Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The link you provided cited General MacArther as support for your theory and he said it would cost up to a million more lives, so NO, the war was not over. The battle was won but they refused to surrender as mentioned days ago.Statist propaganda.Do your own homework, moron.You are not informed. You have chosen to believe the lies of a lying politician and the state that covered for him. Why?Repeating your errors don't make them come true. They didn't want to surrender, they refused to. We didn't bomb them for pleasure.It did not save lives. It ended lives of many innocent civilians.Yes, it saved American lives. Who knows how many thousands. Japanese were killing themselves wholesale, including civilians. They refused to surrender, some would strap bombs on themselves and run into our forces. Groups would charge with pitch forks. Just one determined suicidal zealot can do a lot of damage.
Watch the show "World War 2 from Above". I saw it yesterday and leaves all doubt that it was the right thing to do. I learned a lot. One interesting thing is the cost of the atomic bombs. Over 600,000 people were employed and the cost was about 25 billion in today's money. One of the reasons it was so expensive was they weren't sure which would work, plutonium or uranium so they developed both. Fat Boy and Little John were different, they both worked.
And even if you believe the lie that is saved lives, is it ethical and moral to terminate the lives of untold numbers of innocent women, children, and old men of a defeated and defenseless nation wanting to surrender, to save the lives of your troops?
Read this and when done, I will give you more homework.
Was Hiroshima Necessary
Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - World War II - HISTORY.com
General Douglas MacArthur and other top military commanders favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan already in effect and following up with a massive invasion, codenamed “Operation Downfall.” They advised Truman that such an invasion would result in U.S. casualties of up to 1 million.
In order to avoid such a high casualty rate, Truman decided–over the moral reservations of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, General Dwight Eisenhower and a number of the Manhattan Project scientists–to use the atomic bomb in the hopes of bringing the war to a quick end. Proponents of the A-bomb–such as James Byrnes, Truman’s secretary of state–believed that its devastating power would not only end the war, but also put the U.S. in a dominant position to determine the course of the postwar world.
The war was well over before Truman murdered thousands of innocent civilians in cold blood, by dropping the a-bombs and untold number of conventional bombs.
That is absurd and proof you are not informed.Statist propaganda.Do your own homework, moron.You are not informed. You have chosen to believe the lies of a lying politician and the state that covered for him. Why?Repeating your errors don't make them come true. They didn't want to surrender, they refused to. We didn't bomb them for pleasure.It did not save lives. It ended lives of many innocent civilians.
And even if you believe the lie that is saved lives, is it ethical and moral to terminate the lives of untold numbers of innocent women, children, and old men of a defeated and defenseless nation wanting to surrender, to save the lives of your troops?
Read this and when done, I will give you more homework.
Was Hiroshima Necessary
Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - World War II - HISTORY.com
General Douglas MacArthur and other top military commanders favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan already in effect and following up with a massive invasion, codenamed “Operation Downfall.” They advised Truman that such an invasion would result in U.S. casualties of up to 1 million.
In order to avoid such a high casualty rate, Truman decided–over the moral reservations of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, General Dwight Eisenhower and a number of the Manhattan Project scientists–to use the atomic bomb in the hopes of bringing the war to a quick end. Proponents of the A-bomb–such as James Byrnes, Truman’s secretary of state–believed that its devastating power would not only end the war, but also put the U.S. in a dominant position to determine the course of the postwar world.
The war was well over before Truman murdered thousands of innocent civilians in cold blood, by dropping the a-bombs and untold number of conventional bombs.
No, it was not.
One can reasonable argue that a more nuanced policy on Surrender might have had ended the war early with many lives saved, but that does not mean the Japanese were not still waging war as effectively as they could.
That is absurd and proof you are not informed.Statist propaganda.Do your own homework, moron.You are not informed. You have chosen to believe the lies of a lying politician and the state that covered for him. Why?Repeating your errors don't make them come true. They didn't want to surrender, they refused to. We didn't bomb them for pleasure.
Read this and when done, I will give you more homework.
Was Hiroshima Necessary
Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - World War II - HISTORY.com
General Douglas MacArthur and other top military commanders favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan already in effect and following up with a massive invasion, codenamed “Operation Downfall.” They advised Truman that such an invasion would result in U.S. casualties of up to 1 million.
In order to avoid such a high casualty rate, Truman decided–over the moral reservations of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, General Dwight Eisenhower and a number of the Manhattan Project scientists–to use the atomic bomb in the hopes of bringing the war to a quick end. Proponents of the A-bomb–such as James Byrnes, Truman’s secretary of state–believed that its devastating power would not only end the war, but also put the U.S. in a dominant position to determine the course of the postwar world.
The war was well over before Truman murdered thousands of innocent civilians in cold blood, by dropping the a-bombs and untold number of conventional bombs.
No, it was not.
One can reasonable argue that a more nuanced policy on Surrender might have had ended the war early with many lives saved, but that does not mean the Japanese were not still waging war as effectively as they could.
