was the bombing of dresden and tokyo justified?
914001
I believe even at the time there was debate about whether they were justified.  I've heard that General Lemay once remarked that if the war went the other way, they would have been tried as war criminals for their acts.  I don't have the reference for that though, I'll have to look it up.\n\nI look at it thins way, it probably was justified if you believe that war is a contest between enemy populations, and not just between militaries.  If you don't believe that, then probably not.
1033402
No. This is war, my friend. Lives, whether innocent or guilty, are sadly but truly lost. \n\nTake 9/11 for example, 3000 people who weren't even thinking of a war with terrorists, yet lost their lives in tragic flames.\n\nIt saddens me to hear that innocent Iraqis are killed in this War on Terror; but this is the price of war. It wasn't meant to be perfect.\n\nIn addition, how are we, as Americans, some of the only people who are willing to respond to a GLOBAL threat, take a chance of not firing our weapons? \n\nAs a U.S. citizen, we have to a stand SOMEWHERE, regardless if our own troops or our enemy's citizens die as well.\n\nAlso look at WW2. If the U.S. hadn't used the atomic bomb, dont you think there would have been a different outcome? This is what frustrated Truman; should they NOT use the bomb to save innocent lives? Or use it to end the war that had brought total destruction to the world?
345767
There's the left and right answer:\n\nThe lefties say:  A) Japan was ready to surrender, B) the bombs were used as a demonstration of U.S. power for the Soviet Union.  \n\nThey also say:  1) The oft repeated in U.S. history books and history programming that there would be the loss of 100s of thousands of U.S. soldiers if Japan was invaded is incorrect.  2) Japan had approached the King of Sweden for to notify the U.S. that they were ready to negotiate.  3) U.S. wanted an unconditional surrender which would allow U.S. corporations to open up Japanese markets.  4) Russia was about to enter the war against Japan now that German was defeated, and the U.S. didn’t want Russia to be part of the partitionoing of the orient, ie, no Eastern Bloc as was done in Europe. \n \nMy feelings are that the US was justified knowing that the Japanese totally rejected the Potsdam demands, had waged total war including the sneak attack on American soil, and had demonstrated suicidal defenses of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, among others, and with the Soviets ready to jump in, i'd say Truman made the right choice.  The Cold War was already looming and better to get US hegemy in the Orient sooner than face the prospect of another Soviet bloc theatre. do i feel sorry for the men, women and children who were vaporized? sure i do, the same sorrow for those who suffered the firestorms of Dresden and Tokyo, but a full scale war was going on and me in my easy living life of 2006 can't possible denounce what was happening 50 years ago.\n\nCheck out the following site for a good overview of the decisions leading up to the detonationsl, including copies of the English translation of leaflets dropped before the bombing.
248057
Yes,,, Any person do anything without reasonable cause and lead to a war is a bad person\nwhat the reasonable cause Hitler was have to make a war??
774357
A very cowardly act for our president to commit and it was genocide i believe. At least those brave japanese fighters had honor and never targeted cities with innocent woman and children in it like we did.they caught us with our pants down in Pearl Harbor and it was a military target not a whole F****** city.We took the easy way out and i think it was very cowardly and wrong to ever drop a bomb not even targeting military targets but whole cities.Im ashamed of what we did to Japan in the past.
591887
well 2 bombs have already been dropped on Japan, but i assume you mean why where the sites chosen. Well the USA wanted to force Japan out of the war so sites that were of economic importantce to Japan was chooosen
1179128
Bush w/ Hitler and Hussein? Idiot. How many civilians were killed in WW2 when the allies fire bombed Dresdon or Tokyo? What about the 2 nuclear bombs? With your mentality, why aren't you mentioning Roosevelt, Truman, or Churhill? How about Stalin? Milosovich, Pol Pot? Get a life.
720060
No.  Although the Atomic bomb caused massive casualties it did not wipe out the entire population.  There were still people, cats, dogs and other animals.
