Hiroshima Anniversary - Lest we forget...

[Vong]

Today marks the 60th anniversary of the atomic bomb dropping on Hiroshima, Japan. 118,661 civilians died instantly. (This does not include those who died after the blast. That number is far higher, and is estimated that the nuclear bomb killed more than 140,000). 3 days later, another nuclear device was dropped on Nagasaki. 74,000 died that day. Not long after the bombs were dropped, Japan surrendered, and WW2 ended.

60 years later, the issue is still hot.

Was it a justified attack that ended WW2?
Or was it a brutal and immoral slaughter?

[Jon Lyrik]

Justified, but definitely a horrible, horrible thing.

[Thrizzle]

I definitely think so (although the second bomb drop was a bit excessive). Without the A-bomb, a land invasion of Japan wouldve been necessary which would have cost more lives, upwards of a million even.

[bob]

It's tough to swallow...America basically made the call that the lives of their soldiers were more important than the lives of Japanese civilians...while it did end a conflict that would have been bitter, it's hard for me to morally say it was justified.

[TheDeadWalk]

A Japanese economist who later became a huge post WW2 figurehead stated that "Japan had lost the war, but won peace".

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I definitely think so (although the second bomb drop was a bit excessive). Without the A-bomb, a land invasion of Japan wouldve been necessary which would have cost more lives, upwards of a million even.

If they had only dropped one bomb, the display of shock and awe would have been seen as a desperation, one-last-chance act. But if two were to be dropped, then everyone would know that it was not a last-ditch effort, but the first of many horrendus attacks from a newly permanent threat. That's why I at least think it was done twice.

The consequences do lead people to question the morality of the situation. You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. Either way, nobody wins.

[Tai Mai Jew]

To me, the chilling thing about this isn't the fact that we actually dropped two Atomic bombs on them, but the reality that it took two freakin’ bombs for them to stop attacking.

[someguy]

America could(and possibly would)have lost the war if the A-bomb didn't drop

They firebombed Tokyo and literally burned it to the ground-did they surrender? Not at all

They continued to bomb other areas of the country. Give up? Nope

They drop an atom bomb. Give up? Not at all

They drop a second one, and they finally have to surrender

Doesn't the Japanese culture believe in never losing? I remember how some soldiers were executed because they did not succeed against the American soldiers. I think that it's terrible, but I also find that it was justified.

[ChemicalRomance]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
To me, the chilling thing about this isn't the fact that we actually dropped two Atomic bombs on them, but the reality that it took two freakin’ bombs for them to stop attacking.

Heh.

As for my thoughts, it was justified in prespective of the loss of American soldiers vs. the loss of Japaneese civilians (according to whoever was deciding), but still a horrible thing. I realized this after I read the book HIROSHIMA a few years back.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by someguy
I think that it's terrible, but I also find that it was justified.

Agreed

[Raymond Babbit]

I don't know, see, here's my thing. I've read, in quite a few places, that Japan was getting ready to surrender anyway, because they found out the Russians were about to get involved, and they figured they were screwed when that happens. I've also read that we had some proof of this, even back then. If this is, indeed, true, then I feel it was unjustified.

And as far as the firebombing, you make it sound like it was ineffective. Do you realize that the only reason we didn't drop an atom bomb on Tokyo was because there was nothing left to bomb, because we'd firebombed it?

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by someguy
Doesn't the Japanese culture believe in never losing? I remember how some soldiers were executed because they did not succeed against the American soldiers. I think that it's terrible, but I also find that it was justified.

Yes. Several Japanese soldiers/officers committed suicide upon hearing about the Japanese surrender.

[Tai Mai Jew]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
I don't know, see, here's my thing. I've read, in quite a few places, that Japan was getting ready to surrender anyway, because they found out the Russians were about to get involved, and they figured they were screwed when that happens. I've also read that we had some proof of this, even back then. If this is, indeed, true, then I feel it was unjustified.

And as far as the firebombing, you make it sound like it was ineffective. Do you realize that the only reason we didn't drop an atom bomb on Tokyo was because there was nothing left to bomb, because we'd firebombed it?

Unless Japan publicly announced that they were going to surrender, I would then agree… but that’s not the case. I’m not even sure what you said is true since there's no evidence besides your word.

