By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 18 October 2010
Edit Thread
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:

Anyone who looks at the actual research and alternatives would have to agree it was by far the best option.  There is litereally no debate.

 

The other two options for were


A) Blockading and bombing japan conventionally, which would of led to the deaths of WAY more people as Japans food production was all located in one area.   Every other area would of starved due to their roads and means of production being destroyed.


B) An invasion that would of cost more lives.... AND more innocent lives due to the japanese planned defense of training children and women to help fight the ground war. 

Not to mention.

C)  Either A or B but also with Russia invading and Japan ending up like Korea.


I mean, what other mirace option was there at this point?  This is one of those few opinion type questions where you can just be outright wrong.

Also, it's worth noting that neither bombing was the worst allied bombings in the war.

THAT would go to the firebombing of Dresden by the british.  Which was actually unessisary, killed more people and had more negative aftereffects.  Yet nobody brings it up.

The only good thing that came out of it was Kurt Vonnoguet books.

Bombing of Dresden killed at most 25,000 people

http://www.dresden.de/media/pdf/presseamt/Erklaerung_Historikerkommission.pdf

That is the conclusion of a study done for the city council. That number is far less than those killed in either of the atomic bombs. Dresden was however a horrific and immoral act.

 

Also while I agree that Hiroshima was probably necessary, I cannot agree that Nagasaki was. The Japanese would have surrendered without it, after Hiroshima and the Russians declaring war.


Interesting.  The numbers are only 10% what they were previously at.  Still, it was largely unnessisary.

As for Nagasaki.

The cabinent's decision on whether to surrender or not was deadlocked... this includes after Nagasaki it was 50-50.

The Empeoror forced a decision towards surrender, and even then there was a military uprising attempting to impose martial law and prevent all officials from trying to make peace.

Without Nagasaki isn't reasonable to think it  wouldn't of been 50-50?

Keep in mind as well, that surrender was predicated on the condition that the empeoror be kept in place in Japan... a position the Russians, Chinese and others weren't willing to accept.

The emperor was walking a tightrope avoiding becoming a imprisoned figurehead who was replaced by a military coup.

Had Korechika Anami decided on a coup (which he considered) he would of been successful.