know those potential responses, even now! These all read as if 'it's a guarantee, woulda stopped it somehow.' Nonsense! But the real truth is these were just options. There was no way to know the current power struggle going on within the Japanese Military Government, and a wrong decision could have cost countless more lives on both sides. They had publicly stated that every breathing Japanese man, woman, or child, would fight to the last. They gave prime examples of this on Okinawa, Iwo jima, etc., that didn't fall far from the bar. So the U.S. War Department starts a fire bomb campaign, one of which destroyed a lot of Tokyo, plus much of the rest of Japan. Yet no indications of surrender. They put up a 'no surrender' face. The last thing the U.S. wants is to lose a million soldiers, plus there's some face-saving, because even though that wasn't all these cilivilans hit day after day, so many were, and we can't look like the Nazis just blowing through armed civilians waging guerilla campaigns... General MacArthur believed that would have taken 10 years and millions of lives even after victory. We had intel from some members of the Japanese War Cabinet that if they would *ever* surrender, it has to be to the Americans and NEVER to the Soviets. So we did know that late on. So, now we have this new bomb. The decision is made to drop it. We destroyed a lot of other these targets already in fire bomb campaigns with zero Japanese mental-war fortitude affected as far as we know. But Hiroshima is largly untouched and they have industry. So decision: bomb Hiroshima with the atom bomb - the the Soviets are already licking their chops like they did in Eastern Europe. So we do it first. No responding after the first, and then the Soviets declare war on Japan days later. Same day, Nagasaki - second bomb. The Japanese Military Government doesn't agree unanimously but sends stuff to the Emperor anyway, he survives an assassination attempt, but lives and agrees to surrender terms, and so basically stopping a Soviet incursion into Japan. Several members of the Military Council commit ritual Seppuku. Thats how it happened. My big problem with analyzing this portion of the war is compairing the adversaries. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan operated in so many different ways, from culture, to strategy, to tactics. I find that neighsayers compare their troops to Japanese troops. Night and day difference. Bottom line, I think millions of lives both sides saved. JS, IMO.

What happens under the wait and see policy when Russia enters the Pacific Theater? Due to prior incindeces to WW2 Russia has no love lost for Japan. A Soviet landing in the North of Japan could have been catastrophic with implications of a divided country.

On July 21, 1945, a senior US Army Air Force intelligence officer in the Pacific distributed a report declaring: “The entire population of Japan is a proper Military Target . . . THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS IN JAPAN.” Those seeing this for the first time think it represents hyperbole at best, racist sanction for mass extermination at worst. It was neither. This document does provide a portal to see exactly how the summer of 1945 looked to Americans, particularly those directing or participating in final operations against Japan. When 1945 began, Japanese leaders recognized their nation’s dark military situation, but they rejected any form of surrender. Instead, they devised a sequenced military and political strategy called Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive.) Its fundamental premise: Americans possessed enormous material power but their morale was brittle. The plan aimed to meet the initial invasion of Japan (which they correctly anticipated would be on southern Kyushu) with massive ground and air forces. These would either defeat the invasion attempt or at least inflict such horrific casualties-American and Japanese--that American will to continue the war would be broken. Then in the second phase of the plan, Japan would obtain a negotiated settlement of the war, far from the declared American aim of the unconditional surrender of Japan. That settlement would certainly preclude an occupation of Japan and guarantee that the old order would continue.

I bet not one of these revisionist historians actually landed on Iwo Jima or Okinawa or being trained to invade Mainland Japan those people and the mothers and fathers are the only opinion that matters

"might be", "may be", "could be", "was possible", "who knows?", "why not?"

The Hauge convention's definition of a war crime is "Any military action that deliberately targets civilians in a theatre of war." I leave you to decide if these bombings deliberately targeted civilians.

Given the atrocities committed everywhere occupied by the Japanese, and the impending butcher's bill of Operation Downfall, and the realities of the times, there wasn't really much choice if Truman wanted to avoid a blood bath. Operation Downfall would have made Vietnam look like a teddy bear's picnic.

We all know that if Japan had a atomic bomb and were in our situation they would have used it.

