Hiroshima debate?
Charge 7 said:
sorry charge (and i know this is comparing past to present) there is alot that suggests otherwise on this board.
i really dont mean to flame anyone i just felt it worth mentioning that some people will take any oppertunity to hate. not that i think it's a national trait or anything....it's just People.
what i was thinking last night is this: what would've happened if japan was first to fall and the US had the bomb available for use on germany....what would've happened then? would it be used?
Shadowalker
Active member
I guess it would depend on how close american and russian troops were and what the projected casualties were.
The stories of the men who dropped the bomb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4718579.stm
The stories of the men who dropped the bomb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4718579.stm
godofthunder9010
Active member
Consider that Japan only surrendered after a second bomb and even after that, there was a coup de tat attempted to kidnap the Emperor and somehow stop the surrender from happening. Japan would not have surrendered until well into the planned invasion, IF EVER.Missileer said:
Charge 7
Master Gunner
chewie_nz said:
This board is not a microcausm of the American people. Note that I did say we hated them. Many people did enjoy killing them I'm sure and knowing what my father saw in the Pacific as a WWII Marine, what my uncle saw as a POW forced into slave labor for them in condemned coal mines, I can't say I'd blame those folks. What I said was the nation itself, and more importantly, the government in power at the time, was not so full of blood lust that they enjoyed the idea of killing Japanese. Truman probably didn't care too damn much about the Japanese, but he was a fair man for the most part with alot of practical sense. The other reasons I mentioned - shortening the war, reducing US casualties and keeping out the Russians were much, much more in his mind. But knowing that less Japanese would die from the bombs than from a future invasion was quite likely something that would have appealed to his common sense. That is my opinion. I will not state that it was a fact.
MightyMacbeth
I am Honor
am tellinya good ol chaps, you created those weaps and you gotta deal with em. Godl be very unpleased me thinks...
godofthunder9010
Active member
Your statement could use a good bit more ellaboration. I believe that the gist of it is that "God did not approve of Hiroshima and Nagasaki," is that correct Marshall?Field_Marshal said:
LeEnfield
Active member
What annoys me about the Japanese is that still wont admit that any thing that they did during WW2 was wrong. Credit to the Germans they will admit that much of what they did brought shame upon their Country. All Japanese school books all seem to blame every one else for the War, they did not start it by an unproved or an undeclared intention of war before the attacked America. Okay they did intend to declare war a few minutes before the attack went in, but they had no intention of giving America any time to alert it's defences. The Japanese troops raped and murdered all the way there troops went. They worked the POWs until that died or killed them off the locals did not fair much better. They had plans a foot to kill every POW off before America had time to invade, lets face it by dropping the bomb it saved a bloodbath of unbelievable proportions. When the Japanese took Honk Kong it was declared an open city for 5 days, were the Japanese soldiers could go into house take any thing they fancied from your goods to having sex with your wife, any protest would be met with death. Yet here we are 60 years on and a number of people think the the Japanese have been hard by. There were very few penalties on the Japanese after the war, America poured a lot of money into Japan to help bring this country back to life. What did Japan give to Countries that they laid waste to, well it was a little as possible.
Shadowalker
Active member
I agree with you there, the bomb was the only way to save the lives of the POWs.
The anniversary of the bombing is tomorrow (saturday)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4748027.stm
The anniversary of the bombing is tomorrow (saturday)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4748027.stm
MightyMacbeth
I am Honor
could you facilitate what you were trying to say thunder god...I didnt get ye... :?
Was there no alternative to the dropping the Atomic bombs at that particular time?
Japan was blockaded and almost out of raw materials and low on food and the fire bomb raids were almost unapposed, the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering, and everyone must have known it.
So why was it imperitave to invade, and risk heavy casualties, or drop the bombs?
The Japanese doves had been working to end the war on the condition of retention of the throne, which was given later anyway.
Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, was set to begin in November 1945; and later Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu near Tokyo, scheduled for the spring of 1946,
the bombs were dropped on Aug. 6th and 9th, so what was the haste, could'nt the bombing have been put back to a latter date, closer to the invasion time if diplomacy failed?
Some critics believe that the U.S. had ulterior motives in dropping the bombs, including justifying the $2 billion investment in the Manhattan Project, testing the effects of nuclear weapons, exacting revenge for the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and demonstrating U.S. capabilities to the Soviet Union who, under Vasilevsky, were poised to run through the Japanese army in the biggest land battle of the Pacific war, taking out 600,000 of them, and the Americans wanted it finished before the Soviets had much say in the Pacific.
Japanese sources have stated that the atomic bombings themselves weren't the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, they contend, it was not the American atomic attacks on August 6 and August 9, but the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced the Japanese message of surrender on August 15, 1945. Certainly the fact of both enemies weighed into the decision, but it was more the fear of Soviet occupation that hastened imperialistic Japan's acceptance of defeat.
Japan was blockaded and almost out of raw materials and low on food and the fire bomb raids were almost unapposed, the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering, and everyone must have known it.
So why was it imperitave to invade, and risk heavy casualties, or drop the bombs?
The Japanese doves had been working to end the war on the condition of retention of the throne, which was given later anyway.
Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, was set to begin in November 1945; and later Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu near Tokyo, scheduled for the spring of 1946,
the bombs were dropped on Aug. 6th and 9th, so what was the haste, could'nt the bombing have been put back to a latter date, closer to the invasion time if diplomacy failed?
Some critics believe that the U.S. had ulterior motives in dropping the bombs, including justifying the $2 billion investment in the Manhattan Project, testing the effects of nuclear weapons, exacting revenge for the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and demonstrating U.S. capabilities to the Soviet Union who, under Vasilevsky, were poised to run through the Japanese army in the biggest land battle of the Pacific war, taking out 600,000 of them, and the Americans wanted it finished before the Soviets had much say in the Pacific.
