NationStates Jolt Archive

And now for something completely different! Or re-hashed eight bajagonzillion times, whichever.

And now for something completely different! Or re-hashed eight bajagonzillion times, whichever.
Actually...there was a huge thread about this like two days ago...so this isn't really "completely different"...

It was neither necessary nor morally just, because the Japanese forces tried to surrender 8 times, and each time were denied, without even beginning negotiations. It's that simple, and I've heard the counter arguments. To me, none I've heard hold water.

I agree, Jordaxia. Truman was a terrible president. He should have spent less time burning manga.

It was neither necessary nor morally just, because the Japanese forces tried to surrender 8 times, and each time were denied, without even beginning negotiations. It's that simple, and I've heard the counter arguments. To me, none I've heard hold water.

Not mentioned by Jordaxia is that they wanted to keep Manchuria, Korea and a few other "holdings". Also not mentioned, the Japanese imperial council denied every surrender request all the way to the last day.

Actually...there was a huge thread about this like two days ago...so this isn't really "completely different"...

Yes. Right. See the latter half of my comment.

Plus, well, I see this forum as operating on the basis of right-now, as opposed to "if ever." That is, just because a topic was discussed earlier, doesn't mean it can't be discussed now. Otherwise, there'd be no discussion on anything!

On subject, I think I'm in the fence sitting category, leaning towards "no." On the other hand, I don't see how nuking a city is much worse morally than firebombing it to destruction. From that perspective, if you argue that destroying a city and killing lots of innocent people is bad, then the allies (and axis) throughout the war were 'bad' overall, not just when using nuclear fission to do the deed.

But from another perspective, was the destruction of these targets needed to end the war without further loss of life? Could the USA and Imperial Japan have worked out a mutually satisfactory agreement, prior to the use of these weapons - or prior to the use of the SECOND weapon, but after just one? Would the USSR have declared war without Hiroshima, and would the USSR's declaration of war helped convince Japan to surrender unconditionally? Was "unconditional surrender" absolutely necessary, or was it just Americans wanting to hear the enemies cry 'uncle?' I don't know.

Actually, on that last one, I'd say it was pretty necessary, based on our experiences during the war.

But the rest are gray areas to me.

And this justifies nuclear response? No, I doubt it. Also, times were different then. Empires were still alive. Thinking about it, it isn't such a strange request. They had fought to gain that land. Obviously, nowadays we may consider this barbaric, but then, I don't think it would be the same. Also, the knowledge that a surrender message was being repressed, perhaps the U.S should have relented on their ABSOLUTE SURRENDER! Not many nations with such a concept of pride surrender, never mind absolutely.

And this justifies nuclear response? No, I doubt it. Also, times were different then. Empires were still alive. Thinking about it, it isn't such a strange request. They had fought to gain that land. Obviously, nowadays we may consider this barbaric, but then, I don't think it would be the same. Also, the knowledge that a surrender message was being repressed, perhaps the U.S should have relented on their ABSOLUTE SURRENDER! Not many nations with such a concept of pride surrender, never mind absolutely.


So in your mind, it would be alright to enslave the Korean people and a few million Chinese?

The atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima may have killed tens of thousadns of Japanese. But it was the lesser of two evils compared to the other choice: invade Japan. That would have led to a longer war, over 1million American casualties, and millions of Japanese civilians and soldiers killed.

It was the best way to end the war and preserve lives. Which would you have chose? Losing tens of thousands Japanese by dropping two bombs or keeping the war going longer and loosing tens of millions of Americans and Japanese.

So please stop with all of this "Truman hated anime and manga" nonsense.

Who said that? Don't put words into my mouth please. You are looking at this with 21st century hindsight. Now look at it with 1945 hindsight. This is a colony that Japan won. They don't want to give it back. This is why terms of surrender such as this were not regarded to highly.

And this justifies nuclear response? No, I doubt it. Also, times were different then. Empires were still alive. Thinking about it, it isn't such a strange request. They had fought to gain that land. Obviously, nowadays we may consider this barbaric, but then, I don't think it would be the same. Also, the knowledge that a surrender message was being repressed, perhaps the U.S should have relented on their ABSOLUTE SURRENDER! Not many nations with such a concept of pride surrender, never mind absolutely.

The US did relent on Unconditional Surrender (to the chagrin of the Chinese), the Emperor still exists to this day. As was mentioned above, in all prior attempts at diplomacy undertaken by the Japanese (not counting any prior to '45, and there were), had three conditions, the Emperor's power be preserved, the Military tradition be preserved, no Occupation and Korea would remain Japanese (Since Manchukuko was Manchuria it wasn't Japanese territory, but there may have been a provision for it's continued existance as a puppet state). These terms are not acceptableby any stretch of the imagination.

It was much better than invasion. But I think we you have a war any land you take should remain under control of the invader.

Who said that? Don't put words into my mouth please. You are looking at this with 21st century hindsight. Now look at it with 1945 hindsight. This is a colony that Japan won. They don't want to give it back. This is why terms of surrender such as this were not regarded to highly.

The American POV on the Japanese Empire hasn't changed much since 1945 and 2004. And you are thinking about colonies and what other nations thought about them in pre World War I terms.

Once again, not acceptable with a 21st century hindsight advantage, which they lacked. Colonies were commonplace! Empires were not routinely dismantled. Military tradition had been Japan since..... ever! Look at this. The Emperor has always had power in Japan. The military has always been deeply respected in Japan. Both of these things were integrated into the people themselves. to expect them to just give it up, and to accept something as horrendous as being occupied! Think about this for a second. You are the most proud people on Earth, and you're going to let this army waltz in like they own the place? Think again.

Examine this with a 1945 viewpoint. Current viewpoints are irrelevant when debating morality of this time.

The atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima may have killed tens of thousadns of Japanese. But it was the lesser of two evils compared to the other choice: invade Japan. That would have led to a longer war, over 1million American casualties, and millions of Japanese civilians and soldiers killed.

It was the best way to end the war and preserve lives.
Aaah the Americans of course nuked them out of the goodness of their hearts.


Which would you have chose? Losing tens of thousands Japanese by dropping two bombs or keeping the war going longer and loosing tens of millions of Americans and Japanese.

Ask yourself what the Japanese who were nuked would have chosen. A fighting chance or generations of cancer and deformed infants.

What Mr. Sword said is obsolutely correct.

In 1945 and well prior we were against having colonies. Why do you think we gave all ours up?

Once again, not acceptable with a 21st century hindsight advantage, which they lacked. Colonies were commonplace! Empires were not routinely dismantled. Military tradition had been Japan since..... ever! Look at this. The Emperor has always had power in Japan. The military has always been deeply respected in Japan. Both of these things were integrated into the people themselves. to expect them to just give it up, and to accept something as horrendous as being occupied! Think about this for a second. You are the most proud people on Earth, and you're going to let this army waltz in like they own the place? Think again.

Examine this with a 1945 viewpoint. Current viewpoints are irrelevant when debating morality of this time.

Empires were routinely dismantled, the entire war effort in the Pacific was to dismantle an Empire. Before the First World War stripping a major Empire of all it's colonies was unheard of, but in the age of Total War, the defeated are vanquished. Germany was stripped of every colony it had in 1918, Austria Hungary lost all it's satellites and brokeup, the Ottoman Empire collapsed. This was past the time when colonies were commonplace, the only ones left were from the Victorian Age (Basically the French and British Empires, with scatterings of Dutch, Belgian, and other colonies). These Empires were slowly succumbing to nationalistic fervor in the colonies, Japan was living in the past trying to create an Empire, well past the time the world would sit by.

If I am thinking about colonies on a pre world war 1 term, how come Britain expanded colonies until 1920 and kept them until after the second world war? also, remember Japan was an isolationist power. what happened in the rest of the world at that time did not affect it. They wanted a colony, because they were an empire. They did not want to lose their colony to "Western Barbarians".

Ask yourself what the Japanese who were nuked would have chosen. A fighting chance or generations of cancer and deformed infants.

We can't but we can ask the millions of descendants of Japanese soldiers and civilians and American soldiers whether they want a 'fighting' chance (life) or no chance at all.

Empires were dismantled then because the victor took them, adding to their own. this was the same in WW1, where we took and kept the German colonies. WW1 was the only situation where not all the colonies went to the Victor. France still kept its colonial power after Napoleon, did it not?


Wait, on reading that, you agreed with me! (though you didn't mean it.) Colonial powers were not broken up. Japan is one of the few occurences. Japan and the WW1 powers. Out of 2000 years of nations withering away, or simply being colonised themself, the breaking up of a nation has happened but a few times.

We can't but we can ask the millions of descendants of Japanese soldiers and civilians and American soldiers whether they want a 'fighting' chance (life) or no chance at all.
And thats exactly what the "compassionate" Yanks offered. No chance at all.

Von Witzleben, like Jordaxia said. They didn't have 21st century nindsight. Back then the threats of nuclear radiation and fallout were unknown. The only thing known at the time was that it would end the war faster and save both American and Japanese lives. Even all those who died because of the effects of the bombs afterwords have not added up to the number of lives saved by using the bomb.

Empires were dismantled then because the victor took them, adding to their own. this was the same in WW1, where we took and kept the German colonies. WW1 was the only situation where not all the colonies went to the Victor.
The colonies did not go to the victors after WW1?

If I am thinking about colonies on a pre world war 1 term, how come Britain expanded colonies until 1920 and kept them until after the second world war? also, remember Japan was an isolationist power. what happened in the rest of the world at that time did not affect it. They wanted a colony, because they were an empire. They did not want to lose their colony to "Western Barbarians".

Becuase after World War I this viewpoint changed, the British Empire should have been at it's highest peak after WWI, instead it was coming crashing down. Japan was not and isolationist power, they wanted desperately to be noticed by the world as an equal player. China was an isolationist power prior to the end of the (chinese) Empire.

Britain kept it's colonies until after WW2 (Very shortly after) becuase the war delayed independence of most of it, and sped it up after it was over, the Empire was coming apart in the 1930's. Saying Britain expanded it's colonies until the 1920's is a bit misleading, they simply inherited most of Germany's colonies, which was becuase they did not feel the Africans were ready for independence.

And thats exactly what the "compassionate" Yanks offered. No chance at all.