It must be made clear that the argument Blackett made has almost no solid backing of truth, he made this claim on the basis of a theory he could not prove with solid evidence, just be aware. And by the way, there is a consensus generally speaking amongst historians, the United States and allies did the vast majority of the work to bring Japan to its knees and facilitate a surrender, the advent of the Soviets joining the fight in early August was the final push, and so the Japanese surrender was brought fourth for two reasons, not just one or the other. However the vast majority of the credit for defeating the Japanese in the pacific belongs to the United States marine corps and the US navy.

This is the only reason, why everyone should have their own nukes. Countries Situation always depends on time. But the reality of power only exists when you have the right man and right weapon.

An interesting bit of history is that Patrick Blackett was Oppenheimer's physics advisor at Cambridge . I don't know the story about the apple - but it seems the 2 did not see eye to eye . .

It is a silly question. Like asking if the invasion of France was necessary.

5:50 - Kevin Ruane is playing games here. In 1943 , FDR's policy towards Japan and Germany was unconditional surrender . However , Harry Truman's policy toward Japan was clearly outlined in the 13 points of the Potsdam Declaration , issued on July 26th, 1945 . Truman wanted to change Japan into a democracy . Point 10 ) states " The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people . Freedom of speech, of religion , and of thought , as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established . " Point 12 ) " The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in the accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined ans responsible government . " Suzuki rejected the Potsdam Declaration by famously stating " Mokaustsu " ( US interpreted as ignoring it with silence ) Under US occupation , Japan's Constitution was changed in 1947 . Both Men and Women gained democratic rights All Japanese citizens gained human rights . So why did Kevin Ruane not mention any of this ? ... and he teaches at Canterbury Chris Church University . Should Universities be in the pursuit of academic truth ? .

I can totally buy that! I do think it was a kill 2 birds with one stone type of thing. Whether we were winning or not with Japan it was very hard fought and this put a stop once and for all and it was a way to tell Stalin (and the world) Do u want some of this? But I don't think the war in itself with Japan would have been enough without the impending threat from Russia. Is it right or wrong? IDK. I know we were in a brutal war

The truth is what we learned in 1990's from Russian records and that is Japan had two nuclear programs run by the Army and the Navy of Japan. We destroyed the Army program, but the Navy actually had a test run using a device the size of a ship and it did go off. Lucky for us the Russians captured it in Koria and took it all away, people and every nail found. We did not have a clue till the 1990's with the fall of the Soviets. So, there is no moral high ground here for anyone, war sucks.

Invading Japanese shorelines would’ve been worse than Normandy

they produced so many purple hearts in anticipation of the invasion of japan that theyre still being awarded 80 years later for the global war on terror. and heres another thing to think about the numbers of deaths by war had been going up exponentially (especially during the 20th century) up until 1946. after the bombs were dropped the number stabilized (more or less) at a fraction of what it had been prior to the bombs being dropped.

Hindsight- a great way to make easy money! Just ask Kevin, he knows very well.

Another myopic evaluation. Since when is fire bombing Japanese cities any more humane than Nuking them. It’s a distinction without a practical difference. The fire bombing of Tokyo took more lives than Nagasaki or Hiroshima and they still refused to quit. Use your head. Was bombing Pearl Harbor necessary? Nope. The atrocities in China? Nope. How about the cruel and inhumane treatment of POWs? Not hardly. Kamikaze attacks? No. One thing was clear. American soldiers were becoming war weary. There was some discontent from soldiers who were to transferred to the Pacific theater from Europe. Japan could’ve quit the war back in 1944 when they didn’t have a pray but they didn’t. So how long should the U.S. have waited for Japan to realize they couldn’t win? Using the arguments of someone who had zero impact on war policy is pointless. Working on the Manhattan project makes them no more informed on the war than the other 130,000 individuals who worked on the Manhattan Project.

