Monday, August 08, 2005
Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justifiable?
I don't know if any if you watched the programme 'Hiroshima' on BBC1 on Sunday but I thought it was very good, albeit very disturbing.
Of course there is much debate over whether or not the US should have dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some feel it was justified, others feel it was completely unnecessary.
Personally, I'm in two minds about it. I can see both sides of the argument. I recall in school when I was younger telling my history teacher that it was the right thing to do as the Japanese would not have surrendered and my teacher rebuked me telling me that they would have.
Obviously it's a sensitive issue. My thinking at this point in time is that the decision to drop the bombs was justified. The Japanese had started the conflict by killing people at Pearl Harbour and due to their strong beliefs in the honour of a warrior, they were willing to fight to the death. An invasion would have cost thousands and thousands of American lives.
A few days ago the BBC interviewed people who were paying their respects to those who were killed or hurt in the bombing of Hiroshima. One Japanese man, who still had deformities on his arm as a result of the blast, stated he did not blame the Americans but rather the Japanese for it was their role in the conflict that led to the bombing of Hiroshima and subsequently Nagasaki.
I would tend to agree with this assessment. What are your thoughts?
© 2008 United Irelander.