Hiroshima debate? - Page 5




 
--
 
August 7th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
The thing of it is, Charge7, I don't think that the USA would have let the Russians join in. The Russians were quite willing, but the USA had control of the seas. Nothing was getting past the US Navy without her permission. Russia did not have anything close to enough naval strength to press the matter. The question was, would the USA have bowed to the need for help if things got hairy in the invasion? I'm sure that Stalin was hoping so.
Well, since one of the central aims of Yalta was just that, to bring the Russians into the war against Japan, I don't think we'd have had much choice in the matter unless we were prepared to go to war with them. As Yalta surely answered in the decision to have Russia control eastern Europe, we were not willing to go to war with them to keep them from controlling white nations. We wouldn't have been more inclined to do so to keep them from controlling half of a yellow nation. I know that's racist, but I am commenting in the context of the times.

The invasion of Japan would have dwarfed anything else the US did in the war and we would have been forced to call on Russian manpower and materiel in order to accomplish that. Roosevelt knew that and that is why he courted Stalin so closely at Yalta. He was hedging his bets in case the bomb did not work.

LeEnfield is correct in his comment as well, the Russians were already knocking on Japan's door.
August 7th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
godofthunder9010.......Russia had been involved in the Assault on Japan, it driven the Japanese troops from China and had mounted a seaborne assault on some of the more Northern Japanese Islands which they still hold to this day.
This is true, however these were territories that had already been in dispute prior to WW2, so allowing Russia to reclaim Sakhailan Island on its own ... well Russia had a pretty strong claim to it afterall so. Claim on the Kuril Islands was more questionable perhaps, but Russia had grounds for claiming them as well. Yes they were knocking on the door, you are right. But the USA had the ultimate say in whether the Russian forces landed onto the primary islands of Japan. The USA could have said no, and Stalin would have had to deal with it. The USA saw Japan in much the same way as the Soviets saw Berlin: "We earned the right to take it because we were the primary instrument in turning the tide against them." Ever the opportunist, Stalin was going to grab up as much territory as possible. It is certainly possible that the Soviets would have been involved in the initial invasion plans as an add in, but the USA wanted to go it alone. The cold hard truth was that we'd have ended up changing our mind the moment things got ugly, and they most certainly would have. The thing of it is, I think that Stalin knew this and was planning ahead for it. He'd have used Manchuria and Sakhalin as a staging grounds and done everything possible to insist that we allow Russian help, since their forces were already there and ready to go. The US leaders knew that this wasn't a really good idea, but the American public was totally ignorant to what Stalin was really like. The fallout of outright refusal of Russian help would have been increasing messy as time went on. It is possible that it might have touched off a war in the worst case scenario.

The two Atom Bombs ended the develpment of that messy scenario with an exclaimation point.

Ultimately, I think we share the same view: Russia would have been involved eventually if we'd have scrapped use Little Boy and Fat Man. Russian involvement would have furthered their Communist Empire even farther and I don't think they'd have given back Manchuria.
August 7th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
At that stage of the war if Russia was going to take half the casualties of an invasion then so be it. It would not have been so hard to invade from the coast of China as would for a Sea Assault with your biggest bases many more miles away. Also we had very large forces in the area including a number of fleet carriers that had been working along side the American fleet. Also do think that Russia would have taken any notice if America said we are going to take Japan and keep it, and you must not land any troops in Japan. Have you ever read any thing about the Russian Campaign in Manchuria, it just swept the Japanese away if they were not there, it took just a couple of weeks to take the whole of Manchuria.
--
August 7th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
It seems that nobody here remebers that Hirosihma & Nagasaki were cities with no military targets and full of refugees. The nukes were thrown just to impress the enemy. Remeber that McGorge Bundy invented that number of the million US military casualties


http://www.doug-long.com/guide3.htm
August 7th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corocotta
It seems that nobody here remebers that Hirosihma & Nagasaki were cities with no military targets and full of refugees. The nukes were thrown just to impress the enemy. Remeber that McGorge Bundy invented that number of the million US military casualties


http://www.doug-long.com/guide3.htm
There were 40,000 Japanese troops in Hiroshima at the time of the blast. I wish we could have looked around and found a city populated only by crack Japanese soldiers but there just wasn't time. In Nagasaki, the Mitsubishi Arms and Torpedo Works were still working until the blast.
August 7th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corocotta
It seems that nobody here remebers that Hirosihma & Nagasaki were cities with no military targets and full of refugees. The nukes were thrown just to impress the enemy. Remeber that McGorge Bundy invented that number of the million US military casualties


http://www.doug-long.com/guide3.htm
There were 40,000 Japanese troops in Hiroshima at the time of the blast. I wish we could have looked around and found a city populated only by crack Japanese soldiers but there just wasn't time. In Nagasaki, the Mitsubishi Arms and Torpedo Works were still working until the blast.

One thing that i do not understand: if there were so many troops there why hiroshima was one of the less bombed cities during the conflict? The US military choosed those cities because they had very small damage from other bombings, these way they could see the efect of the nuke.
August 7th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corocotta
It seems that nobody here remebers that Hirosihma & Nagasaki were cities with no military targets and full of refugees. The nukes were thrown just to impress the enemy. Remeber that McGorge Bundy invented that number of the million US military casualties


http://www.doug-long.com/guide3.htm
Incorrect, the figures date from 1945. However, if you believe otherwise, there's not much I can say that would possibly convince you except perhaps to examine the rape of Nanking, the defense of Iwo Jima, Saipan, etc.
August 7th, 2005  
Shadowalker
 
 
Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance. Some military camps were located nearby such as the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was as a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki
August 8th, 2005  
JumpingFrog
 
Why only 2 cities were atomized? Should have been 4 or 6, I think those are just about right to pay for the atrocities the Japs committed in the Philippines and other places.
August 8th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
I personally agree with you, and most of my family does as well especially my grandpa.

To this day i think a US flag should be flying over Tokyo.