Isabel
Lv 4
Isabel asked in Arts & HumanitiesHistory · 2 months ago

When you were in school, were you taught that dropping the bomb on Japan was necessary, complicated, or evil?

49 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 month ago

    School has been so long ago, I'm not sure I remember what was taught other than evil was not included. However, I took an interest in history outside of school and I would say it was certainly complicated in that we did not want to drop those bombs. It being necessary is both subjective and relative to the desired outcome. It would have been more costly monetarily, in lives loss and time lost to fighting, so to bring things to an abrupt halt and eliminate those extra cost, it was necessary. It also served as a notice for future enemies if the U.S. ever gets in that spot again.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    America dropped the bombs and got the desired result. It warned the Japanese of impending doom and to surrender which is more than the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl. The first hand witness of the destruction redefined the dynamics of war and they haven't been used since. The only losers are the Japs who refused to surrender in the face of near impossible odds. The only people who don't see the bombs for what they were are people today who didn't live the place and time to know how many lives the bombs saved. The US didn't spend billions of dollars on a weapon w/ no intention to use. Any of the Axis countries would have used it on the US.

  • 1 month ago

    As another commenter has said two Nuclear bombs were detonated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan and there was actually a third bomb waiting in.the wings for President Harry S Truman to authorize. So complicated it  was as well as fast and Evil. 

    Source(s): Learned after school
  • 1 month ago

    I was taught that it was necessary and complicated.

    And after many years guess what ?   I agree with that conclusion. 

    The Japanese government had been given ample opportunity to surrender.  

    In order to allow the Japanese a way of surrendering without the removal of the emperor the allies changed the demand from "unconditional surrender" to specifically "the Japanese armed forces must unconditionally surrender".

    The difference allowed for the continuance of the Emperor. 

    However the Japanese government mistakenly and fatally saw the change as a sign of American weakness and decided to continue the war even if it meant millions of civilian casualties in the hope that USA would not tolerate very high numbers of casualties.  

    At the time the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, the Japanese government and military were training civilians in guerrilla warfare, even training teenage girls in the use of grenades, rifles, pistols and bamboo spears. So the intention was to resist an invasion at all costs.

    What would an invasion entail ?   Possibly 100,000+ American casualties and probably a million or more Japanese casualties.  Why would America accept the probability of so many casualties (on both sides) rather than using the atomic bomb in order to bring the war to an end quickly ?  

    It really boils down to this...

    Option 1   A large number of Japanese casualties and the war ends quickly.

    Option 2   A even greater number of Japanese casualties, plus American casualties and the war goes on much longer. 

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    We learned nothing like that. We learned about the black plague, the royal family, the first and second world war, stuff like that. We didn't learn about Japan and their history, more about our country's history. The only time we learned anything about other countries was if it concerned the world wars, other than that nope. 

  • 1 month ago

    necessary to save American lives

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Sadly my schools taught that anything America did was good except slavery. 

  • 2 months ago

    Saved up to 10 million lives

  • Marli
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    I had a Canadian education too, as did Needful Sinner. We debated the question in class (1973). "Was dropping the Bomb necessary or evil?"  

    We concluded that it was necessary to end the war quickly.  A long drawn out war would exhaust every nation's recovery, including Japan's.  A knock out blow would have made Japan surrender, but with her honour saved. Honour meant a lot to the Japanese. It could not be shameful to lose when you could not possibly win and when surrender would save your people. 

    It must've been the hardest decision President Truman had to make  He must have discussed it with the British Prime Minister Clement Atlee and with Winston Churchill, since Britain (and I suppose France because of her colonies in the Far East) was also involved in the Pacific war. If the Bomb shortened the war, it would save British soldiers as well as Americans.  They may have salved their consciences by saying that a long drawn out war would be worse for the Japanese too.  Every combatant's economy but America's was threadbare. The Bomb was not good, but they were probably right to think it would be less bad than a longer war.

     I don't think they knew how horrible and vast the devastation would be. They knew it would be more devastating than any bomb before, but unless they were lying, they did not expect how very, very horrible it would be   They should not have bombed Nagasaki when they found out. Hiroshima was demonstration enough.

  • JuanB
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    We were divided to the pro or anti side, researched it and debated it in class.  It was therefore all on how to develop your own opinion and think for yourself.  It wasn't a right and wrong answer, but how well you can organize information and form an argument.

    Keep in mind that some kids would be presenting an argument for the side they didn't believe in.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.