whitehall
Diamond Member
Your logic is skewed.
A Question
- Thread starter Unkotare
- Start date
Your logic is skewed.
IGetItAlready
Rookie
- Jul 27, 2012
- 1,264
- 154
- 0
- Banned
- #22
As some have pointed out, the Japanese were getting their collective ass kicked all over the Pacific and were doomed to defeat.
The only problem was that their man/god leader refused to admit the obvious.
His insistence on continuing the fighting and his peoples' belief that he was more than a man was enough to ensure the carnage would continue until the allied forces were forced to invade.
Had that happened the casualties would have been astronomic.
No one but the feel gooders dispute the fact that using the bombs saved countless lives on both sides of the lines.
Had Hirohito surrendered after the first bomb was dropped, there may be a case to be made for overkill. The fact that we were forced to use both of our bombs illustrates the civilian losses and devastation Japan was willing to accept had we been forced to invade.
Many of us are only here today thanks to the use of the bombs and a much quicker end to the war.
Last edited:
there4eyeM
unlicensed metaphysician
- Jul 5, 2012
- 20,962
- 5,501
- 280
Invading was unnecessary.
whitehall
Diamond Member
For some reason there was a disconnect between the eggheads who created the Bomb and the military that used it. The scientists may have had an idea of the hazards of radiation but either the military disregarded the warnings or they were intentionally kept in the dark. Well after the war in atomic tests on Bikini Island in the Pacific the US Navy illustrated their profound ignorance or disregard for radiation sickness when they ordered Sailors to board ships a day after they were radiated in a Atomic bomb blast. The Navy apparently thought that they could merely hose down the ships with seawater and they would be safe but the seawater was irradiated. Likewise the Soldiers apparently ordered into craters made by Atomic land tests. The original number for Korean War fatalities (1950-1953) was around 50,000 and and later revised by the DOD to 35-38,000 to indicate only the Troops actually killed in combat but that leaves an astounding 15,000 Military killed in non combat situations. Did they die from the effects of Atomic Bomb tests?
- Banned
- #27
It's not atomic bomb, but US strong belief that the Soviet Union will use it on US provocation, that kept the world relatively safe. Until 1090-s.
With the USSR gone, the US started WW3.
In a light of your words "When you start a world war don't complain because I have a bigger bader bomb", does it mean Americans will take it with grace when the war they started will be brought to their home?
- Banned
- #28
If you mean UK, then yes. But unlike Americans, British are a lot more sceptical about the whole "democracy" thing, and at least attempted to stop the war on Iraq and are not overjoyed at UK elites following US on its adventures.
Read any forum: absolute majority of US posters are supportive of US government actions abroad!
- Banned
- #29
No, it isn't!
If mass murder of civilians is OK' when US does it, then why it is not OK' when Hitler did it?
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
We didn't actually invade mainland Japan. And the reason for it was the two bombs. Had we been forced to attack their mainland it would have cost many more lives and took many more years to rebuild........
IGetItAlready
Rookie
- Jul 27, 2012
- 1,264
- 154
- 0
- Banned
- #34
And virtually NO ONE aside from those looking for a reason to hate on the US disputes those facts.
williepete
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #35
I see this revisionist history question come up year after year.
I recommend three books to frame this question properly in its historic context so as to understand the decision to drop the bombs.
The first is "Truman" by David McCullough. After reading this book, you'll see Truman would have been run out of town on a rail had he not used the bomb. At that time, it was just another weapon. Radiation, as an above post alludes to, was not understood until many years after the war. No one was sure if the bomb would work or bring the desired results. What was known was they had this weapon, had spent unprecedented treasure producing it and had an enemy who didn't consider surrender. The experience in the Okinawa invasion when projected to an invasion of mainland Japan foretold of casualties of over 1 million allied soldiers and sailors. This number needs to be kept in perspective when viewing the atom bomb deaths.
As a side note, the fire bombing of Tokyo on the night of 9 March, 1945 was more destructive in lives and property than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. (Hiroshima: 66,000 estimated killed. Nagasaki 39,000 estimated killed. Tokyo: 100,000 to 130,000 estimated killed.)