To perhaps 300,000 people, which multiplies into about a million with generations. Compare that with say 11,000,000 (Using the Saipan ratio), and that is not even considering generations afterwords.

Japan not isolationist? They had just come out of hundreds of years of it. So my point stands. The last few hundred years of history passed them by. They wanted to be noticed by the world when they started taking colonies, which is the way it always had been from then. The last time they really talked to the world before that is when they tried to take over Korea.

Von Witzleben, like Jordaxia said. They didn't have 21st century nindsight. Back then the threats of nuclear radiation and fallout were unknown. The only thing known at the time was that it would end the war faster and save both American and Japanese lives. Even all those who died because of the effects of the bombs afterwords have not added up to the number of lives saved by using the bomb.
The long term effects may have been unknown. But not the immediate ones.
They were well known. And would you mind stopping to hammer on the: it was the best way to also save Japanese lives thing? The Americans didn't care a flying fuck about Japanese lives. Or the lives of anyone else but their own for that matter.

It was war.

I once saw something where they asked a Japanese commander what he thought of the use of the bomb. He simply said it was war and if they had the bomb, they would have used it.

It's interesting to hear "moral" getting used in discussions of war.

As to the surrender claims. Meh! The victor gets to choose.....

Read this and then discuss this again:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/46dec/compton.htm

the japanese were not the innocents of WW2
they started it and we ended it
look at what they did in korea, china, the phillipines, everywhere they conquered. their brutality came back on them.

that we did it by the "easiest" way possible is not immoral. war is hell, as the japanese proved over and over. they got what they deserved

as a further thought, unrelated in my mind to whether or not it was justified, i think that the dropping of the bomb SOMEWHERE was, in effect, a good thing.

not because nuking people is good but because they were our SMALLEST nukes. the urge to use what you make is very high. just to see what happens, just to prove youll do it, whatever.

so by using it, we didnt have to use one again later when our bombs were much bigger and would do much more damage to whoever the unlucky recipient was. (ive read that the military urged eisenhower to nuke the USSR before they developed the H bomb and could scare us off it. Ike said no thanks)

now we KNOW how bad they really are and are very reluctant to nuke the middle east (for example) no matter how many people want to just get it over with.

Empires were dismantled then because the victor took them, adding to their own. this was the same in WW1, where we took and kept the German colonies. WW1 was the only situation where not all the colonies went to the Victor. France still kept its colonial power after Napoleon, did it not?

Exactly, thinking on colonies had changed by World War 2, the nationalism that spurred the Europeans to claim hundreds of colonies had by now spread to the colonies themselves, giving the inhabitants there own national identity, unique from the mother country (with some exceptions), and with world views liberalizing Empires were simply not acceptable anymore, which is why the victors did not inherit the Japanese Empire.


Wait, on reading that, you agreed with me! (though you didn't mean it.) Colonial powers were not broken up. Japan is one of the few occurences. Japan and the WW1 powers.

That was a lionshare of the Empires of the world, besides them there were only two other viable Empires (The French and British).

Out of 2000 years of nations withering away, or simply being colonised themself, the breaking up of a nation has happened but a few times.

There is nothing that can really compare to the Empire thought of the 19th-20th century. You can draw comparisons between Rome and Britain, but the scope and ideas are different.

The long term effects may have been unknown. But not the immediate ones.
They were well known. And would you mind stopping to hammer on the: it was the best way to also save Japanese lives thing? The Americans didn't care a flying fuck about Japanese lives. Or the lives of anyone else but their own for that matter.

Well of course we were concerned about ourselves. That is war. War is hell. In a war you have to think about yourself, otherwise you die. And I will hammer on the Japanese lives subject because we did not want to have to kill millions of civilians. Which is what would have happened had we invaded.

Did the Ottoman Empire stay together after World War I? Did the Austro-Hungarian Empire stay together after World War I? Did the German Empire stay together after World War I? Should Japan get to keep its empire after losing World War II?

Did the Ottoman Empire stay together after World War I? Did the Austro-Hungarian Empire stay together after World War I? Did the German Empire stay together after World War I? Should Japan get to keep its empire after losing World War II?

Of course not.

So please stop with all of this "Truman hated anime and manga" nonsense.

Why? You think he loved it?

Becuase after World War I this viewpoint changed, the British Empire should have been at it's highest peak after WWI, instead it was coming crashing down. Japan was not and isolationist power, they wanted desperately to be noticed by the world as an equal player. China was an isolationist power prior to the end of the (chinese) Empire.
Japan was isolationist until 1854. Open only to a limited number of Chinese and Dutch traders.

I agree you cannot look on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings with 21st century views, in fact it is my central point in my argument of why the bombs were dropped on cities instead of a remote location. But you are simply not using 1945 views, your views are more akin to pre World War I

You can hate Anime and Manga without hating Japanese, but...heh...1945 Americans hated Japanese about the same as 2001 Americans hated Muslims and Arabs...

Why? You think he loved it?
Anime and manga didn't even exist for him to like or dislike it!!!

If the Bomb hadn't been dropped in Japan, I think USA would have used it on USSR after World War II (Some time in the fifties). I also think the Bomb was just a "showoff", if you know what I mean. Just to demonstrate their power.

If the Bomb hadn't been dropped in Japan, I think USA would have used it on USSR after World War II (Some time in the fifties). I also think the Bomb was just a "showoff", if you know what I mean. Just to demonstrate their power.
It was, in a sense. Along with a means to end the war.

Japan was isolationist until 1854. Open only to a limited number of Chinese and Dutch traders.

Yes, by World War 2 they were anything but isolationist, Commodore Perry's opening of Japan to the outside world spurred a rapid industrialization (fuedal to industrial in half a century). Becuase they had so recently industrialized and so recently been a fuedal type power, the world didn't look upon Japan as a world player, barely even as a Pacific Power. The Russo-Japanese War gave the Japanese some bragging rights, but the Russians abysml performance in World War I and collapse led many to blame it on Russian ineptness. The Japanese were clamoring for attention, until after Versailles when the British reneged their alliance with Japan, that is when Japan had decided it didn't want acceptance by powers like Britain and the United States.

Did the Ottoman Empire stay together after World War I? Did the Austro-Hungarian Empire stay together after World War I? Did the German Empire stay together after World War I? Should Japan get to keep its empire after losing World War II?

Did France get to keep their empire after the Napoleonic war? Any nation that could take territory back after whoever beaten them was done with them was welcome to try. The WW1 powers were the only exceptions to this. The treaty imposed on the Germans was humiliating and lead to the start of WW2. So is removing a nations teeth a good way to keep them safe? Not historically, no.
Was insisting on total surrender a good way to get a nation on your side? no.
They could have, instead of just nuking them, agreed to an armistice, and then "negotiated" a surrender.
One step at a time.

This may sound familar to anyone from the older thread, but I wasn't going to retype this whole argument, so I copied and pasted my argument from there.

Japan was far from surrendering in 1945, I have read numerous books on the PTO, one of the best I would recommend to those interested in the final months of the Pacific War would be Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. The intercepted messages most people refer to are the messages sent to Japan's ambassador to the Soviet Union, which basically asked for him to request of Molotov, the Soviet ambassador, to try and become a third weight for a negotiated peace with the Allies. Obviously this idea was ludicrous, not only becuase the Soviet's had no intention of doing so, but becuase the Allies were not going to settle for a negotiated peace (Versailles had been the catalyst of this war). The Prime Minister (Who was not Hideki Tojo at the time) kept these messages very secret becuase it was well known neither the Navy or Army wanted surrender, they were dedicated to their Ketsu-Go operation, or their final battle plan for the Home Islands.

Magic intercepts gave the Americans this information, and just like the Soviets and the Japanese Soviet Ambassador himself, realized they were futile. Another problem the Allies had with only the civilian head of the government exploring peace was it did not gaurantee the Military heads of Japan would surrender as well, by all means they could simply declare the civies traitors, and this would destroy any hope of organized surrender and leave the Allies with having to wipe out every Japanese garrison in the Pacific and Asia. When the Americans actually did send their terms to Japan (via the Potsdam Decleration), the response in the Japanese Government was to let it die on the vine (or basically ignore it), and no Magic intercepts revealed any intention of the Japanese to accede to the Potsdam Decleration.

As for the invasion, Operation Downfall was split into two parts, the first Olympic was the invasion of Kyushu as a staging area for the invasion of the Kanto Plain, Coronet. But by August 1945 Ultra intelligence (Magic was diplomatic, Ultra was military intercepts) had shown the Japanese as part of their Ketsu-Go plan had placed a huge number of troops on Kyushu, and of the three major areas to be invaded by the Americans two were defended by regular and war-ready divisions, and the third was useless without the other two. Admiral Nimitz was preparing to withdraw his endorsement of Olympic in favor of continued blockade and bombardment or an immediate go at Coronet.

Most commanders had never liked Downfall anyway becuase of the horrendous casualties it entailed, but recognized the invasion had to be to secure peace. The planners used various calculations to come up with casualty estimates, most used what was known as the Saipan Ratio, which was 10 Japanese to 1 American casualty. General Marshall's figure which was the one Nimitz had seen calculated 90,000 casualties in the first 90 days, which dwarfs Overlord casualties. And this was assuming the Americans were invading with a 3:1 superiority in numbers, when in fact the Japanese had two more divisions then the Americans invading.

All the Soviet invasion did was finally destroy the Prime Minister's hope that the Soviets would intervene, the Kwantung Army was already a useless force. Reduced from it's wartime status as elite by it's units being needed elsewhere, it was almost a militia force. Becuase of the American mine campaign (Operation Starvation) and the submarine threat, these troops could not be sent to the Homeland. The Soviet invasion was more a threat to the Americans then the Japanese.

The two atomic bombs changed everything. Hiroshima had been on a no-bomb list since the firebombing campaign had begun, Nagasaki was only recently (it replaced Kyoto which after months of debate was decided would not be touched for it's cultural value) and had simply been overlooked by Lemay's bombers. Hiroshima was the original target and when it was bombed it threw the Japanese into a panic, the Navy and Army ministers, the most virulent no-peacers and pro-Final Battle supporters, even had to admit this new weapon was devestating.

