By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

Rath on 18 October 2010
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.



Around the Network
dib8rman on 18 October 2010

Oh here's a big debunk for all the anti-Truman BS. I've seen it too many times.

Japan was not going to surrender, they had talks of surrendering only because they knew they would lose but thoughts are worth a penny in the gutter. THEY DID NOT WANT PEACE. To be clear they were speaking of diplomacy from January 1945, the bombs dropped August.

To be fair the main reason they didn't want peace was because they didn't want to damage the status of the Emporer as a  mandate was the ceeding of the emporers position.

After the 2nd bomb Japan declared their surrender within minutes of the drop. Later on in the month their position was made publicly clear and declared to the civilians and by september finalized.

This means that all the BS arguments about why 2 why not stop at 1 mean nothing.

If Japan can and did surrender right after the 2nd bomb drop then they could have for the 1st bomb drop.

 

To go further:

If Truman did this to prove American strength he would only have had to drop 1 bomb. He instead dropped 2.

By dropping 2 he only proved that he is a patriot beyond the shadow of a doubt.

=D Of course war is bad and death sucks =(



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

Kasz216 on 18 October 2010

Why do people keep saying the threat of a second bomb would be enough to force a surrender...

When we know for a fact it was not.

There are plenty of government and historical records that show... Japan was NOT going to surrender after the first bomb. 



Kasz216 on 18 October 2010
rocketpig said:
KichiVerde said:


ORLY? Then it must be real reason for nuking them! I'm sorry I had such awful doubts about the government, it looks like they really cared about all those poor Japanese... -.-

I didn't say they cared about the Japanese, they wanted to end the war and unless the Japanese unconditionally surrendered, they were going to level the country with conventional weaponry, which WOULD have led to more deaths.

On a side point, I'd like to clarify a point I never brought up earlier: while I support the American decision to drop the bomb on HIroshima to put an exclamation point on the war and force an *unconditional* surrender, I definitely question the decision to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki. In my opinion, the first bomb proved the point. A few weeks should have been allowed to pass to give the Japanese time to adjust to the shock of having a city decimated. It seemed superfluous and rather cruel to me. A second city shouldn't have suffered that fate.

True. The second bomb should not have been dropped. The threat of a second bomb following the Hiroshima blast would have been enough to force the surrender. But the Americans were not willing to risk it. They wanted to end the war ASAP before the Russian took more control of Asia.

Once the war ended, the first thing the US Navy did was land in Incheon to keep the Russians from taking all of the Korean Peninsula. Had the Russians been given a few more weeks Korea as a whole would suck right now. But even so I think the war would have ended before then. Once the reports of Japanese losses in Manchuria to the Russians (assault took place directly after Hiroshima bombing) would have been confirmed they would have thrown in the towel. The triple whammy of Hiroshima A-bomb, Manchurian military losses and second possibility of A-bomb would have been enough.

It was all a power play between Russia and the US and Japan got caught in the middle. The US wanted to end the war and flex their military might. Russia wanted to take advantage of Japan's weakening position to take control of all their North Eastern Asian possessions. But Japan was not the victim. They created that situation.

As for the Hiroshima bomb, it was a must. America made the right call. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either a naive tree hugging liberal hippie or, someone who chooses to misinterpret the facts..

Thank you. Finally, someone else in this thread that understands the importance of stopping the Russians from swarming over China, taking the entirety of Korea, and possibly even claiming a portion of Japan. It was of utmost importance to draw a line in the sand after tension started building up after Potsdam when the true horror of an expansionist Stalin-ruled USSR became obvious to everyone.

Because, as bad as the Japanese were to the Chinese and Hitler was to the Jews, Stalin made them look like Boy Scouts with his paranoia and quest for unbridled power. And no, that's not hyperbole. He was far and away the most terrifying force of WWII.


And amusingly he was the level headed one when it came to the treatment of Germany.

If Churchill had his way every german of a rank of Major or higher would be strangled to death... and if FDR would of been heeded, every german in germany would of been tracked down and castrated.  Seriously.

People just don't see Stalin as bad becuase his killings weren't as "targeted'. 

He didn't kill jews or gypsies or whatever,  he just killed people he thought were against hm.


Somehow... that's not seen as bad.  That's the era of hatecrime laws though.



Kasz216 on 18 October 2010
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.



Around the Network
Rath on 18 October 2010
Kasz216 said:

 


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.

Yeah Dresden was largely overestimated. It was in fact not the worst firestorm the RAF created (I think Hamburg was worse?) but it was the least necessary as far as direct military consequences go - like Hiroshima it was a vulgar display of power, meant largely to show the Germans how complete their dominance over air was and the size of the bombing raids they could muster.

Also the Japanese were already close to capitulation before Nagasaki from what I understand. The thing about the Japanese of that era was that they were very very against surrendering, it was against their code of honour. The realists had already decided upon surrender after Hiroshima and the people who were against surrender after Hiroshima didn't have their minds changed by Nagasaki.

As far as I can see Nagasaki was little more than a further test of atomic weaponry.