I thought this was quite disingenuous. The Japanese had 0 intention of surrendering - their strategy was to have the US invade, for there to be a total bloodbath and to extract concessions in this way. The only way they would have come terms was that if the Imperial polity, the Emperor as a living god continued, occupation was either nil or limited to a few sites, they supervised their own war criminal trials and oversaw their own disarmament. For obvious reasons none of this was remotely acceptable to the US. In the end after the bombs were dropped they had to accept the Potsdam Declaration because their Ketsu-Go strategy was a dead letter. Prime Minister Suzuki subsequently wrote that this was because the US could have dropped 1 atom bomb after another and continued to blockade and the Japanese would have been powerless. It would have taken many months for the Japanese to have surrendered otherwise, during which time there would have been mass starvation in Japan, the deaths of pretty all Allied POW's in their hands; and the deaths of countless Asians killed by the Japanese Army in China and all the territories they continued to offer. There would have been substantial casualties amongst British Commonwealth forces tasked to recapture Malaya. The Soviet argument is very unconvincing - the Generals had written off the Kwantung Army, it was obvious that the Soviets weren't going to intercede with the Anglo-Americans on Japan's behalf and the Soviets could not possibly have invaded Hokkaido - they didn't have the means. The Japanese military leadership contemplated the loss of millions of their own people rather than surrender. It was only after the bombs were dropped that more rational voices - notably civil and eventually the Emperor - were able to bring the war to an end. The Emperor laid great stress on the role of the bombs in his Imperial Rescripts and in a letter to his son. It was the bombs that did it

Yes. Happy to help. One of these days these type questions will be asked of the Soviets for their early European war agreement with Hitler, only to flip and years later invade Japan from the North.

I think if you look at the results that we are currently living with is really difficult to argue against dropping that horrific weapon

4:24 oh the irony. this image of b-29s dropping their payload was taken from a leaflet dropped on japan prior to the dropping of the bombs warning civilians to flee the 10 cities listed (ie on the short list of possible targets) as well as other cities. how often in the history of human conflict has prior warning of the use of a war ending weapon been afforded an enemy? btw the japanese high command forbade civilians fleeing their cities as it would disrupt war production which included small private workshops in individual private homes turning out small bits into the pipeline of japanese war production.

5:06 the military clique ruling japan had no intention of ending the war until it had forced the usa to invade so as to cause so many casualties as to force the usa to negotiate a peace favorable to japan. to this end they had thousands of suicide airplanes, boats and submarines cached to attack the invasion force and were training civilians to resist all the way down to training schoolgirls with bamboo spears and children to dive under vehicles with explosives strapped to them.

I think for the people at the time, the atomic bombs were just another weapon to be used in the war. Like, either this, or military invasion. What makes the atomic bomb so horrifying is the absolute total damage it caused almost instantly.

There are other considerations not addressed here. Prisoners of war were suffering and every day the war persisted, more would die. The Soviets hadn't just entered the war, they were rampaging into Manchuria with elite armored divisions, they even had eyes on teh Korean Peninsula. The Japanese were beaten in August 45, but they simply would NOT surrender. It was imperative that the war end ASAP. The A bomb was more than justified and it saved lives and educated future leaders abou tthe horrors of nuclear war.

Maybe refer to what Hirohito himself said, in an unprecedented radio address to the Japanese people, for why they (HE) was ordering the unconditional surrender. Here's a snippet .. "because of the new cruel bomb that could completely destroy our nation".

Doesn’t this guy look like Truman?

people who say yes are hypocrites, I wonder what they will say if that happens to them or a close relative

My grandpa was at Okinawa. Invading Japanese was not an option and as horrible as the bomb was it ultimately caused less suffering to the Japanese (and also Americans) than dropping the bomb.

My dad was scheduled to invade the mainland. In his words "the bomb saved his life" and made my life possible. I don't take kindly to your twisted logic.

The Japanese should be thankful for the amount of mercy they were shown.

Gotta love these "Monday morning quarterbacks" who now claim Japan was defeated and America didn't need to use nukes. Tell that to the sailors who were still fighting off Kamakazi attacks on American warships and burying their shipmates at sea. If Japan was defeated, why did it take TWO nukes to finally get them to surrender? Japan was planning to fight on and bleed the US if it invaded, which would have been the only alternative. The War Department even had a slogan for the continuing war..."The Golden Gate in 48." Hard liner Japanese commanders had told the people that to die for the emperor, instead of surrendering, was an honor. The nukes SAVED LIVES...US AND JAPANESE.

It was the best choice Truman had at his disposal.

Thank you.

A war crime.

this guy is the goat

Apparently

I think they used them because they put a lot of effort and money into creating them.

little late to worry about that now

and heres why the premise that the russians invading manchuria is what really ended the war is utterly absurd. the military clique ruling japan had no intention of ending the war until it had forced the usa to invade so as to inflict so many casualties that the usa would be forced to sign a negotiated peace favorable to japan. so for the premise it was the russians to be true you would have to maintain it was the fear of the russian invasion who had little amphibious experience and little amphibious infrastructure while simultaneously trying to force the worlds premier amphibious operations military (the usa) with the largest amphibious infrastructure literally in human history. utter nonsense.

