Only 66% of Americans today feel World War 2 was a "Justified War" for the US

Did I say I personally disagree with the use of the bombs? No, I did not.

Any and all such acts of terrorism can be justified by claiming more people will die otherwise, and terrorists make such justifications all the time, from the Israelis to the Palestinians, and from the Americans to the Russians to the Chinese.

Positive Contribution wrote:

Hindsight being 20/20. We should have done nothing more than keep the Nazis out of Britain and let Germany and the Soviet beat the poo out of each other.

If Hitler had left France and England alone that might have happened.

It has been stated by: U.S. military personnel, U.S. politicians and stooges in U.S. media. Lives saved. B.S. Prior to planning D-Day Invasion/Operation Overlord, there were battle plans on the table to bomb Europe and flatten Europe into one huge soccer field. Too gruesome. Too much damage and too much loss of life, so hundreds of riflemen and hundreds of machine gunners hit the French beaches instead. Any statements stating bombs save lives is an incorrect statement. There would have been one million U.S. military & civilian personnel needed to invade Japan's mainland. There would not have been one million deaths, U.S. military and civilian personnel.

It totally wasn't justified. We should have stayed neutral and just done a massive military buildup while fighting was going on in Europe and Asia. After letting them fight to a stalemate and spend a few years tearing each other apart, we could have launched our own campaign, finished off both sides, and taken over the world.

Was probably much lower during WW2 lol. You realize that there was an entire movement to stay out of the War, and even one that wanted to form ties with the Nazis right?

UA Runner wrote:

(((WWII))) wrote:

Most of history, especially war history, is the opposite of what we are taught.

And as someone born in the 70s, I don't see how I could ever say if it was justified or not. It's like someone born in 2039 telling me that the war in Afghanistan wasn't justified in 2003. How can people really know if they're not around while the actions are taking place?

Right now people may think Afghanistan wasn't justified.. but Sept 12th 2001, there wasn't anyone who thought it was a bad idea.

Because one can read and study history. To me there is nothing controversial about the US entering WW2. We were attacked by Japan remember. Yes we cut off oil and other supplies, so instead you attack a country? Why did we cut off supplies? Because the Japanese were imprisoning millions and were brutal occupiers.

Some say we should not have fought the Germans since they did not attack us, but Germany declared war on the US after the declaration of war on Japan (as part of Germany's treaty with Japan).

But yeah, there is no way we can look back and justify. I think that a key issue is that you might have information now that you did not have at the time. For instance, the invasion of Iraq was based on widely accepted intelligence that proved to be false.

Positive Contribution wrote:

Hindsight being 20/20. We should have done nothing more than keep the Nazis out of Britain and let Germany and the Soviet beat the poo out of each other.

I think you are missing a big piece of WW2 namely Japan and its attack on the US.

We were not going to bomb Germany into submission. The atom bombs worked in part because we were already knocking on the door of invading Japan. We had been bombing Europe for quite a while before D-Day.

Also as for using the bombs, heard an interesting take that using the bombs may have kept them from being used another time.

missed opportunity wrote:

It totally wasn't justified. We should have stayed neutral and just done a massive military buildup while fighting was going on in Europe and Asia. After letting them fight to a stalemate and spend a few years tearing each other apart, we could have launched our own campaign, finished off both sides, and taken over the world.

You forget the part where Japan attacked us. Would you just have said "let it go"?

Luv2Run wrote:

missed opportunity wrote:

It totally wasn't justified. We should have stayed neutral and just done a massive military buildup while fighting was going on in Europe and Asia. After letting them fight to a stalemate and spend a few years tearing each other apart, we could have launched our own campaign, finished off both sides, and taken over the world.

You forget the part where Japan attacked us. Would you just have said "let it go"?

Sometimes the best revenge takes time. Wait until Russia has basically defeated them, then bring our military in and kill every last man, woman, and child in the whole damn country.

Did the bombs save American lives, yeah probably some, but Japan was close to surrender. The Atom bombs, in my opinion, were mainly dropped as a warning to Russia. It was pretty clear they were going to be a problem for the US post WW2. We wanted to send a message, look what we have and we're not afraid to use it.

As for you take about preventing use of future nuclear weapons I can kind of agree with that as after seeing the destructive power and longterm implications of using a weapon like that there has been more restraint since, although we have gotten very close. Those who made the decision had no such noble intentions as far as discouraging future use of nuclear weapons.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

Did the bombs save American lives, yeah probably some, but Japan was close to surrender. The Atom bombs, in my opinion, were mainly dropped as a warning to Russia. It was pretty clear they were going to be a problem for the US post WW2. We wanted to send a message, look what we have and we're not afraid to use it.

They didn't even surrender after the first bomb was dropped. If they were truly close to surrender, you'd think that the first A bomb would have pushed them over the edge, no?

Luv2Run wrote:

missed opportunity wrote:

It totally wasn't justified. We should have stayed neutral and just done a massive military buildup while fighting was going on in Europe and Asia. After letting them fight to a stalemate and spend a few years tearing each other apart, we could have launched our own campaign, finished off both sides, and taken over the world.

You forget the part where Japan attacked us. Would you just have said "let it go"?

Japan attacked a base in the middle of the Pacific Islands.

We’d be speaking German east of the Mississippi and Japanese west of the river

"Do you know how many lives those nukes saved? "

Even though many scientists and policy "experts" thought we should not use the bomb, I agree with you that we should have dropped the first one.

I think it is much harder to justify the second bomb three days later. Some more threats and giving them time to understand that we could hit city after city would have saved thousands, and some of our honor.

You are just as shortsighted as the real Lindburgh was leading into the war.

Plus, they should block you from this website for your Holocaust rant.

Why did the US attempt to strangle Japan with sanctions beforehand? Why did it put its Pacific Fleet into an aggressive posture at Pearl?

So Japan attacked, the US had no choice but to fight, yada yada. Why then, once it had the upper hand, did it not start negotiating peace terms? Why did it insist on absolute conquest, even going to the extreme of the first and only use of the world's ultimate terrorist weapon on civilian targets? Are you calling these things justified?

By the way, the US military is still there and in other parts of Asia, from which position it waged wars in Korea and Vietnam. Is that defense, or world conquest?

What's sad is that only 34% of Americans are free of the delusion that US wars are anything other than projects by the ruling classes to extend their power.

Flounder wrote:

Positive Contribution wrote:

Hindsight being 20/20. We should have done nothing more than keep the Nazis out of Britain and let Germany and the Soviet beat the poo out of each other.

If Hitler had left France and England alone that might have happened.

France and Britain declared war on Germany after Germany invaded Poland. The three countries made a mutual defense agreement in the Thirties. He might well have left France and Britain alone if they'd left him alone.