The second and third books are "The Last 100 Days" and "The Rising Sun" by John Toland. These books clearly show through interviews with former Japanese officers and diplomats that there was a strong and influential faction in the Japanese government and military who thought it far better to go down fighting than suffer the disgrace of surrender. As unbelievable as the words are to Western readers, the books put you in the minds of those who preferred death to dishonor.
The Allies were in a hurry to end the war. Everyone at all levels of command were under pressure to end the severe cost in blood and treasure that each minute of war brought. This aspect seems to completely evade modern revisionist historians.
The use of the bomb saved more lives than it took and made a strong statement to Stalin's post war ambitions. Saving millions from battlefield deaths hardly constitutes a war crime but I understand the ongoing need to cast the U.S. as criminal in any way possible.
I recommend three books to frame this question properly in its historic context so as to understand the decision to drop the bombs.
The first is "Truman" by David McCullough. After reading this book, you'll see Truman would have been run out of town on a rail had he not used the bomb. At that time, it was just another weapon. Radiation, as an above post alludes to, was not understood until many years after the war. No one was sure if the bomb would work or bring the desired results. What was known was they had this weapon, had spent unprecedented treasure producing it and had an enemy who didn't consider surrender. The experience in the Okinawa invasion when projected to an invasion of mainland Japan foretold of casualties of over 1 million allied soldiers and sailors. This number needs to be kept in perspective when viewing the atom bomb deaths.
As a side note, the fire bombing of Tokyo on the night of 9 March, 1945 was more destructive in lives and property than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. (Hiroshima: 66,000 estimated killed. Nagasaki 39,000 estimated killed. Tokyo: 100,000 to 130,000 estimated killed.)
The second and third books are "The Last 100 Days" and "The Rising Sun" by John Toland. These books clearly show through interviews with former Japanese officers and diplomats that there was a strong and influential faction in the Japanese government and military who thought it far better to go down fighting than suffer the disgrace of surrender. As unbelievable as the words are to Western readers, the books put you in the minds of those who preferred death to dishonor.
The Allies were in a hurry to end the war. Everyone at all levels of command were under pressure to end the severe cost in blood and treasure that each minute of war brought. This aspect seems to completely evade modern revisionist historians.
The use of the bomb saved more lives than it took and made a strong statement to Stalin's post war ambitions. Saving millions from battlefield deaths hardly constitutes a war crime but I understand the ongoing need to cast the U.S. as criminal in any way possible.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #36
When a series of civil wars broke out in Yugoslavia -- the first victim of coloured revolutions...
- Banned
- #37
Two questions:
1. What were Stalin's "post war ambitions", and how do we know about them?
2. How many lives did the use of atomic bombs save, and how do we know that?
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
The United States used its nuclear weapons on Japan in good faith, in the context of a war it neither sought nor started, authorized by the doctrine of Total War where civilians were legitimate military targets, as they participated in their respective nationsÂ’ war efforts.
In essence the Japanese realized the ultimate consequence for the illegal war they began against an enemy that posed no threat to the Empire. Japan thus forfeited any claim to being victims of war crimes.
In essence the Japanese realized the ultimate consequence for the illegal war they began against an enemy that posed no threat to the Empire. Japan thus forfeited any claim to being victims of war crimes.
- Banned
- #39
The desire to conduct live experiment on a mass of civilians and to establish a foothold in Pacific against the USSR you call a "good faith"???!!!
Where and when a "doctrine of Total War" that authorised mass murder of civilians was pronounced???!!!!!
And if that so, why the US denounced Nazi crimes?!
courseofhistory
Rookie
- Aug 7, 2012
- 1,230
- 179
- 0
- Banned
- #40
Do you speak Japanese?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Asimov on anti-intellectualism- (full quote in body of post) "Democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 1
-
Zone1 Which members of Trump's cabinet and team are you liking best so far?
- Started by wtb
- Replies: 2
-
GM lowers 2025 guidance, citing up to $5 billion in tariff exposure
- Started by Zincwarrior
- Replies: 2
-
White House Launches Its Own Drudge Report, Prompting Slap Back From Drudge
- Started by Zincwarrior
- Replies: 1
-
