Atomic Bomb Poll.

[roosterjuicer]

This is why most Western historians seem fixated on the European theater in my opinion.

i think its a lot of things. most importantly, defeating the germans was our #1 priority. they were the number 1 threat to us, they were the most imporant thing to us. even during the war, the fighting in europe received a lot more attention in the US than the fighting in the pacific did once the war got under way, its just the way it was.

dont forget also that at the time, Japan was really the only nation in eastern asia that was even close to being an industrialized country. At the time, europe was basically the center of the world, the US was kind of the ugly, possibly a little slow big dude in the basement (think sloth from the goonies), and eastern asia in general was basically relatively insignificant backwater to the world.

im sure race had a bit to do with it, but i think the gravity of the threat had a lot more to do with it.

additionally, as i mentioned earlier. jews control the media, jews have the money. I wonder if perhaps china had been full of Jews it might have gotten more attention? who knows, it may have gotten more, but probably not more than the european front did.

[Matra et Alpine]

Folks, my comments about the egos who wanted things there way and ensured history was written that way is clear in all that has been wriutten and yet NOT the connection yo "the third way" . It was NOT *necssary* to invade Japan.
EXCEPT some felt they had to "punish" for Pearl.
The Army, Navy and Air Force all wanted different end games.
Politicians and allies wanted different end games.

and yet the stock answer is we saved lives by NOT invading.

Totally ignoring the overtures for peace, the ability to blockade !!

Also, lets not forget that there was uproar in the US at the high number of casualties at Tarawa. But less reported was that half drowned on the way in due to bad planning and then the land forces struggled with very few junior officers and senior NCOs and lack of tanks ( again part fothe bad planning ). SO some of the fear used to justify NOT invading weren't that valid really

[RacingManiac]

Folks, my comments about the egos who wanted things there way and ensured history was written that way is clear in all that has been wriutten and yet NOT the connection yo "the third way" . It was NOT *necssary* to invade Japan.
EXCEPT some felt they had to "punish" for Pearl.
The Army, Navy and Air Force all wanted different end games.
Politicians and allies wanted different end games.

and yet the stock answer is we saved lives by NOT invading.

Totally ignoring the overtures for peace, the ability to blockade !!

Also, lets not forget that there was uproar in the US at the high number of casualties at Tarawa. But less reported was that half drowned on the way in due to bad planning and then the land forces struggled with very few junior officers and senior NCOs and lack of tanks ( again part fothe bad planning ). SO some of the fear used to justify NOT invading weren't that valid really

I don't know if having the blockade instead of actually ending the war would have helped the issue. As soon as the Japanese lost in WWII the rebuilding process begins. Where as blockade would just drag on the suffering of the Japanese citizens for the incompetence of their nationalist governement. Military would still rule much of the country and whose to say they wouldn't suppress the national uproar that would inevitably happen, they did it in every occupied country in Asia.... And I am pretty sure if US didn't invade, Russia will......

[scottie300z]

It has been stated earlier that the US had cut trade with Japan before their involvement in the war. But unlike hinted at earlier this was not to try and gain entrance in the war it was to appease their allies and still stay out of it.

That said, since the US had cut oil supplies from Japan, Japan then turned towards others countries for goods. And they did not do it through trade, they pillaged the far east. So who are you going to blockade them from that you aren't already? You have to do something to end the war.

[acfsambo]

My opinion is that they shouldn't have dropped the bombs, though i do see why they did it. In saying that, there had to be a better way to end the war in the Pacific.

[willysjeep]

I did not read this whole topic, and i will not comment on what others say.
I did a history research in 1980 on the very same topic and came to the conclusion that the poll question asked here can be a very tearful topic. The European people differs from the Americans, regarding answers to the question and the Asians still need to answer the question........understandably!!!

But i think, after a lot of research that the bomb had to go!!!Although at a later stage in my life i maintained it went in the wrong direction

[Matra et Alpine]

So who are you going to blockade them from that you aren't already? You have to do something to end the war.

As you said, the first US attempt was to stop US shipments of natural resources.
So then Japan went to invade others to get them.
THAT is not a blockade

A blockade would prevent any natural resources getting to Japan mainland, Simple.