Concerning many US citizens still believe that atomic bomb made WW2 came to the end, I am the part of human race, says it is quite possible. Why ? Japan as the last country ( after all others Germany, Italy had surrendered ) didn't show any sign to surrender and retuned to the negotiation table. The use of negotiation and other solutions ( eg. The ban of international trade, etc ) will need long time to reaolve. But however, as any violence towards civilians is the crime to the humanity, atomic bomb was also the crime towards Japan's civilians, if we say all of Japsn did in many Asia's countries and civilians was the war criminals, atomic bomb was also the same, itvwas the crime to millions innocent Japan's civilians. There is no justification for using atomic bomb to the civilians, but if it could be restricted only to the military target, ( providing it will not be off-target ) it might be allowed. If we declare the6re should be no atomic, nuclear bomb use for war, then all countries especially the WW2 participants ( Germany, Japan, Italy ) should confirm they will not use any war or military forces to settle any problem with any countries. Some people are afraid if the nuclear is banned some xountries will revive and do what they have done in WW2 aggain. But if we uphold the international treaty that WW2 participants ( Germany, Japan ) could not use their military forces OUTSIDE their country, such worries are unnecessary. Let us make the whole world come to the eternal peace and the WW2 tragedy will not happen in the future.

Fine with the use of nukes in war.. But I don't like that they were directed at primarily civilian targets

Even after getting hit with two Atom bombs, the Japanese didn't want to surrender unless the word " unconditional " was taken out of the demand. They were lucky only two bombs were available at the time. Dropping them was the right decision. Not executing the emporer was a mistake.

Put yourself in the shoes of an American in 1945... No Internet, No TV, No Satellites, just War News every day!!!

Yes.

Yes, read, “Tennozan” and stop second guessing.

Did you know that Dwight D. Eisenhower was against dropping the bomb.

Of course there were other options to using the bomb, but all other options would most likely result in more causalities, on both sides. Simply continuing the blockcade would have resulted in millions of Japanese starving to death, as well as our military forces, our POWs, and civilians in countries occupied by Japan continuing to die. The third option, of dropping the 'unconditional surrender' demand would most likely be seem by the Japanese as a sign of weakness and encourage them to insist on their other conditions: that there be no occuapation of Japan, that the Japanese would oversee their own disarmament and any war crimes trials, and possibly that they retain some of their conquests.

They should’ve known better than to attack the U.S in the first place. Now yeah, I hate that civilians were killed during the drops, but that’s how it had to be to defeat The Empire Of Japan.

Of course. A determinative fact is that if Japan was "so ready to surrender" BEFORE the first atomic bomb, then why did it not IMMEDIATELY surrender after that bombing? Japan did not surrender until after the SECOND atomic bomb. That proves it was necessary. The use of the atomic bombs saved millions of lives.

Yes, there was justification. It saved more lives than it took

Was Russia right dropping Nuclear bombs on Kiyv and main NATO cities? We will see. ❤️❤️❤️

Maybe if Japan didn't attack us I would give a shit what they thought.

One thousand percent correct

We could have at least tried to offer them surrendering terms that they would have be much more open to, and that we would eventually give anyways like the Emperor being able to live. This is a testament to the fact that we could have at least tried to do this beforehand.

I read an anecdote by someone who spent a lot of time in China and Korea. His hosts would - half-jokingly - rank US presidents from best to worst like this: Best: Truman, since he nuked Japan twice. Worst: Truman, since he nuked Japan *only* twice. Given things like Unit 731, the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, I have no doubt about the veracity of this anecdote. In short, the answer is: Yes.

The Americans were absolutely correct for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan effectively ending the Japanese aggression in Asia and South Pacific.

Actually he meant "To save lives of WEST"

Russia just entered the battle and if they had not surrendered soon, they would have been crushed like Germany.

Was Japan justified in making war on peacetime American servicemen and peaceful civillian populations. Are the war crimes they committed acceptable or forgivable?

The average estimated casualties of the mainland Japan invasion and subjugation were 1 million American troops, 20 million Japanese troops AND civilians. Now just think about that for a second… 20 million Japanese dead. Would they have ever recovered from such destruction?