Oh, and there was something left to bomb, about 175,000 people to be exact.

[Vong]

It must take alot out of someone to justify an attack that would eliminate thousands of lives, be able to weigh whose lives are more valuable, and be able to sleep at night with these decisions.

I give credit to the decision makers and scientists of WW2 who made this come true. I know that if I were to ever make a choice that would result in a horirble attrocity, I would not live with whatever I choose.

As someone noted earlier; damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Well they are certainly damned for what they did. Families were destroyed, and innocent lives were taken away from loved ones. It sickens me that the only way for someone to send a message to a foe, and for that foe to hear it, is for innocent people to perish.

This is the toll of war. The innocent. The "middle-men". Those who are fighting for someone elses squables. What does it take for people to listen? Are the lives of 200,000 people the price for peace? Those in August of 1945 who dropped those bombs knew that answer, and their judgment seemed to bear fruit.

It makes me wish that the leaders we have in play now will never have to consider something so drastic, and never have to use that kind of catastrophic force ever again.

[Scorpio24]

It sometimes easy to forget just how savage and horrible the attacks were. You can't possibly imagine the shock of people around the world finding out through news agencies what had just happened. The only thing I can think of to compare it to in terms of shock and horror is 9/11. Even then that was not on the same scale as the two A-bombs. To wipe out that amount of innocent people in one blow is something you really wish man wasn't capable of.

But unfortunately they were probably justified. Like someone mentioned. If those bombs hadn't been dropped then a land invasion would have been needed. Then the death toll would have easily topped the number killed in the bombs. I couldn't have made that decision but I can't hold it against the people who have to.

[QUENTIN]

It bothers me that this many people think the use of nuclear weapons was justified. Assuming you're not monsters, I think it comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of why the bomb was dropped and what effect it had. Most historians today agree, and most military men know that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is actually not what ended the war. The only reason we got atomic bombs in the first place was because we didn't want the Germans to have them first. Einstein knew enough about nuclear physics and what the Nazis were doing that he wrote Roosevelt a letter imploring him to start a nuclear weapons program, which Einstein later said was "The one great mistake of my life". During the Manhattan Project there were many doubts about why the bombs would be needed from the people who were in charge of the program. Leslie Groves, who previously was in charge of building the pentagon was in charge of the Manhattan Project and said the world would forever view America as monsters if we were to use the bombs. Robert J. Oppenheimer, the head of the scientific aspects of the Manhattan Project famously campaigned against the proliferation of nuclear weapons after World War II and even at the time of the project warned vice-president Truman and liason to the White House Henry Wallace that building the atom bomb would lead to the construction of "weapons great enough to destroy the whole world". At the time, Truman actually wrote in his diary that "This may be the fire destruction prophesied on the Euphrates after Noah in his wonderful ark", so he clearly understood the destruction force of nuclear weapons and even thought it might be the end of man.

So why did we use them anyway? Well the official reason the U.S. gives for dropping the bomb is that to defeat Japan would require an invasion inwhich a half-million American lives would be lost. Secretary of War Henry Stimson said a month after Nagasaki that it actually would have been a million American lives lost, and this is apparently still well-believed today and accepting as a reason to justify the bombings.

The fact is, the Japanese were already defeated and they knew it. In July of 1944, the Japanese government decided that they were militarily defeatged but they wanted to win just one more battle or form some alliance with the soviets in order to get better surrender terms. This is the only reason they stayed in the war as long as they did, they weren't a crazy race of people willing to all die rather than face some shame of defeat. That's another lie that has been perpetrated to excuse the bombings. The problem was, the U.S. wanted an unconditional surrender of Japan and for their emperor to be tried as a war criminal. But the Japenese people believed the emperor to be a living god and he was the one thing they would forever fight for. The United States top general, George Marshall said what we were requiring of the Japanese people would be like demanding the American people to renounce Christ and allow him to be crucified again. But the Japanese repeatedly informed the U.S. and the soviets that if they could keep the emperor, the war would be over immediately.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William Leahy, General Marshall, General Dwight Eisenhower who was the top general in Europe, and Secretary of War Stimson all told Truman he should simply accept these terms and end the long war. Only one person close to Truman told him otherwise, former senator and supreme court justice James Byrnes was a hardline anti-soviet, conservative, and racist. His personal writings refer to the Japanese in obscenely racist terms and he writes of his desire to wipe the Japanese people off the earth.Byrnes actually told Truman he was worried about the Japanese surrendering before we got to use the bomb. Byrnes was a big influence to Truman though as one of the few people in the senate who was nice to Truman when Truman was a junior senator, since he was seen as a puppet of corrupt boss of Missouri Tom Pendergast. His influence prevented Truman from accepting Japanese terms despite the advice of almost every expert in his cabinet.