By summer 1945 Japan was essentially defenseless. They had nothing left to fight with and their people were starving. How could you not know this? The US was performing massive daylight bombing raids every day with little to no resistance.
It was akin to a boxer pummeling the hell out of his opponent, who he had knocked him out long ago.
So, this means you think mass murder of civilians is justified. I do not.That is absurd and proof you are not informed.Statist propaganda.Do your own homework, moron.You are not informed. You have chosen to believe the lies of a lying politician and the state that covered for him. Why?
Read this and when done, I will give you more homework.
Was Hiroshima Necessary
Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - World War II - HISTORY.com
General Douglas MacArthur and other top military commanders favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan already in effect and following up with a massive invasion, codenamed “Operation Downfall.” They advised Truman that such an invasion would result in U.S. casualties of up to 1 million.
In order to avoid such a high casualty rate, Truman decided–over the moral reservations of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, General Dwight Eisenhower and a number of the Manhattan Project scientists–to use the atomic bomb in the hopes of bringing the war to a quick end. Proponents of the A-bomb–such as James Byrnes, Truman’s secretary of state–believed that its devastating power would not only end the war, but also put the U.S. in a dominant position to determine the course of the postwar world.
The war was well over before Truman murdered thousands of innocent civilians in cold blood, by dropping the a-bombs and untold number of conventional bombs.
No, it was not.
One can reasonable argue that a more nuanced policy on Surrender might have had ended the war early with many lives saved, but that does not mean the Japanese were not still waging war as effectively as they could.
By summer 1945 Japan was essentially defenseless. They had nothing left to fight with and their people were starving. How could you not know this? The US was performing massive daylight bombing raids every day with little to no resistance.
It was akin to a boxer pummeling the hell out of his opponent, who he had knocked him out long ago.
If that is true, then they should have surrendered.
They choose to keep fighting as well as they could. That was on them and their leadership.
So, this means you think mass murder of civilians is justified. I do not.That is absurd and proof you are not informed.Statist propaganda.Do your own homework, moron.
Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - World War II - HISTORY.com
General Douglas MacArthur and other top military commanders favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan already in effect and following up with a massive invasion, codenamed “Operation Downfall.” They advised Truman that such an invasion would result in U.S. casualties of up to 1 million.
In order to avoid such a high casualty rate, Truman decided–over the moral reservations of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, General Dwight Eisenhower and a number of the Manhattan Project scientists–to use the atomic bomb in the hopes of bringing the war to a quick end. Proponents of the A-bomb–such as James Byrnes, Truman’s secretary of state–believed that its devastating power would not only end the war, but also put the U.S. in a dominant position to determine the course of the postwar world.
The war was well over before Truman murdered thousands of innocent civilians in cold blood, by dropping the a-bombs and untold number of conventional bombs.
No, it was not.
One can reasonable argue that a more nuanced policy on Surrender might have had ended the war early with many lives saved, but that does not mean the Japanese were not still waging war as effectively as they could.
By summer 1945 Japan was essentially defenseless. They had nothing left to fight with and their people were starving. How could you not know this? The US was performing massive daylight bombing raids every day with little to no resistance.
It was akin to a boxer pummeling the hell out of his opponent, who he had knocked him out long ago.
If that is true, then they should have surrendered.
They choose to keep fighting as well as they could. That was on them and their leadership.
LOLGet informed...this might help...but I doubt it.
In order to save lives, we were forced to take them, so the story goes. But that story is overly simplistic, and posits a very grim equation, wherein the lives of American soldiers are valued more than those of Japanese civilians.
Multiply that suffering by 1000, by 10,000. Can it really be justified by the “potential” saving of lives? The fact is the usage of the atomic bomb was opposed by some of the very scientists who developed it. It was also opposed by Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Chester W. Nimitz, and Harry Truman’s own Chief of Staff, William Leahy. In 1946, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that even without the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan would have surrendered by November of 1945. The story is far more ambiguous, it seems. While we may debate (and have done so endlessly) the necessity of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seems that Truman had more than a few in his circle who spoke out against the action.
I would argue that Truman’s motives had less to do with military strategy and more to do with simple politics. First, rather than have the war drag out for a few more months, he simply wanted to crush the will of the Japanese people. An extended war of attrition, American casualties aside, would have been politically damaging to Truman back home. Second, and more importantly, Truman wanted to make damned sure that Joseph Stalin was aware of America’s shiny new killing machine. In the wake of thePotsdam Conference, relations with the Soviet Union had begun to sour, and it was clear that alliances were shifting. Truman had already hinted to Stalin that America had a devastating new weapon; Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided the proof, and gave America an advantage in the Cold War that loomed.
But for that proof and that advantage, 120,000 Japanese civilians died horribly. In the long and dark history of warfare, civilian casualties are nothing new. From the Thirty Years War to Sherman’s March to World War I, from Nanjing to Dresden, civilians have always suffered for the sins of their leaders. A mere 5 months before Hiroshima, the United States firebombed Tokyo, and managed to kill more civilians than it would with the dropping of the atomic bomb. But that it is not new is no excuse. When those civilian deaths are largely, as they were in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in service of a political cause, this becomes something more than another example of the horrors of war. It becomes an act of terror.