[nopassn]

my two cents, without much arguing my opinion, is that it wasn't the right thing.
it wasn't the worst to do, neither the worst that happened during those days, but it wasn't their right to use such a blind and mass killing weapon on civilians too.
to my knowledge, the US hadn't been attacked in their own territory, let alone the US people hadn't been hurt directly by the war, so definitely I would have much preferred something more "proportioned".
it was like using an iron bat to open a nut.

then I'm aware the situation was much more complicated and that if they didn't use the bomb, then the Nazi probably would have, so it can't be simple to say yes or no.

Weren't attacked in their own territory?! December 7th, 1941. A nice Sunday morning... hundreds of Japanese planes jacked us up, in OUR harbor, in one of OUR states... UNPROVOKED.

Put me down for "yes, make them glow in the dark - twice."

[cmcpokey]

in one of OUR states... UNPROVOKED.

territories. hawaii wasn't a state until 1959.

[scottie300z]

As you said, the first US attempt was to stop US shipments of natural resources.
So then Japan went to invade others to get them.
THAT is not a blockade

Placing a blockade between japan and china would be like Russia putting a blockade in the Mississippi River. How long do you think they'd be able to keep that up?

[cmcpokey]

Placing a blockade between japan and china would be like Russia putting a blockade in the Mississippi River. How long do you think they'd be able to keep that up?

successfully done by Union forces on Vicksburg MS during the civil war...

with the huge size of the pacific fleet by the end of the war, a blockade would have been possible. however there was no patience left for war in the US. with the collapse of germany, everyone was ready to be done with the war. there was extensive analysis of all aspects, and it was widely figured that there would be less casualties of both military and civilian with the dropping of the bombs.

[scottie300z]

successfully done by Union forces on Vicksburg MS during the civil war...

with the huge size of the pacific fleet by the end of the war, a blockade would have been possible. however there was no patience left for war in the US. with the collapse of germany, everyone was ready to be done with the war. there was extensive analysis of all aspects, and it was widely figured that there would be less casualties of both military and civilian with the dropping of the bombs.

There weren't bombs, planes, or a whole number of weapons that would be used in that scenario in the civil war. Also, the Union was pretty adjacent to the area being blockaded.

The pacific fleet was large at the time, but if they tried a blockade that close and between nothing but enemy forces how long do you think it'd take until it couldn't keep it up anymore as opposed to how long the Japanese could hold out? And then how do you keep your forces there supplied continually?

[cmcpokey]

There weren't bombs, planes, or a whole number of weapons that would be used in that scenario in the civil war. Also, the Union was pretty adjacent to the area being blockaded.

The pacific fleet was large at the time, but if they tried a blockade that close and between nothing but enemy forces how long do you think it'd take until it couldn't keep it up anymore as opposed to how long the Japanese could hold out? And then how do you keep your forces there supplied continually?

i know that vicksburg was a silly example, i was just showing that your unlikely scenario actually happened. its also pretty apparent you understand very little about the navy, or ww2.

at the point we are talking about, japan had no fuel for its ships. it had very few pilots with adequate combat experience, and relatively few planes that were capable of fighting the americans. whereas the US kept on developing new equipment throughoput the war, japan had stagnated. they had few resources, especially after losing the philipines, and didnt worry about development of the equipment they already had in production.

additionally, the US had developed a replenishment at sea capability. they could (and we still do) get fuel and supplies from ships without having to pull into port. they take the supply ships to where the warships are. that gives a nearly indefinite time to stay at sea.

blockades are very challenging to do, and i think that would have been the wrong way to go. the bombs were quick, effective, and were an integral part of leveraging the japanese commanders and emperor to surrender.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The other thing, I suppose thats worth mentioning, is that, in a sick way, it was much more humane to kill many of those who died in the two bombings quickly than to have them suffer slowly under the restrictions of blockades and starvation.

[scottie300z]

I actually do understand the state of japan at the time. I believe I even read they were trying to make oil from Japanese plants. (The green and growing type, not the industrial) However, due to distance and the power of any type of bombs, which they still had a number of, it would be much more difficult than what it may seem. And if they were able to hold out until their forces in china mobilized, it may have been even less of a walk through the park.

and i think that would have been the wrong way to go.

Why is exactly? from your tone (besides the last line) you seem to set it up as a simple way. Just because it is quicker?