622054
I believe the army air corps and navy air did far more damage than artillery of WWII. Besides the two a-bombs dropped on Japan, the carpet bombing of Dresden is a prime example of the devastation left in the wake of bombing runs. That example was played over and over again in Europe, as well as the island campaigns of the south Pacific.  Then again, naval gun fire played an awfully large part in the Pacific, so I'm going to revise my answer by saying, in Europe air power was more significant, whereas in the Pacific, artillery and naval gun fire were dominant, excluding the A-bombs of coarse.
1057153
no it was not necessary. yes, the war could have ended with out the A bomb. The reason for the A bomb was to make other nations aware of the power the U.S. had.
312077
Of course it is...but that's inevitable given your earlier point about using the bible to justify just about anything.\n\nI am sure Hitler could have found good cause to use the bible to justify his actions had he not been an atheist.
437854
I would have to say that it would be impossible to know the answer, Pure speculation...however, after reviewing the facts:\n\n1. Japan had made overtures via Sweden of negotiating a peace prior to Hiroshima.\n2. However, they did openly turn down the Potsdam demands for unconditional surrender.\n3. Like you mentionioned, Iow Jima and Okinawa showed their army's determination to fight to the last man, altho it may not have proven that the civilians would've done the same on Japan proper.\n4. The first nuclear detonation did not bring immediate surrender from the Japanese leaders.\n5. By using the bomb, we lost the moral argument after the war that the A-bomb should be controlled and never used.\n6. The bombing of civilians was recognized as barbaric before the war and in the Geneva conventions, and yet the allies began using incendiaries on Dresden, Tokyo causing major firestorms.\n7. By ending the war earlier, we did not give the Soviets a chance to mount an offensive against Japan and create a Soviet Bloc as they did in Europe.\n8.Oppenheimer, Fermi and others considered the alternative, increased American casualties vs ending the war sooner by using the weapons, and they recommended the use of the bombs. There were some scientists who recommended a demonstration to show the Japanese leaders the potential devastation, but they were overrulled.\n\nMy opinion is that we did save Japanese lives that would've exceeded the number killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, vis a vis the continued encendiary bombing of Japanese cities and loss due to "fighting" to the last man mentality that showed at Iwo and Okinawa.\n\nThe number of allied lives saved, i would guess, would be around 200,000, but that's only pulling a number out of the sky...the US stated hundreds of thousands, if not more.
638564
Yes, they had used it but only once in world war two. They dropped the bomb in 1945.
251358
no it is not justified..the only reson we ewnt to war in the first place was for oil. and i think everyone knows that. This is wat war is all about, thorughout history form ww1 war was about natural resources liek oil. defiantely not justified
1123039
Well I don't think it is right to drop nukes on anyone. However I also acknowledge that President Truman was facing at least 5 more years of war in the Pacific. Many more American and Japanese servicemen would have died. It is hard to say whether those death tolls would have topped Japanese casualties from the bombs. What always bothered me about Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that after seeing the power of the fist bomb the Emperor didn't surrender immediately, thus incurring a second attack. Understand this though, if it hadn't been for Japan those bombs might have been used some time later with much more staggering death tolls. So if nothing else it told us dropping nukes was something that shouldn't be taken lightly.\n\nOk EDINA we get it you don't like US Foriegn Policy. However you should really save that for the current Iraq debates, because whether you like it or not Japan attacked us, thus drawing us into WWII.  Oh and here's a clue for ya, they did it because they wanted grab up resources on all the pacific islands.
134990
Riot,\nToday we can debate this issue with the aspect of both hindsight and foresight. When Mr. Truman made his decision, he did so knowing only what the possible outcome could be. His view was to save American lives, and I believe he made the only choice he could. Consider, had that event not took place, and the US invaded mainland Japan, the suspected killed in action count was to exceed one million US soldiers. If your father, or grandfather were among those causalities, you would not be here to ask this question. My heart goes out for the Japanese that lost their lives in this event, but thankful that we as a species have not found it within ourselves to use this weapon again!
1058611
When we dropped the bombs on Japan we were saving many american and even some Japanese lives by ending the war with them.  If we had invaded Japan the casualties on both sides would have been enormous....by dropping the bombs we got them to surrender within a week and we didn't loose any men.