Even if we did demand the unconditional surrender, we still could have gotten it without dropping the bombs. Russian losses were so heavy in World War II that they desperately needed U.S. aid to rebuild the country. So at the meeting in Yalta in early august of 1942, Stalin agreed to enter the war in the pacific and fight the Japanese. This is what actually ended the war. The Japanese knew if the Russians entered the war against them, all hope would be lost and they would need to immediately surrender rather than suffer the immense casualties that would be sure to happen. Japanese Ambassador Sato said "If at any time the U.S.S.R. enters the war, Japanese despair and despondency will reign and defeat will be inevitable" and the Emperor of Japan said it the Russians entering the war would "Deal a death blow to the empire". The Russians were preparing to enter and the Japanese knew surrender was going to be neccesary very soon. Truman was well aware of this from the meetings at Potsdam too, but he bombed anyway. At the time of the attack, both the scientists of the Manhattan Project and the majority of military leaders opposed the use of the bombs. Eisenhower said the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway, General MacArthur said he was apalled since the war was already over and using the bomb did not prevent a U.S. invasion or the loss of soldier's lives, Hap Arnold, General LeMay, Ernest King, Chester Nimitz, and several other higher-ups also deemed the bombing useless and unnecessary. The real reason dropped the bomb was to roll back soviet gains in Europe and Asia and scare the USSR. It had nothing to do with ending the war, it was a scare tactic that is therefore not justifiable but reprehensible. The fact that 85% of the American people supported the bomb use in 1945 is not suprising considering our sentiment towards Japan, after all we firebombed 64 cities and it was U.S. policy to kill as many Japanese civilians as possible, but the fact that the majority still suppots the bomb use I think is very sad.

And the damndest thing of all, since the Japanese were willing to surrender for over a year before the war ended as long as they got to keep their emperor, is that after we nuked them, we let them keep the emperor anyway so all of it was pointless. I leave you with two quotes and hope I've maybe changed the opinion of atleast one person regarding our use of atomic bombs.


"When we knew we didn't need to do it, and that it may end humanity as we know it, we used it merely as an experiment on atomic bombs." -Brigadier General Carter Clark

"We adopted the ethical standards of barbarians in the dark ages. It was of no material value to the war or the defeat of the Japanese. We killed as many women and children as possible. This is on our hands forever" -Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William Leahy

[BubbaStrangelove]

Yeah, I feel Hiroshima was somewhat justified -- because like you noted, it was more of an experiment. People knew it would be big, but that was somewhat unpredicted.

Apparently the captain of the aircraft, after seeing it hit, said something to the effect of "Oh my god, what have we done?"


However, with all we know about nukes now, it's very wrong to use them for solving conflicts. If, for anything, the environmental concerns should be enough. You would think the humanitarian reasons would be enough for some people, but I guess not. The fall-out is still felt, and IMO is responisble for the new wave spike of health problems (along with other things, like food processing plants...)


We are a smarter speciies than one that would cause the destruction brought on by nuclear warfare. If some fucker piece of shit wants to attack America using them, that would be horrible, but it's not going to make anything better if we resort to that level of barbarianism.

It's like a rabid dog biting you --- You'd be an idiot to bite back. There are better routes to take, when we trully act like the more intelligent beings.

[Vong]

Another year, another anniversary.

The call for the elimination of all nuclear and biological weapons continues from the streets of Hiroshima and beyond. And with growing hostilities in the Middle East, the call for their destruction becomes louder.

Why do countries around the world continue to harbor weapons of mass murder? Are they prepared to face the consequences and repercussions if ever the time comes when they will use them? Why are countries like North Korea and, possibly/unlikely, Iran trying to create their own personal collection of such a deadly weapon? The weapon only guarantees two things: a false sense of security and power.