The Bombing Of Hiroshima Was An Act Of Terror
Of course the war was over, Japan was already running tourist boats and tours. It was this America objected to, well that, and the lawsuit Japan had started, accusing America for the Bataan death march.Statist propaganda.Do your own homework, moron.You are not informed. You have chosen to believe the lies of a lying politician and the state that covered for him. Why?Repeating your errors don't make them come true. They didn't want to surrender, they refused to. We didn't bomb them for pleasure.It did not save lives. It ended lives of many innocent civilians.Yes, it saved American lives. Who knows how many thousands. Japanese were killing themselves wholesale, including civilians. They refused to surrender, some would strap bombs on themselves and run into our forces. Groups would charge with pitch forks. Just one determined suicidal zealot can do a lot of damage.
Watch the show "World War 2 from Above". I saw it yesterday and leaves all doubt that it was the right thing to do. I learned a lot. One interesting thing is the cost of the atomic bombs. Over 600,000 people were employed and the cost was about 25 billion in today's money. One of the reasons it was so expensive was they weren't sure which would work, plutonium or uranium so they developed both. Fat Boy and Little John were different, they both worked.
And even if you believe the lie that is saved lives, is it ethical and moral to terminate the lives of untold numbers of innocent women, children, and old men of a defeated and defenseless nation wanting to surrender, to save the lives of your troops?
Read this and when done, I will give you more homework.
Was Hiroshima Necessary
Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - World War II - HISTORY.com
General Douglas MacArthur and other top military commanders favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan already in effect and following up with a massive invasion, codenamed “Operation Downfall.” They advised Truman that such an invasion would result in U.S. casualties of up to 1 million.
In order to avoid such a high casualty rate, Truman decided–over the moral reservations of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, General Dwight Eisenhower and a number of the Manhattan Project scientists–to use the atomic bomb in the hopes of bringing the war to a quick end. Proponents of the A-bomb–such as James Byrnes, Truman’s secretary of state–believed that its devastating power would not only end the war, but also put the U.S. in a dominant position to determine the course of the postwar world.
The war was well over before Truman murdered thousands of innocent civilians in cold blood, by dropping the a-bombs and untold number of conventional bombs.
Get informed...this might help...but I doubt it.
In order to save lives, we were forced to take them, so the story goes. But that story is overly simplistic, and posits a very grim equation, wherein the lives of American soldiers are valued more than those of Japanese civilians.
Multiply that suffering by 1000, by 10,000. Can it really be justified by the “potential” saving of lives? The fact is the usage of the atomic bomb was opposed by some of the very scientists who developed it. It was also opposed by Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Chester W. Nimitz, and Harry Truman’s own Chief of Staff, William Leahy. In 1946, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that even without the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan would have surrendered by November of 1945. The story is far more ambiguous, it seems. While we may debate (and have done so endlessly) the necessity of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seems that Truman had more than a few in his circle who spoke out against the action.
I would argue that Truman’s motives had less to do with military strategy and more to do with simple politics. First, rather than have the war drag out for a few more months, he simply wanted to crush the will of the Japanese people. An extended war of attrition, American casualties aside, would have been politically damaging to Truman back home. Second, and more importantly, Truman wanted to make damned sure that Joseph Stalin was aware of America’s shiny new killing machine. In the wake of thePotsdam Conference, relations with the Soviet Union had begun to sour, and it was clear that alliances were shifting. Truman had already hinted to Stalin that America had a devastating new weapon; Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided the proof, and gave America an advantage in the Cold War that loomed.
But for that proof and that advantage, 120,000 Japanese civilians died horribly. In the long and dark history of warfare, civilian casualties are nothing new. From the Thirty Years War to Sherman’s March to World War I, from Nanjing to Dresden, civilians have always suffered for the sins of their leaders. A mere 5 months before Hiroshima, the United States firebombed Tokyo, and managed to kill more civilians than it would with the dropping of the atomic bomb. But that it is not new is no excuse. When those civilian deaths are largely, as they were in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in service of a political cause, this becomes something more than another example of the horrors of war. It becomes an act of terror.
The Bombing Of Hiroshima Was An Act Of Terror
I haven't seen any gloating, just assholes making the claim. Many civilians were committing suicide. Militarily they were not finished, that's an outright lie. Your side is the one making up shit to justify your own self righteous position. We lost a LOT of men in WW2, over 400,000, how many more is acceptable to you?It appears that those who are proud of incinerating women and children are going to post about this absolutely horrid anniversary until everyone who sees it in a reasonable sense gives up.
The 'leaders' of Japan were war criminals. They deserved anything and everything they could ever get.
The vast majority of Japan had no input into doctrine, policy or negotiation. None of the women and children did.
There was no necessity to invade Japan; that was a political and military option, as were other options. Militarily, Japan was finished.
There is no moral justification for terror bombing.
Gleeful sickies gloating over charred bodies are a poor expression of America.
