WWII Thread (How come the West never gives the Soviets the credit they deserve)

[Kasz216]

NotStan said:

Kasz216 said:

NotStan said:

homer said:
The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives, so I don't understand where you were going with that.

Saved lives, mutilated thousands of people in the future generations and still has effects to this day - more to see what sort of effect nuclear weapon will have on humans rather than save lives unfortunately. It may have saved them in the short term, but most argue that blockade would have been as effective and nowhere as damaging as two nuclear devices.

It was a test on humans, Japanese were used as guinea pigs, the whole "saving lives" is a bullshit aspect of it.

No they don't.  Most hisotrians argue that a blockaide would of killed WAY more people forcing Japan into mass starvation and killing millions who were only saved from starvation by the US rapidly putting together a systematic food distribution system in Japan.

Unless you mean to the buildings.   There would of been less damage to the buildings.

They generally believe this, because... well right after the surrender the US rapidly put into place a MASSIVE food distribution system that saved millions of lives.

 

That and because Japan only surrendered AFTER the second bomb and after a tortured american pilot lied and told them the US had way more atomic bombs.

The leaders of the Japanese Cabinent that served in the military pretty much all wanted to keep fighting and there was an extreme deadlock preventing surrender until then.

This is generally backed up by eyewitness accounts and at least two members of the Japanese Peace Coalition saying "The atomic bombs were a gift from heaven".

 

Think how bad a situation is, that you not only accept the atomic bombings but are THANKFULL for them.   That was the political and economic situatuion of Japan back then.

It was more of a want to save American lives, which would have been lost encase of a direct invasion - US wanted a swift end to the war to prevent Russians getting there in time to share the glory of toppling the Japanese empire, they had two options - swift landing which would result in hundreds of thousands of americans dead or using unjustified and irresponsible methods such as the WMDs, Japanese fleet generals and such were of a mind to surrender to the US after the loss of both the gained ground and the islands closer to Japan, not all granted, but many were on the verge of accepting humiliation rather than annihilation, they knew they were outmatched, although it is a great shame to surrender in that culture, a few months of utter starvation would have done the trick.

If you think using WMD's under the justification that they "wanted to save lives" on LIVE people and damaging future generations - many of whom are still born with disfigurements, I really can't believe you. Radiation poisoning is probably one of the worst ways to die, and many have perished as a result of it - those who were wiped out immediately would be the lucky ones compared to the shit that the ones that survived had to go through.

I still persist that the main reason they've used that was to see what effect it would have on live, human subjects.

I didn't say they wanted to save lives.  I said they saved lives.

You argued that most people agree a blockade would of killed less people... when the truth is the opposite.  Experts in general agree a blockade would of killed WAY more people.

I made no judgements about whether what they did was moral or not.  Though you interpreted it as such, likely because of one simple fact.

You don't want to accept that an immoral action can save lives on both sides.

Either way, your arguements are coming up wholey unresearched.  I'd suggest reading a few books about WW2.

 

1)  If you actually look up and study the surrender of Japan, you will find that the majority were AGAINST surrender up until the atomic bombs dropping and were completely unwilling to move off that position.  Again Politicians hoping for peace called the annihlation of two of their cities a blessing from heaven!

Why would they do that?  Why would people in the Japanese govenrment themselves be overjoyed about their own cities being destroyed by Nuclear bombs if the warhawk side was ready to give in to peace any day? 

2) AS for "mutations still today"I would suggest reading the actual medical research on the subject

For example

http://www.amazon.com/Effects-Atomic-Radiation-William-Schull/dp/0471125245

In general they didn't show statistically significant genetic damage to children of survivors despite a large sample size.  In otherwords, you'd actually need a MUCH larger sample size of people exposed to know if it actually was effecting the children's genetics.

Which should say something about the prevelnce of such mutations being passed on... to their children, let alone their children's children.

3)  Dieing of Radiaiton sucks, but so does dieing of starvation.  I've never died, let alone twice so I can't say for sure.  However, i'd guess starving to death would be worse.  Both slow painful deaths... though one of them your more likely to be awake for the whole time.