I look forward to the day when these weapons are destroyed. However this day won't probably be in my lifetime. And with war being waged in the Middle East as I speak, the day of another Hiroshima is much more likely than a day of no nuclear weapons.

[QUENTIN]

Another sad reminder...

I'm curious though, I consider myself something of an expert on the subject, having been an assistant to Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute in Washington D.C., author of several books on the subject, frequent commentator on Fox News, CNN, and many other news outlets, who headed up the Committee for a National Discussion of Nuclear History and Current Policy, who is currently in Hiroshimi and travels there and to Nagasaki every year on the anniversaries of the drops, and was recently named by the Organization of American Historians as a Distinguished Lecturer. There is such an unbelievable amount of evidence and data on the subject, opinions of all the military leaders of the day, scientists, etc... and it pretty much unanimously opposed the use of the bomb. The stuff I wrote about is not speculation but well-documented fact. And yet, the myth and legend is what is remembered about the bomb dropping, not the facts of the time.

So, I'm not here to argue the merits of the existence of nuclear weapons, or for their dismantlement or anything else, but does anyone else agree that it was entirely unnecessary for us to drop the bombs? It didn't end World War II, it didn't prevent any American casualties, we did it simply to fuck with and scare the Soviets so they could see us flex because the vast majority of the U.S. literally didn't believe the Japanese were people, so it didn't bother us. It's 60 years later, do we recognize the error of our ways?

[therealjohng]

Originally posted by someguy
America could(and possibly would)have lost the war if the A-bomb didn't drop

Care to explain? I'm not saying your wrong. I haven't read about this subject in years and would love to see what you have to say about it.

[someguy]

The prediction at the time was that the casualties of soldiers would be huge if they went in to fight Japan. Plus, at the time Japan wouldn't surrender no matter what until the bombs dropped. Remember that after Hiroshima got bombed they still wouldn't surrender, and even after Nagasaki (although they did some time after, it's surprising why they wouldn't just surrender immediately after seeing the amount of damage). Japan had a pretty good army back then and the American troops were already exhausted after the battles in Europe.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by someguy
The prediction at the time was that the casualties of soldiers would be huge if they went in to fight Japan. Plus, at the time Japan wouldn't surrender no matter what until the bombs dropped. Remember that after Hiroshima got bombed they still wouldn't surrender, and even after Nagasaki (although they did some time after, it's surprising why they wouldn't just surrender immediately after seeing the amount of damage). Japan had a pretty good army back then and the American troops were already exhausted after the battles in Europe.

This is very simply a myth propogated at the time by the White House press secretary and President Truman. It's propoganda. There was never any need for a land invasion of Japan by American troops. The "half-million" and later re-written history of "a million U.S. soldiers" who would die was a scare tactic to justify our actions. Read my above post or do some research please. The Japanese knew they were defeated and were ready to surrended long before we dropped the bombs and moreover, we knew that. Their one and only condition for surrender was that we not try their Emperor as a war criminal, and we did not agree to that, instead bombing them to hell...yet when we did that, we still never ended up trying him as a war criminal. So it was entirely pointless.

[echo_bravo]

Horrible, but justified

Shouldnt of attacked Pearl Harbor....

[Vong]

Originally posted by echo_bravo
Horrible, but justified

Shouldnt of attacked Pearl Harbor....

So attacking a military target constitutes destroying an entire civilian village?

Justified? It's genocide in my opinion.

[therealjohng]

Originally posted by Vong
So attacking a military target constitutes destroying an entire civilian village?

Justified? It's genocide in my opinion.

In all fairness, we didn't provoke Japan into attacking us.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by therealjohng
In all fairness, we didn't provoke Japan into attacking us.

But isn't it pointless to nuke a civilian city when the country in question is already agreeing to surrender?