But this alone did not convince them the need to surrender, but it propelled more Civilian leaders for peace, and even the Emperor began to entertain seroius ideas of peace (hitherto he had been firmly behind Ketsu-Go). But the Americans dropped another bomb only 3 days later. The target of this bomb was the Kokura Arsenal on Kyushu which contained a vast amount of the material which would be used to oppose Olympic, but heavy cloud cover prevented the dropping of the bomb, so the B-29 went to it's secondary target Nagasaki, heavy cloud cover here too prevented a dropping, but after circling the B-29 had no choice but to make an accurate guess on where to drop on Nagasaki becuase of fuel constraints.

This bombing convinced the Emperor the war was lost. The rapid dropping of two Atomic Bombs did away with Kawabe's idea that the Americans only had a small amount of bombs and they were probably out of them after Hiroshima (which was true, the third bomb would not be ready until September becuase Truman delayed it's delivery). As things came to a head around Tokyo, the peace question was finally put to rest by a private meeting. The Emperor brought together all his advisors in one room, he listened to their arguments for their side, which were all charged with emotion and patriotism. Then he made his announcement, with tears in his eyes, he announced he did not believe the Americans could be defeated without bringing destruction the Japan, and his people had suffered enough. This intervention by the Emperor might be what saved the Americans and Japanese millions of dead. There was a minor military coup at the palace later on, but it had no real support of either the Navy or Army so it failed. The Army minister commited suicide becuase he felt he had failed the Emperor. Several days later a transmission was sent to the Americans which basically said the Japanese were willing to accept all terms of the Potsdam Decleration, but attached to it was the Japanese want to keep the Emperor, instead of their demand which had forestalled all earlier peace talks along with their idea of keeping Korea and their military.

It's amazing how we can all sit around and argue a moral decision made under untold pressures of a world war 60 years ago.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/46dec/compton.htm

And what are you trying to say with this?

Did France get to keep their empire after the Napoleonic war? Any nation that could take territory back after whoever beaten them was done with them was welcome to try. The WW1 powers were the only exceptions to this. The treaty imposed on the Germans was humiliating and lead to the start of WW2. So is removing a nations teeth a good way to keep them safe? Not historically, no.
Was insisting on total surrender a good way to get a nation on your side? no.
They could have, instead of just nuking them, agreed to an armistice, and then "negotiated" a surrender.
One step at a time.

Using 1815 France as an example is exactly what I am talking about, views were completely different, industrialization and liberalization of the world had occurred, colonies were old. The whole point of Unconditional Surrender was to pound Germany and Japan to dust, occupy them, and start them off with a clean slate on the democratic road. An Armistice was out of the question, Versailles had cuased this war and another one was not going to happen. In the end, as history has shown, this pounding and rebuilding worked miracles, Germany, once the most militiristic of Europe's great nations, is now on friendly terms with all it's neighbors, and even has to rely on conscription to fill it's Army's ranks. Japan too is reluctant to use it's military, even though the people who made them pacifist, the Americans, are clamoring for them too.

And I will hammer on the Japanese lives subject because we did not want to have to kill millions of civilians.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of civilians that were killed in the conventional bombings of cities like Dresden, Tokyo or Swinemunde.

As far as I'm concerned, the deployment of nuclear weapons was just to scare our new rival USSR.

Germany, once the most militiristic of Europe's great nations, is now on friendly terms with all it's neighbors, and even has to rely on conscription to fill it's Army's ranks.
Where do you think did they got their troops from before?

Tell that to the tens of thousands of civilians that were killed in the conventional bombings of cities like Dresden, Tokyo or Swinemunde.

It doesn't mean we wanted them dead.

As far as I'm concerned, the deployment of nuclear weapons was just to scare our new rival USSR.

In part, but the main reason was to end the war.

It doesn't mean we wanted them dead.
Of course it does. There was no reason whatsoever to bomb Dresden. Still it was done.

Where do you think did they got their troops from before?

I should have clarified, they have to use forced conscription to fill their small ranks (compared to the Whermacht, and Reichsheer), whereas in WW2 and before forced conscription was utlilized in the middle of the war to the end. To be called to serve was an honor, most German families had a history of serving the Imperial Army, it was not akin to today.

It doesn't mean we wanted them dead.

What else would you bomb a city for? There is a reason it was referred to as terror bombing. Industry was a target but another tenent of Strategic Bombing was to scare the hell out of population into submission.

What else would you bomb a city for? There is a reason it was referred to as terror bombing. Industry was a target but another tenent of Strategic Bombing was to scare the hell out of population into submission.

Right, scarring them. Killing them was just a side-effect.

Did France get to keep their empire after the Napoleonic war? Any nation that could take territory back after whoever beaten them was done with them was welcome to try. The WW1 powers were the only exceptions to this. The treaty imposed on the Germans was humiliating and lead to the start of WW2. So is removing a nations teeth a good way to keep them safe? Not historically, no.
Was insisting on total surrender a good way to get a nation on your side? no.
They could have, instead of just nuking them, agreed to an armistice, and then "negotiated" a surrender.
One step at a time.
Japan and America are very close friends today.

Right, scarring them. Killing them was just a side-effect.

An intended one however, you scare the people by making them think they are completely defenseless. Bombs falling from the air tend to do that, you can't shoot back, and all you can do is hope your not under one. But if you bombed around the city it would just destroy the landscape. To scare the people you had to kill a lot of them, so the population would become to afraid that they would be killed next o production halted and they revolted to end the killing.

Post-war analysis showed it did effect industry (not a lot until late '44-45) but it actually hardened civilian resolve for revenge.

I should have clarified, they have to use forced conscription to fill their small ranks
The conscritpion now isn't much different from back then.

To be called to serve was an honor, most German families had a history of serving the Imperial Army, it was not akin to today.
No they don't. At least not more then others who's sons were draftet into service. You are thinking of the officer corps. Like Von Manstein. Ordinary German families served their time in the army and then left. With some exceptions of course. Like Rommel.

Right, scaring them. Killing them was just a side-effect.
Are you realy this daft?

The conscritpion now isn't much different from back then.


No they don't. At least not more then others who's sons were draftet into service. You are thinking of the officer corps. Like Von Manstein. Ordinary German families served their time in the army and then left. With some exceptions of course. Like Rommel.

Ok, I'll drop the conscription comparison, but Germany is no longer a power looking all around it for imagined enemies, and is not marching into it's neighbors territories. Their army is no longer the force that made people bend to their will, it's now a defence force so other people don't bend the Germans to their will.

Japan's industry was largely residential...people made parts for weapons and such in their backyard.

I am well aware of the invasion plans and what it would have been like. There's no question that bombing cost less lives on both sides than a full-scale invasion of the home islands.

However, I'm not convinced that there were ONLY two options

1. Nuke them now. Twice.
2. Invade them.

There were other options. Be creative. What were they, or might they have been?

Japan's industry was largely residential...people made parts for weapons and such in their backyard.

Not until late in the war, and the blockade stopped the income of natural resources which Japan did not have, so factory or residential it was inconsequential.

Ok, I'll drop the conscription comparison, but Germany is no longer a power looking all around it for imagined enemies
France and belgium were everything but an imaginary enemy.
it's now a defence force so other people don't bend the Germans to their will.
Realy? Their American "friends" do it all the time.

I am well aware of the invasion plans and what it would have been like. There's no question that bombing cost less lives on both sides than a full-scale invasion of the home islands.

However, I'm not convinced that there were ONLY two options

1. Nuke them now. Twice.
2. Invade them.

There were other options. Be creative. What were they, or might they have been?

The other viable option the US reviewed was blockade and bombardment. Many military commanders favored this becuase it minimized casualties to Allied forces. The problem is it didn't offer the chance for a surrender all at once of the Japanese Empire. By being brought down like that the fear of the Americans was the military would not submit (nothing indicates they would have) and taken Japan down with them starving. It also did not offer an end to the war for a long time. Furthermore, although this was not considered by the US, it would have allowed the Soviets to overrun Hokkaido and possibly Honshu before US forces could respond in kind. This way cancels out the massive US casualties of an invasion, but it heightens Japanese suffering, millions would dieof starvation and more firebombings, it would be nothing short of genocide.

France and belgium were everything but an imaginary enemy.

Belgium? You mean the Army that was entirely defensively stanced, that was not tied to either the Entente or the Alliance, the Army with massive fortresses to defend itself, not attack. The country that had nothing against Germany except a fear that Germany would overrun them. You sure you don't mean Russia? And the fact is France's government had abandoned the idea of Revanche (not the people), it was only re-ignited by the war. Germany feared it was being swallowed by Europe, when in fact it was the most powerful single power in Europe, they felt their economy in decline, it was in fact robust and growing. They thought they were encircled, a hostile France to the west (it was to a degree, but it wouldn't openly attack Germany without pretext), a hostile Russia to the east (hostile mostly to Austria, and harboring little ill will towards Germany), an Imperial threat out to sea (Britain), and a diplomatically unreliable Italy in the south. None of these threats were aimed at the destruction of the Reich.

Realy? Their American "friends" do it all the time.

Not by marching in American troops to occupy German cities, that was what I was reffering to.

I've just been glancing at this thread, and I don't pretend to know all of the historical arguments involved.. All I've been led to beleive is that the Japanese brought themselves into the Second World War when they attacked Pearl Harbour more or less unprovoked.. Did they deserve to be nuked twice? I really dunno, but if they didn't expect some sort of retaliation, then they shouldn't have got involved in the first place.. The dropping of the 2 atomic bombs was in my eyes an experiment by the allies, but it brought an end to the war in the Pacific, and probably the war in general.. It also started the nuclear arms race, and the cold war.. There is no wrong, and no right over this issue.. History is history, and maybe we should all be glad that it stopped at us using 2 nuclear bombs, and stopping the biggest conflict the 20th century ever seen, and not the other side getting there first and using more on us.. War is never nice, but at least that time round we were on the right side..

Belgium? You mean the Army that was entirely defensively stanced, that was not tied to either the Entente or the Alliance, the Army with massive fortresses to defend itself, not attack. The country that had nothing against Germany except a fear that Germany would overrun them.
The country that took the opportunity to occupy the defenceless Ruhr area with France when Germany could not pay the horrendouse reparations in 1923. Plunging it into chaos as the Ruhr area was Germanies industrial heart. Causing an inflation which reached at the end of 1923 1 US dollar to 4,2 trillion Marks. A loaf of bread at the start of november 1923 costet 580 billion.
they felt their economy in decline, it was in fact robust and growing.
The 6 million unemployed should have just looked harder for a job eeh?
None of these threats were aimed at the destruction of the Reich.
Britain was probably the least hostile. And it wasn't aimed at their destruction. But it was all aimed at keeping them under their thumb.