ABSOLUTELY without ANY equivocation whatsoever

The use of the Little Boy and the Fat Man was necessitated by 2 factors: the appearance of the Kamikazes, and s prediction by Gen Douglas MacArthur that the US would suffer 1,000,000 casualties in an invasion of Japan. Among that figure could have been my father and my uncles!!! - Marc Smith, born August 16, 1943.

No doubt about it. PERIOD

But to be honest Japan attacked America for no reason Pearl harbour the us wasn’t planning to inter the war but Japan did a fatal mistake by attacking the US but still they didn’t deserve a huge punishment like nuclear bombing

It’s a very complex double edged sword the bombs posses. On one hand, the bomb dropping was wrong because the suffering of the victims. If they didn’t die from the bomb, they died a slow and painful death from the radiation effects. On the other hand, Truman really had barely any choice since if they kept policies, the war would be going on for much longer. The invasion would be terrible since it would cause the death of millions of both Americans and Japanese soldiers and he didn’t want that.

No and it should be a war crime for attacking civilians

Robert Julius Oppenheimer didn't tell us everything. Some details were missed. for instance two academic scientists from two small countries near Denmark smuggled blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb to the White House in 1942. they offered to lead a nuclear program within the U.S, based on the Soviet blueprints of their atom bomb. The duo came to Washington Dc and to the White House in about 1942, with detailed blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb along with materials lists and air blast calculations. All Europeans are brothers, as Americans like to say when they leave the western hemisphere. The Soviet nuclear weapons program started in 1936 and lasted till 1945, and building of the atom bomb were delayed by a few dissident scientist there. The nuclear blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb and these Soviet blueprints were already in final stages for production purposes by 1942. Nuclear weapons design teams of nuclear scientists worked in the Soviet Union and these blueprints were made between 1937 and 1942. The Soviet design team delayed production as much as possible, by focusing on air blast calculations per unit increase in nuclear radiation. Nuclear weapons air blast calculations of the Soviet Atom bomb and materials lists were given also given as gifts to the White House in 1942. the smugglers hired by dissident nuclear scientists were two scientists from either Holland Or Denmark or some other country in that area. Once in Washington the duo smugglers of nuclear secrets offered to lead the future nuclear program of the United States, which President Roosevelt had taken a lot of interest in after meeting the smuggler duo and their secret Soviet blueprints and air blast calculations. The drawings of the Soviet atom bomb were smuggled to the White House itself by 1941 or 1942. The drawings of the Soviet atom bomb, along with air blast calculations and materials lists were ready by 1941 at the Soviet nuclear weapons research center. Soviet Union had the best nuclear scientists, with a human tough and humane mentality. At the time the focus of the United States was in radio waves. So, right after the Soviet drawings of the atom bomb and air blast calculations were smuggled to the office of President Roosevelt, President Roosevelt initially put together a rag tag team with G. Marconi, the inventor of the radio, in charge of the American nuclear program in 1942 - 1943. Soon someone mentioned to him that the United States too had a bright scientist trained in nuclear physics who was in a scientific company somewhere else in the USA. In 1942 or so, Oppenheimer called back the White House: he needed two months notice, at the very least. He told officials in 1942 to let Marconi continue, and that he had to give two months notice to his current employers in 1941 or 1942. Robert Oppenheimer and President Roosevelt were both very impressed with the Soviet papers of the Soviet atom bomb, as these were accompanied by extensive airblast calculations . president Roosevelt commented that even he could understand the air blast calculations ND the Soviet design papers, despite being a history major. Their brilliant nuclear scientists decided to have a go slow approach till a Slav (East European) is selected as the Secretary general of the Soviet Union in place of Joseph Stalin. These were smuggled out of the Soviet Union by a few dissident nuclear scientists of the Soviet Union on to the White House in 1941 or 1942. the dissident nuclear scientists of the Soviet Union didn't like the idea of a communist country like their county building the first atom bomb. original atom bomb drawings and materials lists and air blast calculations were prepared in a nuclear bomb research center in the Soviet Union by a team of nuclear physicists, led by Egor Kurchatov. In his younger days, Mr. Kurchatov looked like a handsome man. Soviet chief scientist and project manager of the Soviet atom bomb program looked more like a white beach boy on a surfboard and more like a slim fraternity member an any college in the USA. Later, he started looking more like a mad scientist with age. During the initial successes of the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, Kurchatov and his team of dissident nuclear scientists decided to smuggle out the papers of the Soviet nuclear weapon to the United States. and atom bomb including the original drawings and materials lists and formulas and air blast calculations. These were were smuggled out of the Soviet nuclear weapons research center by two real Europeans:: The two smugglers were two academic scientists from central Europe, actually western Europe. The duo who reached the United States also reached the White House in 1942, give or take 6 month, along with the Soviet designs of the atom bomb were from one or two central / west European countries, either Holland or Denmark or a similar country. came from Igor Kurchatov lead scientist of the atom bomb research center. The rest is history. He almost didn't respond to the President's invitation. He was working in a company working or wired signals and other radio signals. Oppenheimer was the only knowledgeable authority in nuclear scientist in the western hemisphere, unlike the Soviet Union and Germany. Initially he told the White Science he had forgotten nuclear science even he had studied nuclear science. President had an answer to Oppenheimer's excuse at not being in a hurry to join the nuclear program of the United States in 1942. He said his last name is German, and that he may be mistakenly associated with Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany had already been committing a number of atrocities across the Soviet Union. President Roosevelt promised to refer to him as an American Jew. American Jews have German last names. So Oppenheim became a Jewish American overnight after a meeting with President Roosevelt in 1942. before that he was a non practicing Jew. Some say he may have been a Lutheran Christian with a German last name before ww2.