(Assuming that Quentin is correct)

[Monotreme]

Single greatest mistake America has ever made. Sure, in the long run it may seem justified, what having put an end to World War II. And, without seeing the sheer destructive power of the atom bomb, the international laws on nuclear weapons implemented today with such strict devotion would probably have never been put into action until an event of this scale DID happen - and the later it would have happened, the more devastating it would have been. Bombs today are hundreds of times more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

Collateral damage and civillian deaths are an unfortunate but expected consequence of war. But the deliberate murder of hundreds of thousands of civillians is unprecedented, and a tragedy of epic, epic proportions. As mentioned earlier, with Japan's allies having surrendered and defeated, and with the Soviets available to focus their firepower on that front, it really was only a matter of time before they would have thrown down their weapons.

[jolanar]

Food for thought:

Japan has standardized national school books. There is 1 line about the Rape of Nanking in which the Japanese brutally raped, tortured, and murdered 500 thousand Chinese civilians. There is, however, page upon page about the bombings.

Conservative estimates state that the Japanese killed 15 to 20 million Chinese in the war. More than Stalin, more than Hitler.

[jolanar]

Warning: the following link is to a *very* graphic picture of the rape of Nanking.

Click

That's only the beginning of it. I could dig up a hundred more pictures like that about what the Japanese did to Chinese civilians.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by jolanar
Food for thought:

Japan has standardized national school books. There is 1 line about the Rape of Nanking in which the Japanese brutally raped, tortured, and murdered 500 thousand Chinese civilians. There is, however, page upon page about the bombings.

Conservative estimates state that the Japanese killed 15 to 20 million Chinese in the war. More than Stalin, more than Hitler.

And?

Are you saying that because Japanese soldiers raped and killed innocent chinese civilians, it's fine to nuke innocent Japanese civilians?

I fail to see any logic in that. Or are you claiming that USA nuked Japan simply to get revenge because japanese killed chinese civilians?

[Vong]

Originally posted by Tuukka
And?

Are you saying that because Japanese soldiers raped and killed innocent chinese civilians, it's fine to nuke innocent Japanese civilians?

I fail to see any logic in that. Or are you claiming that USA nuked Japan simply to get revenge because japanese killed chinese civilians?

I second that.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Tuukka
And?

Are you saying that because Japanese soldiers raped and killed innocent chinese civilians, it's fine to nuke innocent Japanese civilians?

I fail to see any logic in that. Or are you claiming that USA nuked Japan simply to get revenge because japanese killed chinese civilians?

He said it was food for thought. Nowhere does he make that connection.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by outsyder
He said it was food for thought. Nowhere does he make that connection.

And I asked: The point?

I wasn't making a claim, I was asking a question.

[jolanar]

Originally posted by Tuukka
And I asked: The point?

I wasn't making a claim, I was asking a question.

The point is, it was food for thought.

Where do you draw the line between innocent civilian and 'guilty' civilian? It was total war. One economy put up against another economy. If a Japanese citizen is helping building an airplane that is going to kill American soldiers, how innocent is he?

I don't think there has ever been a war in which civilian lives were not lost. It's not a chess match, it's not a competition, it's fucking WAR. Americans today do understand what it feels like to know that tomorrow another country could take over the world. Americans today don't understand what is like to truly be afraid.

On the night that the Japanese emperor announced the surrender of Japan on the Japanese radio, it was the first time any one other than very high government officials had ever heard his voice. On that night the Japanese military attempted to overthrow the emperor so that the Japanese could continue fighting. This is the kind of enemy that we faced. Japanese kamikaze pilots attended their own funeral before they went out on their mission. That was the determination of the Japanese army.

No, its not pretty that 200 thousand lives were lost. But in the long run, many more lives were saved. American *and* Japanese lives. Russians were preparing to invade Japan's mainland as well. How ruthless do you imagine they would have been?

To sum it up, in my opinion, using nukes to end the war was a lesser of two evils.

[Vong]

Where do you draw the line between innocent civilian and 'guilty' civilian? It was total war. One economy put up against another economy. If a Japanese citizen is helping building an airplane that is going to kill American soldiers, how innocent is he?

To believe that civilians actually pose as a target is thinking just as the Nazi's did. Before WW II, civilians were never a target in war. They were generally considered off limits in the rules of war. When the Nazi's realized that the real threat lied with the people providing for the military, they saw them as a legitimate target. One of the first hit civilian targets was a pub in downtown London, where factory workers spent their offtime drinking beer. Now civilians are targeted even if they have no connections with the military. Hiroshima may have been a military depot, but do you think the children deserved to suffer and die for the sins of their fathers?