Not by marching in American troops to occupy German cities.
They don't have to. They are already there. Like at Ramstein.

The dropping of the 2 atomic bombs was in my eyes an experiment by the allies
Japan was to the Americans what the Spanish civil war was to the Germans. A chance to field test a new way of waging war.

Are you realy this daft?

Hmm... perhaps I am... I'll have it checked out.

Either way, the bombs were dropped to stop the war and end the bloodshed. That way we wouldn't have to loose any more of our own troops, and kill the enemy's troops and civilians.

Japan was to the Americans what the Spanish civil war was to the Germans. A chance to field test a new way of waging war.

That could be a bit of a possibility. Just on a very larger scale.

Japan and America are very close friends today.

And thats what matters.

I find "morally justifiable" and "necessary" to most often be mutually exclusive.

I believe that the bombings were the quickest way. I also believe that Truman was the worst president we ever had until George the Second came along. Hiroshima is justifiable (barely) as the most efficient way to end the war swiftly. Nagasaki was showing off. Would other ways have been better? Maybe, maybe not. But I think that it should be a requirement for every person entering poltics to visit the Peace Park at Hiroshima. See it first-hand. The decision may someday have to be made again, and it should be an informed decision.

I believe that the bombings were the quickest way. I also believe that Truman was the worst president we ever had until George the Second came along. Hiroshima is justifiable (barely) as the most efficient way to end the war swiftly. Nagasaki was showing off. Would other ways have been better? Maybe, maybe not. But I think that it should be a requirement for every person entering poltics to visit the Peace Park at Hiroshima. See it first-hand. The decision may someday have to be made again, and it should be an informed decision.

Actually I once met a man who was a boy at the time of the war. The topic came up when he saw us reading some stuff on the war. He told stories of hiding in ditches as the B-29s were flying over head. Some of the views of the time.

As to Hiroshima he said people thought it was simply another firebomb raid just like what happened with Tokyo.

Actually I once met a man who was a boy at the time of the war. The topic came up when he saw us reading some stuff on the war. He told stories of hiding in ditches as the B-29s were flying over head. Some of the views of the time.

The question is...who wouldn't do that? It is an enemy plane and he wants to kill you.

Necessary? No
Morally justifiable? Yes

And what are you trying to say with this?

You don't find it intersting (or is it you don't belive) the picture painted of the beliefs of the Japanese people at the time? They were beaten by all purposes but they didn't think so.

The comment of a guerilla campaign(or should I say terrorist now ;) an interesting view.

The fact the officer basically said we would have had to kill a large percentage of the population to get a surrender.

Another thing that makes me belive this was from a Documentary about General Slim. They were talking to former Japanese soldiers and the one interesting comment was about the brutality against prisoners. He said that to them surrender was about as horrible as it can get. Those that surrendered were basically less then human. One thing that drove the guards crazy were the Australian attitudes. The Aussies just surrendered and then they would tell the Japanese they were going to loose the war.

As the author wrote:

"These are some of the facts which lead those who know them, and especially those who had to base decisions on them, to feel that there is much delusion and wishful thinking among those after-the-event strategists who now deplore the use of the atomic bomb on the ground that its use was inhuman or that it was unnecessary because Japan was already beaten. And it was not one atomic bomb, or two, which brought surrender; it was the experience of what an atomic bomb will actually do to a community, plus the dread of many more, that was effective."

Ah well this topic looks like it moved on to Germany now anyway......

The question is...who wouldn't do that? It is an enemy plane and he wants to kill you.

The point is that it is interesting to hear the "enemies" experiences of the war.....

Necessary? No
Morally justifiable? Yes

How so?

In 1995 I wrote a letter to my college paper's editorial in response to editorials blasting Clinton for apologizing for dropping the bomb.

At the time I said that I believed that in 1945 it looked like the right choice, but that in 1995 history has proven that decision wrong and Clinton was right to apologize to the Japanese.

In 1995, the US taking a stance against WMD helped to improve international opinion of the US, and come 2001 this apology turned out to be a wise move by the Clinton administration.

I think it is easy to look back on a decision and decide if it is right or wrong, but I have no ill will to those opposed or in favour of using the A-bombs in 1945. Ultimately that makes me a bum bruised fence sitter!

Nice poll SB!

p.s. my letter in 1995 earned me one drunken death threat on my answering machine! Yup, somebody was so offended by my letter that he looked up my name and threatened to kill me. As fate would have it, tons of letters poured in flaming my letter ... I was *not* well liked on campus for a week. Then a few weeks later the school paper ran a series of letters written by *bunches* of World War II veterans whom were reading the school papers and *all* of them actually agreed with my opinion, which was that (1) the bomb saved American lives in 1945, but (2) opened the door for future Americans to be the subjects of WMD attacks, thus (3) the President should apologize.

How so?
By killing off a lot of the enemy in the way that we did, we ended up saving many allied lives. It is likely though that they would have lost anyways in due time, therefore making it not as necessary. The war still could have gone either way though if we didn‘t drop the bomb. Even if we didn’t drop it and we still won, there is no telling what the post war era would have been like. Our military strength would probably have been weaker, and who knows what the cold war would have been like. So it’s really hard to tell just how necessary dropping it really was.

A great book to read on this subject: Flyboys by James Bradley.

The country that took the opportunity to occupy the defenceless Ruhr area with France when Germany could not pay the horrendouse reparations in 1923. Plunging it into chaos as the Ruhr area was Germanies industrial heart. Causing an inflation which reached at the end of 1923 1 US dollar to 4,2 trillion Marks. A loaf of bread at the start of november 1923 costet 580 billion.

1923 was after 1914, which was the time I was speaking of. It was also after Germany had rather rudely invaded the country, destroyed it's major forts and looted it's cities, destroying it's infrastructure and industry.

The 6 million unemployed should have just looked harder for a job eeh?

In 1914? Are you sure this is an accurate figure?

Britain was probably the least hostile. And it wasn't aimed at their destruction. But it was all aimed at keeping them under their thumb.

It was aimed at keeping them in check, and after three wars of expansion and an increasingly hostile stance, wouldn't you want to keep them in check.



They don't have to. They are already there. Like at Ramstein.

That is not what I meant and you know it.

It was neither necessary nor morally just, because the Japanese forces tried to surrender 8 times, and each time were denied, without even beginning negotiations. It's that simple, and I've heard the counter arguments. To me, none I've heard hold water.

first of all, no the japs did not try to surrender, in fact, on the night before the surrender, a military coup was put into action by the top japanese military leaders who turned their backs on the emperor, it was completely justified, remember the POW march in the phillipeanes where americans were held for 3 years and on the last day before americans came to rescue them, the japs lured 100+ into an air-raid shelter and then torched the area killing all of them, this my friend is an atrocity, equally as horrible as what the nazis did in europe, and by the way, the bomb saved millions of lives, american and japanese, the dropping of the bombs were completely justified!!!

We bombed the Japanese for a couple of reasons. First, it was our chance to try out our new weapon on an actual enemy. Second, it was a demonstration of our willingness to use this weapon, which sent a message to the rest of the world. I don't think they actually realised what the bombs would do in a real situation involving people. They found out, and decided that it would be enough to make any other nation think long and hard before attacking us. Of course, we hesitate to use it now, because we remember what happened there.

It's why we don't turn Iraq into one big glass parking lot. Oh, that and the oil. It would spoil some resources that we'd like to have access to. A depressed Iraqi economy will make it so much easier to take advantage of. They'll be trying to rebuild their country and economy, and will be willing to take a cut in the asking price.

As for it being moral or just? No. I don't think so. The Japanese DID try to surrender. One of the points we stuck at was the condition they placed on surrender. As I remember, they only had one condition. They wanted the emperor to remain in place as the leader of the country. We insisted on an unconditional surrender. That held up the process long enough for us to use our shiny new bombs. I think you can get pieces of china that were fused together by the blast on eBay. I know that there are a couple down at my local VFW.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ivan.regina/hiro_ombre.jpg

Looks like a bad photo, doesn't it? It's the silhouette that was burned onto the side of a building by the flash.

Does it matter? They were the enemy.

http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/RETAIN/burn01.gif

Well, imagine if this were someone you loved, and the enemy had dropped the bomb near your hometown. You'd want to eliminate every man, woman and child from the country that did this to your son. I think the Japanese have shown enormous restraint toward us and the horror we visited upon them. Of course, they had little choice, but if you think about the kamikaze pilots, maybe the Japanese thought about it, and for a minute thought that they might not have anything to lose by trying.

It was either:

Kill some thousands of Japanese with a new weapon that would shock the Japanese government better then a conventional strike

or

Continue the most devestating war in world history



Thousands-Millions, more likely- of more people would definately have died in that war had it not been ended.

War is not a pretty thing. People will die, but leaders are bound by duty to prevent as much death and damage to their people as possible, even if that requires horrific measures.


And dont say we should have sat down, smoked the peace pipe, and worked out our problems. It would never have happened, period.


And if you're saying Japan was reasonable in asking they be allowed to keep the lands of Korea and China they invaded, isnt it fair to say America should now own parts of China and Korea, since Japan surrendered to our supremacy, and we should be able to take their land?

http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/RETAIN/burn01.gif

Well, imagine if this were someone you loved, and the enemy had dropped the bomb near your hometown. You'd want to eliminate every man, woman and child from the country that did this to your son. I think the Japanese have shown enormous restraint toward us and the horror we visited upon them. Of course, they had little choice, but if you think about the kamikaze pilots, maybe the Japanese thought about it, and for a minute thought that they might not have anything to lose by trying.

And the families of the servicemen lost at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, the death marches, Wake Island, or the Chinese, anyone remember units 731 and 700, or the pure massacre that Nanking was. Or the families of the 8 B-29 crewmen who were sent to the Kyoto University, the point being everyne has shown what can be called great restraint for the horror visited upon them, it's not like the Japanese were the only victims

Oh, I know quite well that the Japanese were every bit as monstrous in the way they carried on their part of the war. Nanking is one example. The Philippines is another.

Still, I think that no matter what they were able to do, it doesn't compare to the way we bombed them, nor do I think the carpet bombing of Dresden was anything for us to be proud of.