Japanese sources have stated that the atomic bombings themselves weren't the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, they contend, it was not the American atomic attacks on August 6 and August 9, but the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced the Japanese message of surrender on August 15, 1945. Certainly the fact of both enemies weighed into the decision, but it was more the fear of Soviet occupation that hastened imperialistic Japan's acceptance of defeat.
Young Winston
Banned
Charge 7 said:
After Pearl Harbour, the US Government beat the "vengence" drum very loud.
Read "Hell in the Pacific" and many other sources.
Charge 7
Master Gunner
Young Winston said:
Why don't you read my full posts? If you had, you would know that my father fought the Japanese in the Pacific as a US Marine. My mother's brother was a POW of them and was forced into slave labor by them. I know full well what happened in the Pacific. That was not what I was talking about in so much as what the US administration and the American people as a whole felt. Vengeance yes, but killing for the sake of killing no - not the greater majority of Americans.
Yup
The bombs saved lot of lives alrihgt. Can you imagine the civilian casualties if war dragged on? Civilian casualties would not be only in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would happen at everywhere in Japan. Can you imagine the Russians joined the fightas well, there would be lot more vengence besides coming from the US corner.
It is very easy to call the US evil now-a-day, but Japan called this on themselves when it attacked other Asian countries and bombed Pearl Harbor.
Question: Howcome, Japan, an aggressor and of WWII is getting so much empathies and moral support while the victims are being neglected? Why do the victims always being judged while the perpetrators enjoy the rights of humanities?
The bombs saved lot of lives alrihgt. Can you imagine the civilian casualties if war dragged on? Civilian casualties would not be only in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would happen at everywhere in Japan. Can you imagine the Russians joined the fightas well, there would be lot more vengence besides coming from the US corner.
It is very easy to call the US evil now-a-day, but Japan called this on themselves when it attacked other Asian countries and bombed Pearl Harbor.
Question: Howcome, Japan, an aggressor and of WWII is getting so much empathies and moral support while the victims are being neglected? Why do the victims always being judged while the perpetrators enjoy the rights of humanities?
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Re: Yup
Mmm Boobies I like the way you think dude 8)
Boobies said:
Mmm Boobies I like the way you think dude 8)
godofthunder9010
Active member
Good points Ashes, allow me to respond.
It's not such a bad thing that the USSR faced one simple fact throughout the Cold War: The USA nuked someone before, they might just do it again. That one simple fact was invaluable in deterring any and all plans that the USSR might have had to conquer ... well, anything. The Western Powers of the USA, France and the UK had a pretty good idea that the USSR would need substantial deterrent in all regards. That was definitely a factor in the decision.
By "Japanese Doves" I assume you mean those who were pushing for peace. They were hard at work, certainly, and they had the deck so thoroughly stacked against them that their chances of success were extremely poor indeed. The "never die, never surrender" Japanese Warhawks were even so insane as to attempt to kidnap the Emperor to stop him from surrendering after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both lying under the mushroom clouds of Atom Bombs. I think that the reality of the Atom Bomb confronting Japan's warhawks with the possibility of no honorable death in battle ... I think it instilled enough doubt for the surrender to actually happen. Lets be honest, 1.) These folks were nuts and they didn't seem to care how many Japanese died. They were all for arming the women and children, for instance. They were already using Kamakaze attacks: young teenage kids they conviced into suicide "for the glory of Japan". 2.) They were quite thoroughly in control.Ashes said:
My reading of history, I don't see diplomacy creating a satisfactory outcome. To be blunt, Japan needed to be completely declawed and defanged. Only Nazi Germany can compare with WW2 Japan's blatant irresponsibility and attrocities in war. Japan would have been very unlikely to accept surrender scenarios in which they were robbed of their ability of waging war in the future. Nothing less was acceptable from China and the USA's point of view.
Quite true and none too surprising that Truman was influenced by the enormous amount of money that the Manhattan Project had cost. This was only one factor of many.
For this, we can be grateful. Manchuria and the whole of Korea might have become the another addition to the Soviet empire.
It's not such a bad thing that the USSR faced one simple fact throughout the Cold War: The USA nuked someone before, they might just do it again. That one simple fact was invaluable in deterring any and all plans that the USSR might have had to conquer ... well, anything. The Western Powers of the USA, France and the UK had a pretty good idea that the USSR would need substantial deterrent in all regards. That was definitely a factor in the decision.
The truth of the matter was pretty simple though: Only the USA could have invaded Japan. The loss of Manchuria was of secondary importance and the Japanese leadership would have cheerfully abandonned it entirely if they could have somehow returned all the troops stationed there back to Japan to defend it. It was only the USA and its Navy that made this impossible. It was only the USA that had any chance of invading Japan. The Russians asked if we wanted any help in the invasion. We said "no thank you, very kind of you, go away please." The rapid succession of military defeats at least demonstrated how the fight for Japan itself would surely play out. Not a pretty picture of course. The Atom Bombs were the all important last straw. Like I already said, the warhawks that were running everything lost just enough confidence in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to allow some of them to contemplate surrender at all. The Atom Bombs were not the only factor and I don't think that anyone is claiming that they were.
Charge 7
Master Gunner
The loss of Manchuria would've been a staging ground, and yes indeed the Russians could have invaded. This was the root of the "rush" as was stated. But if you were a nation who had already lost hundreds of thousands of men, wouldn't you employ a weapon that could end the losses as soon as possible? Both these factors were the paramount reasons for Hiroshima.
godofthunder9010
Active member
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.