Yes

We gave em enough chances but they just shitted it all out

You bet!

From beginning of 1945, Japan had been requesting peace talks to the United States through Mr. Dulles of the 0SS (the predecessor agency of the CIA) in Switzerland. The record of repeated contacts calling for peace talks from the Japanese government can be found on the CIA website as a PDF file with the following name: “Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers” This PDF file shows that the Government of Japan was asking the United States to talk the end of the war repeatedly. And it was recorded that they admitted defeat and argued that retention of the Emperor was the only condition for surrender, which was necessary to prevent Japan from becoming a communist nation. Communist thought denies and destroys tradition and culture. Just as the Russian Empire was lost by the Russian Revolution, becoming a communist country means the destruction of the state. Even if the war can be ended before the total annihilation of Japan by the Allies, if Japan becomes a communist country due to the loss of the existence of the emperor, it means the destruction of Japan. So the retention of the Emperor was the condition that Japan couldn’t compromise. And that's why Stalin continued to persistently demand the execution of the emperor, and some people in the Roosevelt administration who it turned out that they were communists in the Venona document, had tried to have Truman to execute the emperor many times. The draft of the Potsdam Declaration was supervised by Joseph Grew, the former ambassador to Japan. The draft contained one sentence authorizing the guarantee of the emperor's status along with some conditions of surrender, such as disarming the Japanese army and not colonizing Japan. Because Grew had heard of the above report, knew well why Japan wanted the retention of the Emperor, and knew that Japan would surrender as soon as the Potsdam Declaration allowed the retention of the Emperor. This Grew’s action is proven by the Truman memoir. It says: "Grew arrived at the end of May and suggested to make a declaration urging Japan to surrender. The declaration provided Japan with a guarantee that the United States would allow the Emperor to remain head of state." "I told him that I had already considered this issue and that (Grew's suggestion) seemed like a sound opinion." However, when the Potsdam Declaration was read out, the sentence guaranteeing the emperor's retention was deleted. Because the United States wanted to conduct examinations on the dropping of the completed nuclear bomb against “the Japanese people.” Since Washington had not responded, Japan had asked also the Soviet Union to mediate negotiations to end the war based on the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact. In other words, Japan raised a white flag to the United States and the Soviet Union, but they did not reply at all until the Potsdam Declaration. Without replying, the U.S. military carried out air raids on 430 cities in Japan. LeMay's airstrike method was very ruthless and merciless. That method burned down the area after burning all the edges of the planned airstrike area first so that no one could escape from the area. In the Tokyo air raid on March 10, 1945, more than 100,000 Japanese civilians were burned to death in 2 hours. As LeMay said later, the U.S. Air Force had tried to kill as many Japanese as possible. It’s mean the United States was convinced of victory, and it was also convinced that it would not be charged with war crimes later. So these indiscriminate genocides were carried out without hesitation. And it is clear that the purpose of the United States was to make governance easier after the end of the war. Westerners often interpret that Japan did not have the will to surrender to the Allies because it was preparing for the decisive battle on the mainland. However, when the enemy ignores your request for End-War Talks and continues to attack, it is quite natural to prepare for the next possible attack such as "landing operation on the mainland", isn't it? In short, it was the United States that made Japanese say, "Fight to the last person." Kantaro Suzuki was the Prime Minister, who was clearly appointed by the Emperor with the intention of ending the war. For the Japanese government, the Potsdam Declaration was a response from the United States that had finally arrived after several months of negotiations to end the war. So Prime Minister Suzuki tried to proceed with the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. But what hindered it was that there was no wording to guarantee the Emperor's position. Suzuki inquired about this, but the United States did not give a clear answer. Even after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, there were pro-USSR military leaders who insisted that they should wait for the mediation of the Soviet Union. Also, the fact that the number of victims reported from Hiroshima immediately after the atomic bombing was about 80,000, which was less than the 115,000 victims of the Tokyo air raid on March 10 also affected the meeting. So, the Japanese government could not accept the Potsdam Declaration immediately because some of leaders refused to accept the Potsdam Declaration. However, on August 9, the Soviet started invasion. This invasion cut off the hopes of some leaders who were pro-Soviets, so Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration. In short, In order to end the war, there was no need for atomic bombs or landing operations. The United States also knew that the atomic bombing was unnecessary. But The United States did experiment of atomic bombings because it wanted to do an experiment against Japanese people and cities alive. What led to the acceptance of Japan's Potsdam Declaration to end the war was not the 2 atomic bombings, but the Soviet invasion.