Their resources were nearly exhausted. They couldn't have carried on the war for much longer at any rate, let alone hold the territories they had invaded.

It was a necessary evil... I suppose. :headbang:

http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/RETAIN/burn01.gif

Well, imagine if this were someone you loved, and the enemy had dropped the bomb near your hometown. You'd want to eliminate every man, woman and child from the country that did this to your son. I think the Japanese have shown enormous restraint toward us and the horror we visited upon them. Of course, they had little choice, but if you think about the kamikaze pilots, maybe the Japanese thought about it, and for a minute thought that they might not have anything to lose by trying.

A plane filled with gasoline kills just as well as a atom bomb when it crashes right on top of you.

What came first? Kamikaze...or the bomb?
A: Kamikaze.

Thus, the converse(right?) of your arguement is that we shouldve wanted to eliminate every man, woman, child in Japan.

We dropped the bomb, but we didn't eliminate everyone there, obviously.

Their resources were nearly exhausted. They couldn't have carried on the war for much longer at any rate, let alone hold the territories they had invaded.

So we should sit back and wait for their resources to exhaust, while they take much more drastic measures to attempt to hold on the conquered lands?

1923 was after 1914, which was the time I was speaking of. It was also after Germany had rather rudely invaded the country, destroyed it's major forts and looted it's cities, destroying it's infrastructure and industry.
Guess I misunderstood you.
France remaind hostile. Even after the war.
As for "imaginary" enemy prior to WW1. The major European powers had been at peace for about 30 years. The colonial system kept the tensions between the powers largely in check and neutralised them. The last war fought in Europe, between major powers, was the French-German war of 1870-1871. France still held ill feelings towards Germany for it's defeat in this. They were waiting for a chance to get even. And take back Alsace-Lorraine. Which they btw stole themselves in 1681. But they also knew that they would not be able to win another war against Germany by themselves. The Franco-Russian alliance was not the move of a imaginary enemy. It was a very real threat. And Britain felt threatend by the rapid build up of a German navy. And since there were no more lands outside of Europe left the tensions returned to Europe. Non of the Allies or the Central Powers realy made an effort to prevent a major conflict. Yet the Allies were contemplaiting a pre emptive war against Germany. Which culminated in German readiness for conflict in 1914. The murder of the Austrian archduke was just the last drop.




It was aimed at keeping them in check, and after three wars of expansion and an increasingly hostile stance, wouldn't you want to keep them in check.
What 3 wars of expansion?





That is not what I meant and you know it.
Fact remains that the occupation forces are already in place.

So you're saying that because we did the same thing more surgically, that we should be proud of it?

I understand what you're saying, but I just can't bring myself to believe that the end justified the means. I know that the whole war was horrible on both sides, but I look at the photos and wonder if we could actually tell ourselves that we'd done it for altruistic, humanitarian reasons.

I know that the whole war was horrible on both sides, but I look at the photos and wonder if we could actually tell ourselves that we'd done it for altruistic, humanitarian reasons.
Thats what they are saying.

So you're saying that because we did the same thing more surgically, that we should be proud of it?

I understand what you're saying, but I just can't bring myself to believe that the end justified the means. I know that the whole war was horrible on both sides, but I look at the photos and wonder if we could actually tell ourselves that we'd done it for altruistic, humanitarian reasons.

When did I say we should be PROUD of it?

It was a horrific action, I agree. But we don't run wars against the country that attacked us in altruistic fashion. That leads to defeat.

Next time, we'll let them know where we bomb in advance, so all the civilians can move away, and our bombs can destroy parking lots or be shot down.

In WWII, where we were certainly not the superpower like today, our success- and survival - couldn't be achieved if we were thinking of the other countries citizens. It was either their dead or our dead.

War is bad, and bad it always will be. But neccessary? Usually and very much so.

So you're saying that because we did the same thing more surgically, that we should be proud of it?

I understand what you're saying, but I just can't bring myself to believe that the end justified the means. I know that the whole war was horrible on both sides, but I look at the photos and wonder if we could actually tell ourselves that we'd done it for altruistic, humanitarian reasons.
we dont have to tell ourselves that. it was war. we only have to tell ourselves that it worked.

once you are forced into a war, and the war was much bigger than "they bombed pearl harbor and we dropped the bomb on them" you do what it takes to win.

the japanese did worse things than nuclear bombs. ask any korean.

I suppose the point is that what is done is done. We can't take it back, or the events that followed, although we did try to rebuild the economy of Japan.

I still can't say that I approved of it. If we had to do something to shock them, we had more humane ways to kill a whole bunch of people, quickly. Perhaps the image wouldn't have been so graphic a message, though.

I don't know if what I'm going to say has been said already or not, but here goes:

The United States dropped the second bomb, and maybe the first one, to intimidate the USSR. The first one was to try to end the war, but it was ALSO to keep the Red Army out of Japan, thus making sure Communism would NOT spread to Japan. The second bomb was completely unnecessary. The Japanese weren't working out a treaty with America, but instead, they were STARTING to try to work something out with Russia. The second bomb was dropped to say to the Soviets, "Look what we have and what we can do with it! Two nukes in 3 days. Beat that, Ruskies."

Now, I've actually read many documents from that time, and the main focus of at least HALF of them is keeping the Red Army out of the Land of the Rising Sun.

Okay, an American invasion would have taken months to do and cost 500,000 American lives, but hey, EVERYBODY in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died from the nukes. There were 80,000 dead in the first day or two after the Hiroshima bombing, then 120,000 dead in the first day or two after the Nagasaki bombing, making a total of 200,000 dead after the initial explosion; however, all of the SURVIVORS were VICTIMS of the bombs. The radiation sickness took AT LEAST 10 years off of their life expectancies, so close to a half-million Japanese people died because of Little Boy and Fat Man. Now, an invasion of Japan wouldn't have been as bad as was expected, because the 5,000,000 strong Red Army would be invading from the north as America was invading from the East or the South. So, in TOTAL, MAYBE 1,000,000 lives lost from the invasion. MAYBE and AT MOST. If Emperor Hirohito saw that too many of HIS people were dying in the invasion, he would've bitch slapped the generals and had Japan surrender. He did NOT want to see Japan die, which is why he had Japan surrender after Fat Man destroyed Nagasaki. The generals didn't think we had any more of the bombs, but Hirohito thought otherwise, and didn't want to see the destruction of Japan.

Guess I misunderstood you.
France remaind hostile. Even after the war.
As for "imaginary" enemy prior to WW1. The major European powers had been at peace for about 30 years. The colonial system kept the tensions between the powers largely in check and neutralised them. The last war fought in Europe, between major powers, was the French-German war of 1870-1871. France still held ill feelings towards Germany for it's defeat in this. They were waiting for a chance to get even. And take back Alsace-Lorraine. Which they btw stole themselves in 1681.

As I said, by now the French government had given up on getting Alsace Lorraine back by force, unless pushed. The Franco-Russian Alliance was in response to Germany's Dual Alliance, and that both nations alone (especially France) might not be able to beat Germany, not the other way around.

But they also knew that they would not be able to win another war against Germany by themselves. The Franco-Russian alliance was not the move of a imaginary enemy.

It was the move of threatened nations to bunch together to defend against a very real enemy.

It was a very real threat. And Britain felt threatend by the rapid build up of a German navy. And since there were no more lands outside of Europe left the tensions returned to Europe.

True

Non of the Allies or the Central Powers realy made an effort to prevent a major conflict.

Yes they did, Britain had averted two wars beforehand, and Russia was making roads towards establishing an internation forums to avoid war. France made no moves to war against Germany in 1914, or during the Agadir crisis. By contrast, Austria and Germany were moving to explicitly draw Europe into war while they still believed France and Russia could be defeated (They were fearful of France and Russia overcoming them in military power).

Yet the Allies were contemplaiting a pre emptive war against Germany. Which culminated in German readiness for conflict in 1914. The murder of the Austrian archduke was just the last drop.

The Allies had no preemptive war plans against the Central Powers, the French war plan (Plan XVII) was an offensive, but only after Germany declared war. Russia most definitely did not, it couldn't even decide on a plan when war came.


What 3 wars of expansion?

War against Denmark for Schleswig-Holstein, Seven Weeks War (Against Austria), Franco-Prussian War.



Fact remains that the occupation forces are already in place.

They are bases on German soil belonging to an allied country, if you think this is occupation you should read up on what the Occupation actually was. The US Forces cannot exercise control outside of their bases, it's German territory, and the Germans could demand the Americans to leave.

I don't know if what I'm going to say has been said already or not, but here goes:

The United States dropped the second bomb, and maybe the first one, to intimidate the USSR. The first one was to try to end the war, but it was ALSO to keep the Red Army out of Japan, thus making sure Communism would NOT spread to Japan. The second bomb was completely unnecessary. The Japanese weren't working out a treaty with America, but instead, they were STARTING to try to work something out with Russia. The second bomb was dropped to say to the Soviets, "Look what we have and what we can do with it! Two nukes in 3 days. Beat that, Ruskies."

Now, I've actually read many documents from that time, and the main focus of at least HALF of them is keeping the Red Army out of the Land of the Rising Sun.

Okay, an American invasion would have taken months to do and cost 500,000 American lives, but hey, EVERYBODY in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died from the nukes. There were 80,000 dead in the first day or two after the Hiroshima bombing, then 120,000 dead in the first day or two after the Nagasaki bombing, making a total of 200,000 dead after the initial explosion; however, all of the SURVIVORS were VICTIMS of the bombs. The radiation sickness took AT LEAST 10 years off of their life expectancies, so close to a half-million Japanese people died because of Little Boy and Fat Man. Now, an invasion of Japan wouldn't have been as bad as was expected, because the 5,000,000 strong Red Army would be invading from the north as America was invading from the East or the South. So, in TOTAL, MAYBE 1,000,000 lives lost from the invasion. MAYBE and AT MOST. If Emperor Hirohito saw that too many of HIS people were dying in the invasion, he would've bitch slapped the generals and had Japan surrender. He did NOT want to see Japan die, which is why he had Japan surrender after Fat Man destroyed Nagasaki. The generals didn't think we had any more of the bombs, but Hirohito thought otherwise, and didn't want to see the destruction of Japan.