[jolanar]

To believe that civilians actually pose as a target is thinking just as the Nazi's did.

What? That's a stretch dude. German military commanders of the early 20th century were some of the best this world has ever seen.

Now civilians are targeted even if they have no connections with the military.

Now? Are you referring to the Israel/Hezbollah stuff?

Hiroshima may have been a military depot, but do you think the children deserved to suffer and die for the sins of their fathers?

Certainly not, and I think you missed my point. It was the lesser of two evils. If you had to make the choice, right now, to kill 1 person or 500 people? Clearly, the 1 person does not deserve to die in any way shape or form but I think any moral person when forced upon a decision would choose to have 1 person die over 500.

[jolanar]

I wonder, and I am just completely throwing this one out there, if the US had luanched nukes on Hitler to end the war in Europe, would people feel differently?

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by jolanar
I wonder, and I am just completely throwing this one out there, if the US had luanched nukes on Hitler to end the war in Europe, would people feel differently?

Probably not. In fact, they might even be more hostile towards the dropping of the bomb. There's no doubt that dropping a bomb on Berlin or German would have caused even MORE civillian casualties, probably closer to the millions than the hundreds of thousands from Hiroshima-Nagasaki. Besides, we know that a ground invasion was capable of stopping the conflict. I see no reason why a similarr Soviet-U.S. collaborated attack on Japan couldn't have produced similar results, without the U.S. having to retort to dropping the bomb. It was a lazy and hasty way for the allies to end the war, and caused a completely uncalled for tragedy. We have many disagreements, but I actually find myself agreeing with Vong in this case: What is the difference between the U.S. targeting and bombing civillians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Nazis targeting and bombing civillians in London?

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by jolanar
The point is, it was food for thought.

Where do you draw the line between innocent civilian and 'guilty' civilian? It was total war. One economy put up against another economy. If a Japanese citizen is helping building an airplane that is going to kill American soldiers, how innocent is he?

I don't think there has ever been a war in which civilian lives were not lost. It's not a chess match, it's not a competition, it's fucking WAR. Americans today do understand what it feels like to know that tomorrow another country could take over the world. Americans today don't understand what is like to truly be afraid.

On the night that the Japanese emperor announced the surrender of Japan on the Japanese radio, it was the first time any one other than very high government officials had ever heard his voice. On that night the Japanese military attempted to overthrow the emperor so that the Japanese could continue fighting. This is the kind of enemy that we faced. Japanese kamikaze pilots attended their own funeral before they went out on their mission. That was the determination of the Japanese army.

No, its not pretty that 200 thousand lives were lost. But in the long run, many more lives were saved. American *and* Japanese lives. Russians were preparing to invade Japan's mainland as well. How ruthless do you imagine they would have been?

To sum it up, in my opinion, using nukes to end the war was a lesser of two evils.

Yeah, but since they were already going to surrender, wasn't it pointless to nuke civilians? Why nuke a country which is alreadty surrendering?

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Monotreme
Probably not. In fact, they might even be more hostile towards the dropping of the bomb. There's no doubt that dropping a bomb on Berlin or German would have caused even MORE civillian casualties, probably closer to the millions than the hundreds of thousands from Hiroshima-Nagasaki. Besides, we know that a ground invasion was capable of stopping the conflict. I see no reason why a similarr Soviet-U.S. collaborated attack on Japan couldn't have produced similar results, without the U.S. having to retort to dropping the bomb. It was a lazy and hasty way for the allies to end the war, and caused a completely uncalled for tragedy. We have many disagreements, but I actually find myself agreeing with Vong in this case: What is the difference between the U.S. targeting and bombing civillians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Nazis targeting and bombing civillians in London?

Lazy and hasty are too words that I definetly would not use to describe the dropping of the bombs. The allies suffered 17 million causualties(mostly Chinese and Russian). If your military advisors told you that the greatest war ever fought could be over in a few days, it would be a pretty tempting prospect.
And carpet bombing wasn't exactly civilian friendly either, but without the technology such as smart bombs and GPS that we have today, it was the only way to eliminate things like armored vehicle manufacturing plants, and weapons plants. Remember the country was called "The German war machine".