yes

Yes Truman had other options but the bombs impressed the Japanese, British and french as well . Why else would the European powers take a backseat to the US on the global stage, after the Suez crisis?

The bombs are justified.

That’s call one stone two birds.

No, nothing justifies the use of the atomic bomb. It was a power trip and bragging by Truman. How can you kill 120,000 innocent men, women, children, and elderly in an instant in the cause of saving soldiers who volunteer to go to battle? This is not proper reasoning but “rationalization”.

Yup!!

Yes,....it was correct.

I dunno man is it right to vaporize two entirely civilian cities killing all inhabitants?

Yes, the US was absolutely right to drop the two A bombs. At the time, Japan deserved a whole lot more.

YES!!!!!

I believe that the atomic bombing was a mistake war could have ended with less victims Japan was about to surrender anyway

SRY…But usa already won!!! Why occopied Japan and Asia ??!

Your speeches are so easy....because You have never know how people suffered front japanese soldiers atrocités....!!!! It's so easy for Philosoph ...to bark Their théories.....but the soldiers at thé front battles can't stop thé billets with your banking bla bla bla...!!!

Hell No. US Propaganda is BS

U think japan forgot absolutly nooo , revenge will come one day , japan will end USA era its a matter of time , we are humans and humans never forget , forgive .

Of course not, usa did that to show their power to Soviet union

You guys wiped out an entire generation.Imagine what people might have suffered during that moment.This is the biggest crime against humanity.

The issue everyone ignores in these debates is that US intelligence Proved that most of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually children. I know this was not the intent, but it is the cold, brutal fact! Thousands of helpless children, many too young to know why there was a war died cruel, horrific deaths that shocked and broke a nation. I do not excuse what Japan did, and honestly, I believe they should have been punished much harsher for their horrific war crimes. Hirohito personally should have stood trial for the barbaric things his government did. The Atomic Bombs punished the WRONG people. The once who suffered the worst, had no voice at all in the violence that ended with their deaths. This is what the bomb that fell in Nagasaki did to a boy who was just riding his bike. (Photograph of Sumiteru Taniguchi's back injuries taken January 31, 1946 by team of Lt. Daniel A. McGovern and Lt. Herbert Sussan, US Army): upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Sumiteru_Taniguchi_back.jpg Sumiteru just happened out delivering mail on his bike the morning of the bombing. There is also this photo a a little girl from Hiroshima who just happened to be outside when the bomb detonated. The flash burned her eyes, leaving her blind: www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-eyes-that-saw-a-nuke/ To blast Japan for its cruelty in war, after using weapons like this where they hit children, is not only sick, but shameless hypocarcy at it's worst. Yes, Yes, I've heard all the "They were warned" lines. Yet ultimatly, the US must own it's own sickening cruelty. Two wrongs don't make a right! The A bombs were barbaric overkill. Yes, war is brutal and cold, but even in war, it is possible to go too far!!

Yes

Yes