Do you believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary? (By Rockstarboy MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamondSilver Crown 5 years ago)

OR
197 votes
10 comments
image
Rockstarboy says Apparently, WWII ended when the Japanese surrendered to the Soviets, And President Truman Only wanted to "test" the nuclear bombs. What are your opinions?

Votes by gender

Guys
47 votes
57.4%
42.6%
Girls
26 votes
38.5%
61.5%
Unknowns
124 votes
53.23%
46.77%

Votes by country map view

United States
111 votes
63%
37%
United Kingdom
28 votes
46%
54%
Australia
10 votes
30%
70%
Canada
7 votes
57%
43%
Germany
6 votes
33%
67%
Austria
4 votes
100%
Netherlands
3 votes
100%
Bulgaria
3 votes
100%
France
2 votes
100%
United Arab Emirates
2 votes
50%
50%
New Zealand
2 votes
50%
50%
South Africa
1 vote
100%
Hong Kong
1 vote
100%
Greece
1 vote
100%
Malaysia
1 vote
100%
Sweden
1 vote
100%
Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 vote
100%
Finland
1 vote
100%
Singapore
1 vote
100%
Puerto Rico
1 vote
100%
Italy
1 vote
100%
Czech Republic
1 vote
100%
Denmark
1 vote
100%
Norway
1 vote
100%
Estonia
1 vote
100%
Saudi Arabia
1 vote
100%
Nigeria
1 vote
100%
Costa Rica
1 vote
100%
Malta
1 vote
100%
Serbia
1 vote
100%
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    Lumalee MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper Star from Jönköping, Sweden
    It was either that or invade, invasion would have killed many more on both sides
  • image
    4 years ago
    ico
    kirke MaleGold MedalSuper Star from North Carolina, United States
    The alternative would have killed more.Vastly more.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    guest from California, United States
    What people don't seem to understand is that the planned invasion of Japan would have cost the Allies 1 million casualties and that japan was arming most of its civilian population. And the Japanese would never accept surrender, so it would have been likely that the invasion would possibly depopulate Japan and be a quagmire.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    I believe the bombs themselves were necessary, but I think they could've been used in a way that sacrificed less innocent lives.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Well, the war for the Japanese was pretty much over when they lost Manchuria to the Soviet Union. I don't think Truman wanted to only test the nuclear bombs though (they had already been tested) although part of the motivation may have been to prevent the Soviets from taking more Japanese territory or to just intimidate the Russians.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    That isn't true. Stalin refused all peace talks the Japanese offered. He wanted to annihilate Japan. And the Japanese do not surrender to soldiers. If we didn't drop those bombs, we would've invaded from the south and the USSR would've invaded from the north. Japan would be nothing more than a desolate rock
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Ironically, more U.S. troops were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki than in Pearl Harbor. And as I said, the Soviets were already dealing with the Japanese.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Bind0fGod MaleGold MedalSilver TrophySuper Star from Washington, United States
    I we didn't we would've had to invade by land, sacrificing untold millions of civilian causalities through sickness, hunger, war, and friendly fire. Not to mention the troops we would have lost and the longer duration of our own war effort and its strain on the US homefront.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Dude5595 MaleGold MedalBronze TrophySuper Star from Massachusetts, United States
    We had 2 options, drop the bombs, or invade the homeland, it is estimated that casualty rates would be highest of any battle, because the Japanese had high morale
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Explain why an invasion would have been the only alternative. The Japanese wouldn't have been able to supply their homeland after the Soviets took Manchuria. They would have had to surrender no matter what.