Rath on 18 October 2010
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:

 

Thank you. Finally, someone else in this thread that understands the importance of stopping the Russians from swarming over China, taking the entirety of Korea, and possibly even claiming a portion of Japan. It was of utmost importance to draw a line in the sand after tension started building up after Potsdam when the true horror of an expansionist Stalin-ruled USSR became obvious to everyone.

Because, as bad as the Japanese were to the Chinese and Hitler was to the Jews, Stalin made them look like Boy Scouts with his paranoia and quest for unbridled power. And no, that's not hyperbole. He was far and away the most terrifying force of WWII.


And amusingly he was the level headed one when it came to the treatment of Germany.

If Churchill had his way every german of a rank of Major or higher would be strangled to death... and if FDR would of been heeded, every german in germany would of been tracked down and castrated.  Seriously.

People just don't see Stalin as bad becuase his killings weren't as "targeted'. 

He didn't kill jews or gypsies or whatever,  he just killed people he thought were against hm.


Somehow... that's not seen as bad.  That's the era of hatecrime laws though.

I don't think FDR was seriously advocating castrating all male Germans, though his statement is certainly repulsive. I can't find any source for Churchill wanting the strangling of all people Major and above, can you provide one?



Kasz216 on 18 October 2010
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:

 


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.

Yeah Dresden was largely overestimated. It was in fact not the worst firestorm the RAF created (I think Hamburg was worse?) but it was the least necessary as far as direct military consequences go - like Hiroshima it was a vulgar display of power, meant largely to show the Germans how complete their dominance over air was and the size of the bombing raids they could muster.

Also the Japanese were already close to capitulation before Nagasaki from what I understand. The thing about the Japanese of that era was that they were very very against surrendering, it was against their code of honour. The realists had already decided upon surrender after Hiroshima and the people who were against surrender after Hiroshima didn't have their minds changed by Nagasaki.

As far as I can see Nagasaki was little more than a further test of atomic weaponry.


They really weren't.  I'd suggest going back and reading some on it, or even just the wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

They really weren't willing to surrender, the generals themselves with any less more doubt in their defeat would of taken over and joined the coup.  (or more likely staged their own.)



Kasz216 on 18 October 2010
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:

 

Thank you. Finally, someone else in this thread that understands the importance of stopping the Russians from swarming over China, taking the entirety of Korea, and possibly even claiming a portion of Japan. It was of utmost importance to draw a line in the sand after tension started building up after Potsdam when the true horror of an expansionist Stalin-ruled USSR became obvious to everyone.

Because, as bad as the Japanese were to the Chinese and Hitler was to the Jews, Stalin made them look like Boy Scouts with his paranoia and quest for unbridled power. And no, that's not hyperbole. He was far and away the most terrifying force of WWII.


And amusingly he was the level headed one when it came to the treatment of Germany.

If Churchill had his way every german of a rank of Major or higher would be strangled to death... and if FDR would of been heeded, every german in germany would of been tracked down and castrated.  Seriously.

People just don't see Stalin as bad becuase his killings weren't as "targeted'. 

He didn't kill jews or gypsies or whatever,  he just killed people he thought were against hm.


Somehow... that's not seen as bad.  That's the era of hatecrime laws though.

I don't think FDR was seriously advocating castrating all male Germans, though his statement is certainly repulsive. I can't find any source for Churchill wanting the strangling of all people Major and above, can you provide one?

Probably, it was the same books I've read about FDR... the significance being it was how you killed Roman traitors.  Having trouble finding a source only because of the popular baby strangle remarks about communism.

FDR's exact quote I don't think can be taken any other way THAN he wanted to literally castrate them.  It talks directly about repoducing. 

"You either have to castrate the German people or you have to treat them in a manner that they
can't just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past."



Rath on 18 October 2010
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:

 


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.

Yeah Dresden was largely overestimated. It was in fact not the worst firestorm the RAF created (I think Hamburg was worse?) but it was the least necessary as far as direct military consequences go - like Hiroshima it was a vulgar display of power, meant largely to show the Germans how complete their dominance over air was and the size of the bombing raids they could muster.

Also the Japanese were already close to capitulation before Nagasaki from what I understand. The thing about the Japanese of that era was that they were very very against surrendering, it was against their code of honour. The realists had already decided upon surrender after Hiroshima and the people who were against surrender after Hiroshima didn't have their minds changed by Nagasaki.

As far as I can see Nagasaki was little more than a further test of atomic weaponry.


They really weren't.  I'd suggest going back and reading some on it, or even just the wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

They really weren't willing to surrender, the generals themselves with any less more doubt in their defeat would of taken over and joined the coup.  (or more likely staged their own.)


"The Supreme Council met at 10:30. Suzuki, who had just come from a meeting with the emperor, said it was impossible to continue the war. Tōgō Shigenori said that they could accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration but needed a guarantee of the emperor's position. Navy Minister Yonai said that they had to make some diplomatic proposal—they could no longer afford to wait for better circumstances."

The three of the six major players in Japanese politics that agreed for surrender after Nagasaki already were leaning that way before it. Nagasaki did not change that.

 

Edit: Also I'm not saying that FDR didn't mean literally castrate (which is why it's repulsive) but I'm saying he never actually had any serious intention to follow through on those words.