The Russians could have definitely taken Hokkaido easily, but Honshu wasat least as heavily defended as Kyushu, and the north of Honshu was not suitable for many amphibious landings, not to mention the Red Army had no experience or Navy to speak of, their transport capacity was about half a division.

Once the invasion started the military was commited to Ketsu-Go beyond the point of no return. Even if the Emperor intervened it's doubtful the military would have stopped the battle on Kyushu (which, as per the evidence presented in my earlier post, would've been very bloody), so that short invasion you're expecting is not to be.

The Generals didn't think we had many bombs after Hiroshima, but only 3 days later Nagasaki was bombed, it had erased most doubts, if the US could drop two in 3 days, they had to have a lot. Hirohito intervened becuase all he could basically face was destruction from the air by nuclear attack (something they still didn't fully understand), there would be no grand final battle.

Aaah the Americans of course nuked them out of the goodness of their hearts.


Ask yourself what the Japanese who were nuked would have chosen. A fighting chance or generations of cancer and deformed infants.

So you would have preferred 1 million Allied casualties???..Because that is the consensus of how many might have died had they had to invade the Japanese Home Islands..not to mention the tens of millions the Japanese would have lost because they would have followed their emperor into a guerilla war that would have lasted at least 10 if not 20 yrs.

I would venture to guess what reaction you would have gotten from some young wife or mother of an American soldier if you had suggested your course of action.

So you would have preferred 1 million Allied casualties???..Because that is the consensus of how many might have died had they had to invade the Japanese Home Islands..not to mention the tens of millions the Japanese would have lost because they would have followed their emperor into a guerilla war that would have lasted at least 10 if not 20 yrs.
At least they would have had a fighting chance.

I would venture to guess what reaction you would have gotten from some young wife or mother of an American soldier if you had suggested your course of action.
I realy don't care.

I realy don't care.


I'm sorry, Von Witzleben, but "I really don't care", is no kind of answer in a debate about humanity and the value of human life. You can't care for one side and not for another. They're all people, of equal value in the grand scheme of things. "I don't really care", is a cop-out. It's a schmuck-ish thing to say.

I'm sorry, Von Witzleben, but "I really don't care", is no kind of answer in a debate about humanity and the value of human life. You can't care for one side and not for another. They're all people, of equal value in the grand scheme of things. "I don't really care", is a cop-out. It's a schmuck-ish thing to say.
Alright. I don't really care then.

At least they would have had a fighting chance.

I realy don't care.

Well..you've probably just lost all credibility with me..you would have preferred 1 million Allied deaths..and saved tens of millions of Japanese lives just so 75-100,000 deaths could have been avoided at Nagasaki and Hiroshima???..and they were the enemy..why on earth would you assume that Eisenhower wanted to give the enemy a chance to resist?.more then likely the survivors of Pearl Harbor would have wanted the same fighting chance..unfortunately 2000 of them didn't..including the men on the Arizona who had no chance at all.

Well..you've probably just lost all credibility with me..you would have preferred 1 million Allied deaths..and saved tens of millions of Japanese lives just so 75-100,000 deaths could have been avoided at Nagasaki and Hiroshima???..and they were the enemy..why on earth would you assume that Eisenhower wanted to give the enemy a chance to resist?.more then likely the survivors of Pearl Harbor would have wanted the same fighting chance..unfortunately 2000 of them didn't..including the men on the Arizona who had no chance at all.

Just as a note, Eisenhower was Supreme Commander Europe, the Supreme Commander in the Pacific was split between Macarthur (South Pacific) and Nimitz (Central Pacific).

Well..you've probably just lost all credibility with me..
Boohoo....

you would have preferred 1 million Allied deaths..and saved tens of millions of Japanese lives just so 75-100,000 deaths could have been avoided at Nagasaki and Hiroshima???..
And the countless that died of the long term effects.

and they were the enemy..why on earth would you assume that Eisenhower wanted to give the enemy a chance to resist?.more then likely the survivors of Pearl Harbor would have wanted the same fighting chance..unfortunately 2000 of them didn't..including the men on the Arizona who had no chance at all.
Yeah. Cause 2000 Yanks are worth more then 200.000+ Japanese.

Just as a note, Eisenhower was Supreme Commander Europe, the Supreme Commander in the Pacific was split between Macarthur (South Pacific) and Nimitz (Central Pacific).

I stand corrected...I was going on inertia..and hit enter before I truly read what I typed..lol.....

I stand corrected...I was going on inertia..and hit enter before I truly read what I typed..lol.....

No problem, I just noticed it becuase in my junior days on feldgrau I made that mistake on the feldgrau forums and got a rather nasty insulting rebuttal. Just in case someone like that was on these forums I wanted to correct it before they did.

Boohoo....

And the countless that died of the long term effects.

Yeah. Cause 2000 Yanks are worth more then 200.000+ Japanese.

The countless that died of long term effects as has been noted could not have been forseen, no one had ever used such a weapon before...so that argument is moot..

And the 300,000 men, women, and children in Nanking would have wanted a fighting chance....the thousands of men on the Bataan Death March would also have wanted a fighting chance..

I can't really believe I'm having to tell the specifics of a campaign that would save more lives in the end run then the bomb immediately killed? And for what..so the Japanese could kill a few Americans and they would still lose, that was never the issue.

No problem, I just noticed it becuase in my junior days on feldgrau I made that mistake on the feldgrau forums and got a rather nasty insulting rebuttal. Just in case someone like that was on these forums I wanted to correct it before they did.
Aah Feldgrau. A very informative site.

Aah Feldgrau. A very informative site.

Yes, I prefer others becuase feldgrau is too German-centered for me, the WW2 Discussion Forums are much more balanced. It's informative if you want to learn about the Reichsheer/Whermacht, Luftwaffe, Kreigsmarine, or Waffen-SS, but for the Allies it's not really that useful.

And the 300,000 men, women, and children in Nanking would have wanted a fighting chance....the thousands of men on the Bataan Death March would also have wanted a fighting chance..
If you were Chinese I could accept that. Since your not, using this as an argument to justify the nuking is hypocrit. Especially since the US at the time of the massacre decided only to make angry sounds and go back to twiddeling their thumbs.

If you were Chinese I could accept that. Since your not, using this as an argument to justify the nuking is hypocrit. Especially since the US at the time of the massacre decided only to make angry sounds and go back to twiddeling their thumbs.

Regardless you were the one making the argument bout "giving the Japanese a fighting chance"...well..they never gave fighting chances to their enemies so why should we have reciprocated and invaded?

The objective of war is to win, not to give the enemy a 'fighting chance'. Did Hannibal's Army give the Roman's a fighting chance by keeping a tight line formation, did the Longbowmen at Agincourt give the French knights stuck in the mud a 'fighting chance', did the Whermacht give the Russians a fighting chance in Barbarossa, did the Japanese give the Chinese a fighting chance any of the times they went to war with them.

I think the dropping of the bombs were justified to a very large extent. The Japanese shouldn't be complaining about it, because who was rejoicing when Shanghai was bombed in 1932? who was rejoicing when Nanjing was sacked in 1937? when women were raped throughout the war? when American soldiers were forced on the Bataan Death March in 1941? when Allied prisoners were forced to build the Railway of Death in Siam? when innocent Chinese civilians were experimented on with chemical and biological weapons?

expect the way to be treated the way you are treating others.

I think the dropping of the bombs were justified to a very large extent. The Japanese shouldn't be complaining about it, because who was rejoicing when Shanghai was bombed in 1932? who was rejoicing when Nanjing was sacked in 1937? when women were raped throughout the war? when American soldiers were forced on the Bataan Death March in 1941? when Allied prisoners were forced to build the Railway of Death in Siam? when innocent Chinese civilians were experimented on with chemical and biological weapons?

expect the way to be treated the way you are treating others.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Anyone pulling the old "well you did this so we can do that" really ought to stand back and actually think about it for a moment. Jsut becuase someone sinks low does not mean you should retaliate lowly. Juvenile type of response, honestly.

At any rate, there were plenty of alternate methods at that point to end the war. McArthur himself was opposed to dropping the bombs; it was generally accepted that japan had already lost.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Anyone pulling the old "well you did this so we can do that" really ought to stand back and actually think about it for a moment. Jsut becuase someone sinks low does not mean you should retaliate lowly. Juvenile type of response, honestly.

At any rate, there were plenty of alternate methods at that point to end the war. McArthur himself was opposed to dropping the bombs; it was generally accepted that japan had already lost.

I agree with you that two wrongs do not make a right, and I do not support the atomic droppings becuase of that reason, I support them becuase they saved life.

But again, there was no solid evidence Japan would surrender. Those with access to both Ultra and Magic decryptions (Secretary of State Byrnes was perhaps the most obvious case of this) were decided that the Japanese were not going to accept the Potsdam Decleration. I can't say I've ever heard of MacArthur being opposed to the bombs, in fact he was the counterweight to Nimitz who supported Blockade and Bombardment, his opinion on Downfall (The operation to invade Japan) was minimal anyway since Nimitz exercised larger authority then he did. Nimitz, who was strongly against heavy casualties in an invasion, was only swayed to support Olympic (Part 1 of Downfall, the invasion of Kyushu) by reviewing Ultra decryptions and Magic decryptions given to him.
By August American Intelligence via Ultra had detected massive Japanese forces on Kyushu, so instead of a minimal 3-1 superiority in numbers Nimitz had signed off on, there was a parody of forces. Nimitz was preparing to repeal his support of Olympic with this new information fearing a slaughter and defeat, he was not crazy about Coronet (Part II, the invasion of the Kanto Plain on Honshu) either.
No Americans believed the Japanese were near surrender on the terms that were acceptable, it is true the Japanese were reaching out to Switzerland and Sweden to initiate peace talks, but they wanted to keep the military and possessions, and the Emperor's status. This was out of the question, they also tried to get the Soviets to intervene as a mediatory force against the Americans, but the efforts were in vain since the Soviets were preparing for their offensive into Manchuria. Molotov did grant the Japanese ambassador an audience..... the day after he left for the Potsdam meeting. The Ambassador reported back to Tokyo that he did not believe the Soviet Union would intervene, and that he also did not believe the Americans would settle for the terms the Prime Minister was offering (and all these peace initiatives were made by the Prime Minister without the Military's knowledge of them)

We dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because we didn't want to send troops into Japan to fight. There would have been far more American casualties, and that is what Truman saw.

