What's your point of view in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb?

[bazmeistergen]

c03n3nj0 said:

bazmeistergen said:

Dunno if anyone has said this in pages 2 and 3, but...

a) If Hiroshima was such an important base why did it not get bombed at all when most other cities were firebombed?

b) There is plenty of evidence (and was known at the time) that the Japanese were talking about surrendering. There would have not been a need for a full-scale invasion... only an insane faction of the Japanese government wanted to fight on - still trying to get over the poster (non-gravity) that said it was fine because Japanese had killed and bombed themselves - in that case 9/11 was fine... which of course it wasn't.

c) Revisionist histories focus on the need to keep the Soviets out (and to demonstrate US power to those same awkward 'reds')

It's a bit of an orthodoxy to say it saved lives...

I'll check out the rest of the pages now.

a) They were leaving Hiroshima for the atomic bomb. A dick move, but it was still necessary. The purpose of the bomb was to show the Japanese what they could do and to get them to surrender. Thus, bombing an already bombed city would be beating a dead horse.

b) Where does it say that? Please show! But yes, they may have been talking about surrendering, but does it mean they were immediately going to do so? Nope.

c) Those are part of the reasons why an invasion of Japan would've been waay worse. Millions of people dead, plus Japan being divided between communists and capitalists. Int he long run that outcome was way worse.

I mean, look at Japan right now. They're doing relatively well-off dontcha think?

a) I'm aware they left the city untouched so they could measure the power of the bomb. My point is if the place was *such* an important base they would have destroyed it earlier.

b) I'll get back to you when I've got proper sources (rather than the internet) I have some decent revisionist accounts at work - Perhaps Lafeber will have some direct references.

c) End doesn't justify the means. An invasion would have killed more people. I'm doubting it was an invasion that was necessary, however. The policy-makers, of course, had different ideas and didn't take Japanese overtures seriously. Why would they? They knew what they had up there sleeves and wanted the type of surrender that only hyper-annihilation could give them.