Bombing of Hiroshima

History is being misrepresented a bit.  Not really the fault of the people here though -- lot of misinformation out there to fool people.Before August 10, the Japanese Army was insisting that the surrender terms include:a) No occupation of Japan b) Japan be in charge of any war crimes trials c) Japanese troops simply pack up and go home instead of surrendering and being disarmedThe Japanese Army was also insisting that there be no surrender negotiations until after the 900,000 troops waiting in southern Kyushu had had an opportunity to slaughter US soldiers as they came ashore.It was only on August 10, the day *after* Nagasaki, that Japan was willing to surrender before we invaded, and with a guarantee for the Emperor as their "only" condition.Anti-American propagandists often try to claim that Japan's contacts with the Soviets were an attempt to negotiate (or surrender) before the bombs.  However, Japan did not ask the Soviets to pass any message of surrender or request to negotiate a... Read more

There was no need for this from a strategic point of view. First of all, after the battle of Midway, the war was essentially over. What was left of the Japanese fleet was scattered and their codes were all broken. Plus, there is ample indication that the Japanese were willing to surrender, the sticking point being that they wanted to retain their emperor. Apparently, we wanted an unconditional surrender, but in the end allowed them to keep their emperor anyway. Sorry, but the difference between a no condition surrender and a one minor condition surrender isn't worth hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. And there was no reason we could simply drop the bomb 50 miles off the coast. The same message would have been delivered. We could always have bombed Hiroshima or Nagasakai later if it was truly necessary. I doubt it would have been. And somebody here said something about "they had plenty of time to leave." There's no time if you don't know what's coming. By some accounts... Read more

While horrific, the bombings made our point very clear, and without costing as many or more US troop casualties to force a surrender through invasion. Very smart from a pure tactical sense, and most painful from the human side of the equation. That's war. It sucks and people die.

It was bad for Japanese civilians but they were given AMPLE time to leave the area. It was either this way or let the war drag on, taking more lives of American servicemen.

This entire issue just horrifies me. True, Japan did start the war. However, Japan didn't refuse to surrender. Japan agreed to surrender on certain conditions. America wanted a conditionless surrender (there's an actual term for it, but I fail to recall it at the moment). In other words, if American ambassadors decided to hear Japan out, we could have completely avoided bombing Hiroshima . . . And more than likely prevented the horrendous Nuclear conflict with Russia after the second WW, which thankfully ended in a treaty between both countries to never use such destructive weapons again (which Bush tossed aside, much to my disapproval, it's a real disappointment that he won last election). Also, there was Korea -- which is now split into two thanks to my wonderful American country (note the sarcasm). I could even go on about Vietnam and Desert Storm and the War on Terror. But I won't. War, period, is a horrendous thing. Unfortunately, sometimes, it can't be helped. And I su... Read more

Not the best moment in human history, but needed.

There are people who will roundly condemn the atrocities of the Nazis, Saddam Hussein, and Stalin, and these same people will turn around and use any rationale to justify the use of the atomic bomb, simply because it was our side that did this. History provides ample evidence (so I don't have to) that Japan was on the verge of surrender and was looking for a way to do so without losing face. Maybe if people would pick up a history book published outside the United States they'd learn a few things. Don't get me wrong, American history books are superb in most areas, but history is one subject that is impossible to be completely objective about, and American historians cannot help but be biased about American wars.