At least they would have had a fighting chance.

I realy don't care.


1) Since when is war supposed to be fair. Did the Russians want to give the Germans a fighting chance?

2) Hmmmmm

Two wrongs do not make a right. Anyone pulling the old "well you did this so we can do that" really ought to stand back and actually think about it for a moment. Jsut becuase someone sinks low does not mean you should retaliate lowly. Juvenile type of response, honestly.

At any rate, there were plenty of alternate methods at that point to end the war. McArthur himself was opposed to dropping the bombs; it was generally accepted that japan had already lost.

Sorry but that is incorrect. Japan had basically lost but the Japanese didn't see it that way.

As in the article I posted; the Japanese commander said they would have fought on. Which would have meant about 100000 allied causualties just in the landings. It would have meant 3 to 5 times that for the Japanese.

Even if we simply invaded, you would probably have been here with Von W. complaining about that! :p

I have not bothered to read the thread as yet, but:

Was it needed? Yes from a military standpoint it was.


Morally justified? I have no answer.

My opinion is that it is and was the nastiest terrorist attack ever. The heroes who rushed to anothers aid there are no different from our heroes who rushed into the remains of the World Trade Center.

To save human life.

Why anyone might bother to save individual humans, let alone human life (plural) is beyond me.

Jim SC

Sorry but that is incorrect. Japan had basically lost but the Japanese didn't see it that way.

As in the article I posted; the Japanese commander said they would have fought on. Which would have meant about 100000 allied causualties just in the landings. It would have meant 3 to 5 times that for the Japanese.

Even if we simply invaded, you would probably have been here with Von W. complaining about that! :p

The commander was not the issue. The people listened to the emporer. If he declared a surrender they would surrender, regardless of what the military commanders did. Furthermore, the military did want to fight on but the japanese government had suggested a surrender over a year before the bombings, with the condition of the emporer retaining his title. The US of course refusing since they wanted an unconditional surrender, even though they let him retain his title anyways. So what was the point?

Furthermore, there were other ways of going about it than destroying two cities. A demonstration of the bomb capabilities would have sufficed by this point.

The commander was not the issue. The people listened to the emporer. If he declared a surrender they would surrender, regardless of what the military commanders did.

Wrong, there had been more then one coup in recent Japanese history by the military. The coup after the Emperor decided to surrender simply had no support becuase the nuclear attacks had convinced the military resistance was futile, the two attacks had also spurred the Emperor, who before this time had always supported Ketsu-Go (The Final Defense of the Homeland) to accept that Japan had lost.

Furthermore, the military did want to fight on but the japanese government had suggested a surrender over a year before the bombings, with the condition of the emporer retaining his title. The US of course refusing since they wanted an unconditional surrender, even though they let him retain his title anyways. So what was the point?

Have you read the at least 4 posts of mine that deal with this point? Those were not the only conditions, they also wanted to retain their military heirarchy, retain their possessions (This doesn't actually appear in any of their communications for peace, but it's mentioned in the personal diaries of the Japanese High Command), and the one that really stuck it to the Allies, no Occupation of the Homeland.

Furthermore, there were other ways of going about it than destroying two cities. A demonstration of the bomb capabilities would have sufficed by this point.

Go back about 2 or 3 pages where I explain why that wouldn't work, I would copy and paste but it's already been posted here.

If you were Chinese I could accept that. Since your not, using this as an argument to justify the nuking is hypocrit. Especially since the US at the time of the massacre decided only to make angry sounds and go back to twiddeling their thumbs.

Are you like tired or something?

At the time, the US didn't have the forces to do anything about it. They couldn't even if they tried.

Are you like tired or something?

At the time, the US didn't have the forces to do anything about it. They couldn't even if they tried.
Yes. I am tired. It's pretty late where I am. Point is they didn't even try. Even if they had the troops to do it they wouldn't have. Cause they, as far as I know, didn't do much in the way of building up an army of some kind untill years later.

The commander was not the issue. The people listened to the emporer. If he declared a surrender they would surrender, regardless of what the military commanders did. Furthermore, the military did want to fight on but the japanese government had suggested a surrender over a year before the bombings, with the condition of the emporer retaining his title. The US of course refusing since they wanted an unconditional surrender, even though they let him retain his title anyways. So what was the point?

Furthermore, there were other ways of going about it than destroying two cities. A demonstration of the bomb capabilities would have sufficed by this point.

It doesn't matter the point. War is winning and if you are winning you get to choose.

The Japanese would not accept a conditional surrender from so why should we?

As the commander commented, even though the emperor could have said surrender there were many in the army that were going to fight on.

As it's been stated time and time again. Landing troops would have been far worst and far more Japanese would have died.

Necesssary? No. There were alternatives:

1) Operation Downfall (the planned for invasion): As it didn't happen, no one will ever know for sure what the casualties would have been. The estimates are highly disputed, but it is certain that an invasion would have been bloody for both sides.

2) General Hap Arnold's Bombing and Blockade campaign: In 1945 Japan was cut off and devistated. Rice production at the end of the war was at 1905 levels. Manufacturing had either already collapsed (chemical industry, transport) or was near to collapse (everything else). Starvation was a real threat. The March 9th 1945 B-29 raid on Tokyo actually killed more people than either bomb (120,000 to 200,000). The bombing and blockade campaign would have been equally bloody. It would have been long and slow, and the US would have eventually had to invade anyway - wars are won only when you have boots on the ground.

3) Allow a Russian invasion: Russian behavior in Germany was brutal. An invasion of Hokkaido would have been equally brutal. An invasion of Honshu would have been difficult. Furthermore, a Russian invasion would have placed the US in a poor position for the cold war.

4) A combination of the above: Continue the bombing and blockade campaign until reducing Japan to ashes. Invade, possibly in concert with the Russians. This would have been fairly easy.


Now, was it morally justified? Yes. It ended the war quickly, with what was probably the fewest casualties.

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the
sooner it will be over."
-William Tecumseh Sherman

I would also point out as it's even mentioned in the article that if the Tokyo Firebomb raid didn't lesson their will; why would the bomb? The fire bomb raid destroyed more and killed more.

Even after Hiroshima, they thought it was another fire bomb raid.

Also, there were only two bombs. If you demo'd then used the second and they still didn't cave.....

Necesssary? No. There were alternatives:

*SNIP*


The invasion would have been delayed longer as a typhoon hit what would have been the staging area. It was estimated it would have happened when the men and equipment were getting ready.....

I would also point out as it's even mentioned in the article that if the Tokyo Firebomb raid didn't lesson their will; why would the bomb? The fire bomb raid destroyed more and killed more.

Even after Hiroshima, they thought it was another fire bomb raid.

Also, there were only two bombs. If you demo'd then used the second and they still didn't cave.....

Firebombing requires highly precise conditions to occur for one to start. The Atomic Bombs didn't, firebombs require a high density of material, this is why Berlin with it's wide avenues was not susceptible to firebombin. Japan had the (morbid) bonus of a lot of wooden and therefore easily flammable structures in their cities. Firebombing could simply not go on forever, whereas atomic attacks could.

Going beyond that, this bomb was such a jump in destructive power that it can not really be compared for psychological effect with Lemay's firebombings, just in death tolls.

Understanding the technology of the two bombs (the first used was the more advanced) and the fact that choice of target was decided by simple weather, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in effect became the first salvos in the cold war.

Soviet Russia and the USA became wary of each others capacity to out-build the other

Japan Just got the lucky ticket.

Germany was the next target BTW

Jim

I still strongly doubt the Russians could have invaded Honshu, obviously Hokkaido, which was prepared against an outlandish American invasion from near Honshu, was not prepared for an attack from the other side. It was not given top priority becuase it was out of range of all US air support but B-29's, and much too far for a proposed invasion. Honshu however was heavily defended (granted, mostly around the Kanto Plain), and the Soviet lift capacity with their Pacific Fleet (which was mostly American Lend Lease vessels) was about two brigades for an amphibious assault, with the ability to land and supply about two divisions.
Honshu did not have many areas where an amphibious invasion could be mounted with effectiveness, and the Soviets could not deploy massive forces anywhere there anyway, so a Soviet invasion can only be imagined in Hokkaido unless the Americans give them more transport ships and attack Honshu at the same time (unlikely considering they didn't even want them in Manchuria after 1944).
As for the invasion casaulties, just look at the proposed landing forces (For Olympic, I'm not even counting Coronet in this) and equipment, and compare it to the deployment and makeup of the Japanese forces faing Olympic on Kyushu. The Japanese had deployed themselves exactly where the Americans were planning to land with effectiveness (Except in one spot where a static and poorly equipped divsion stood, but that beach head was useless without the others). One Marine brigade was being landed in an island off of Kyushu, and facing them was an entire Japanese division. Olympic was planned when only about 8-9 divisions were envisioned on Kyushu, deployed all around, with about 5-6 out of effective range of the beaches and would be destroyed in the plains in the middle of the island. In fact there 8-9 divisions facing the American landings in the south alone, with mobile forces that could reinforce most beaches, and a lionshares of Japan's remaining supplies.
Most formula's to get statistic used what was commonly known as the Saipan Ratio, or 1 American for every 10 Japanese (Civilian and Military), using this, American casualties for the initial invasion reach over 100,000, some even went to 200,000, and that was using the initial Intelligence that Kyushu was not heavily defended. One of the more widely circulated and presented casualty figures was one presented by General Marshall's office, the exact formula is unknown, but it recognized that the first 90 days of the campaign would come to a toll of about 90,000 casualties, again using the old intelligence Olympic was assumed under.
The reasons the Blockade and Bombardment campaign championed by the Air Force and Navy have already been listed by me and Diastallia, the massive starvation and killing entailed may even compare to Downfall.

I agree, Jordaxia. Truman was a terrible president. He should have spent less time burning manga.


the asshole burnt manga? I love manga. Believe it or not I was against the imprisonment and the bomb. COuld someone drop me an email with some stuff to read on trumans manga burning and these japanese surrenderings please at joshdollins@cableone.net thanks

Yet the Allies were contemplaiting a pre emptive war against Germany.

""Austria-Hungary issued it's ultimatum to Serbia. Serbia agreed to nearly all the demands. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Following these events Russia began mobilizing.""

Russia apparently wasn't contemplating a pre-emptive strike against Germany, else she wouldn't have needed to mobilize her troops.

""Aug 3, 1914. The British ultimatum sent to Germany -- either Germany halt it's invasion of Belgium or Britain would be at war by midnight.""

Well it doesn't sound like Britain was mobilized either. And wasn't Belgium neutral?? I guess it's ok to invade another country......EVEN WHEN IT'S NO THREAT TO YOU.


You know it wouldn't hurt if you would ACTUALLY read about history before posting your nonsense.

I usually get paid to teach history to students.....

You can also discount France from mobilizing itself for a preemptive strike, the country was pretty stagnant for most of the July Crisis, since it's head of state and head of foreign affairs were both visiting Russia, and Austria at the urging of Germany waited before sending it's ultimatum to Serbia until the French President and Premier boarded a ship to return to France, so France would not be able to respond quickly or effectively to the ultimatum.

I have not bothered to read the thread as yet, but:

Was it needed? Yes from a military standpoint it was.


Morally justified? I have no answer.

My opinion is that it is and was the nastiest terrorist attack ever. The heroes who rushed to anothers aid there are no different from our heroes who rushed into the remains of the World Trade Center.

To save human life.

Why anyone might bother to save individual humans, let alone human life (plural) is beyond me.

Jim SC

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, like the attack on Pearl Harbor, Germany's blitzing of Poland and other European countries, and Japan's attacks on mainland Asia were NOT terrorist attacks. They were acts of war. I actually heard somewhere after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 that the Japanese were a little insulted that some in America were comparing the attacks on 9/11 to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, one of which was a terrorist attack, the other an act of war.

Another thing you, Big Jim P, said was something about how Germany was our next target. We had the first nuke about two weeks before we dropped it on Hiroshima. V-E Day was in early July. D-Day was to Germany as the nukes were to Japan, in how they affected the war. Germany would NOT have been our next target, as Hitler was already dead, and they had already surrendered.

Understanding the technology of the two bombs (the first used was the more advanced) and the fact that choice of target was decided by simple weather, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in effect became the first salvos in the cold war.

Soviet Russia and the USA became wary of each others capacity to out-build the other

Japan Just got the lucky ticket.

Germany was the next target BTW

Jim

Actually the second bomb was the more advanced of the two, being Plutonium based and more powerful then the Uranium based first one. The targets were actually not chosen by weather, Hiroshima had been on Lemay's no bomb list for some time for several reasons, as had Kyoto. Nagasaki had simply been overlooked by Lemay becuase of bad weather and more pressing targets, it wasn't put on the list until after a long debate Kyoto was removed from the Nuclear target list for cultural significance.
Hiroshima was the primary target of the Enola Gay, and was bombed, Bock's Car, the second plane, it's primary target was the Kokura Arsenal on Kyushu, but heavy cloud cover over the target site forces the plane to turn after it's second target, which was also found to be sheilded by dense clouds. The B-29 continued to fly past Nagasaki trying to get their bearings and decide on a target, eventually, lack of fuel forced them to drop it on what they thought was the center of Nagasaki (it wasn't, but it was the city) and return to base.
And Germany wasn't the next target, it was the first one. The Manhattan Project was always intended to strike at Germany, the more powerful of the Axis powers. Problem was by the time the Manhattan Project produced a successful Atomic Weapon (The Trinity Test), Hitler had shot himself on April 30th, Berlin fell on May 1st, and Donitz surrendered Germany to the Allies on May 8th (VE Day).

I usually get paid to teach history to students.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Entente
Maybe you should return their money then. Cause your obviously not worth it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Entente
Maybe you should return their money then. Cause your obviously not worth it.

FROM YOUR SOURCE:
The Triple Entente was the alliance formed in 1908 between the United Kingdom, France and Russia after the signing of the Anglo-Russian Entente. The UK had already entered into the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904, while France had concluded the Franco-Russian Alliance in 1894.

Though not a military alliance, the alignment of the three powers (supplemented by various agreements with Japan, the United States and Spain) constituted a powerful counterweight to the "Triple Alliance" of Imperial Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, (the latter having concluded an additional secret agreement with France effectively nullifying her alliance commitments).

Russia had been a member of the Three Emperors' League along with Austria-Hungary and Germany, but when Kaiser Wilhelm II ousted Russia from the league, Russia formed a military alliance with France. Britain had been asked to join in an alliance with Germany, but did not agree with the ideological and military goals of Germany. Furthermore, Britain and Germany had been in a naval Arms race for decades.

With the addition of Italy in 1915, the Triple Entente was the force that opposed the Triple Alliance during World War I.

After the outbreak of World War I in Europe in August 1914, the three Entente powers undertook (September 4) not to conclude a separate peace with Germany or Austria-Hungary. Russia's separate armistice (December 1917) and peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (March 3, 1918) ended her alignment with the other Entente powers. Britain and France continued to collaborate in ultimately unsuccessful attempts to uphold the postwar order during the 1920s and 1930s, until France's crushing defeat (June 1940) in renewed conflict with Germany forced her into a separate armistice, leaving Britain alone in Europe.

Occasioned in part by growing German antagonism expressed in the development of a battle fleet capable of threatening British naval impunity, the Entente heralded the end of British neutrality in Europe. Ironically, the Franco-Russian Alliance which had seemed so weak during Russia's ill-fated war with Japan subsequently appeared the more powerful alignment with Russia's unexpectedly rapid recovery from defeat and revolution and the addition of Britain as a diplomatic partner, contributing to the foreign-policy adventurism and contemplation of a pre-emptive war which culminated in German readiness for conflict in 1914.

------------------------------------------

I see NOTHING that states the Allies were preparing a pre-emptive strike against Germany. Maybe you should read your own advice!

Also, "The History of the World War" Vol 1, p 181, Germany and Austria now asked Italy to fulfil her obligations to them as a member of the Triple Alliance, but the Italian Foreign Office maintained that, as Germany and Austria were NOT engaged in a defensive, but in an offensive, war, having each and separately declared war, Italy under the terms of the treaty, was not bound to support them and therefore she would remain neutral.

Which also shows your "theory" is incorrect, again.

Maybe you should take your money and buy a history book.

contemplation of a pre-emptive war which culminated in German readiness for conflict in 1914.

..

..

The quote is speaking of German thinking that the Entente was preparing fora pre-emptive war, no where in your source does it state the Entente actually was, and no historical record shows it was either. And the source is true, German paranoia over the rest of Europe was a major contribution to the beginning of World War I, the only problem was these threats were either not real or not as grave as the Germans hyped them to be in the pre-war years.

Wow. It's too bad you had to take that "half sentence" out of context to back your theory. The WHOLE sentence said,

Ironically, the Franco-Russian Alliance which had seemed so weak during Russia's ill-fated war with Japan subsequently appeared the more powerful alignment with Russia's unexpectedly rapid recovery from defeat and revolution and the addition of Britain as a diplomatic partner, contributing to the foreign-policy adventurism and contemplation of a pre-emptive war which culminated in German readiness for conflict in 1914.

The highlighted part is of German perspective!

So let's take YOUR theory and test it.....

IF as you theorize "the Allies were contemplating a pre-emptive attack on Germany. Just explain WHY when these 5 events happened that the Allies didn't attack Germany immediately!

1. When Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. June 28, 1914

2. When Austria declared war on Serbia. July 28, 1914

3. When Germany declared war on Russia. Aug 1, 1914

4. When Germany declared war on France. Aug 3, 1914

5. When Germany invaded Belgium. Aug 3, 1914

Well I can say its morally wrong but politically right. I myself am an anime fan ^.^, loving the FLCL, Trigun, and Cowboy Bebop series. I am also an american of an asian descent. As I watched video clips and pictures of the atomic bomb's capabilities, its frightening to see the descruction caused by the atomic bomb. To envision the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the emotions that ran during the destruction would be horrific. For the Japanese, it was hell. To Truman, it was an oppurtunity to end the war. The scientists reported that it can raze cities in a matter of seconds. Truman probably did think it was a good option. Also, keep in mind that America lauched the two nukes right after they were tested. America had NO idea it can cause a variety of radiation caused diseases. During WWII, it was seemingly right in a political sense, but it was morally wrong.

lol, Truman couldn't have read manga cause it wasn't introduced to the US until after WWII. If he did kno about it, he probably would have burnt them, lol.

The fact that many people dont know is this: The atomic bomb droppings did not end the war. The widespread fire-bombing of Tokyo and virtually every other Japanese city by American B-29 bombers brought way more casualties than the atomic bombs. I do not have the exact numbers, but the fire bombing brought at least twice as many deaths, probably more.

Why the bombing was necessary and morally just: At the time the Atom Bombs were dropped, there were US plans for an invasion of Japan. Hitler and Germany were already defeated, and the US planned to pull all of the soldiers that had won the war in the European Theatre to the Pacific Theatre, so to have enough men for an invasion. The plan was this: Invade the smaller South Island of Japan, capture it, and then invade the main (big) island, where Tokyo, Kyoto, and all the other influential Japanese cities were located. Once that had been accomplished, Japan would be defeated.

Estimated time of the invasion: The US Military predicted many more years of fighting to invade and conquer Japan. A popular chant/slogan for military men fighting in the Pacific Theatre at that time was "Golden Gate, '48", meaning they expected to sail past the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco at the end of the war, which they anticipated to be in 1948.

Estimated casualties: You might not believe this, but it is true.
Estimated US military casualties: 1 Million men
Estimated Japanese Military and Civillian casualties: 20 Million
That is right. 21 million men, women, and Children would have to die for us to completely vanquish Japan to the point of their surrender and defeat.

The atomic bombs ended up killing no more than 200,000 people (immediately) between them. Sure, more would die in the future from cancer and other diseases, but nowhere near 21 million dead.

Now, do you think it was morally just and necessary to drop the Atom Bombs? I do.



Source of information: Flyboys, by James Bradley http://www.twbookmark.com/books/82/0316105848/

Hmm, once again we have a situation where people think it's a choice between

a) Dropping lots of bombs on them, including two nukes
b) Dropping lots of bombs on them, then invade

Are those the single, only two possible choices to end the war? I'd like to think so. It would be so nice, clean-cut, simple.

The logic behind the A-bomb droppings was that it would kill fewer people than a full-scale invasion of Japan. While it did accomplish just that, we have to ask ourselves if it was worth it in the long run (because of the Cold War).