Author Topic: Hiroshima and Nagasaki  (Read 25658 times)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2015, 10:09:02 AM »
Don't forget that even after the second bomb was dropped, the Japanese nearly didn't surrender. It took personal intervention by the Emperor - an unprecedented action - and even then there was an attempted coup with the aim of continuing to fight.

I have to agree with those who say that it was the right decision, especially in the context of what the US knew at the time.
...
That is true, and although I wasn't alive then, I suspect the planners may have believed that atomic weapons were a trump card.  If it failed they could undertake the invasion.  Those plans were in existence and planning was ongoing right up until the surrender.  BTW, the allies backed down on Emperor Hirohito demands, which turned the argument towards surrender.  The military still believed in Bushido, but they were faced with the Emperors wishes.  That was a losing internal battle IMO.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Tedward

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2015, 01:18:26 PM »
Actually his challenge reminds me of what he should do. Go find someone qualified on a subject and ask them about the guff he spouts. Rather than wade in all sheepish asking about wood.


Ohhh I shouldn't matron.

Offline Obviousman

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2015, 05:40:05 PM »
On an aside, it does make me wonder why this type of crank magnetism seems to afflict the more right-wing people.

That's interesting; I would have said the opposite!


Offline Obviousman

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2015, 05:43:33 PM »
A land invasion would have been required and resulted in large numbers of Allied casualties.  Dropping atomic weapons whether in a questionable morale aspect was necessary to stop the war earlier.

I agree totally.

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2015, 07:03:02 AM »
A land invasion would have been required and resulted in large numbers of Allied casualties.  Dropping atomic weapons whether in a questionable morale aspect was necessary to stop the war earlier.
Yep. That is one of those hard calls. I certainly wouldn't want to have been making it.

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2015, 09:58:07 AM »
We learned after the war that the Japanese POW camp commanders had been ordered to kill all the Allied POWs (100,000+ men) if the Japanese home islands were invaded. In retrospect dropping the bombs prevented that massacre. There is also the fact that a quarter of a million people in the Japanese-occupied countries were being killed by the Japanese every month. Blockading Japan and "waiting them out" would have led to a lot more deaths at the hands of the Japanese.

Offline mako88sb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2015, 05:44:24 PM »
We learned after the war that the Japanese POW camp commanders had been ordered to kill all the Allied POWs (100,000+ men) if the Japanese home islands were invaded. In retrospect dropping the bombs prevented that massacre. There is also the fact that a quarter of a million people in the Japanese-occupied countries were being killed by the Japanese every month. Blockading Japan and "waiting them out" would have led to a lot more deaths at the hands of the Japanese.

Agreed. I must admit to flip flopping on this issue over the years but ultimately, the dropping of the bombs saved lives, not just American but Japanese as well. You just need to see how they fought on Iwo Jima & Okinawa to understand what was in store for anybody invading Japan. It really boggles the mind when you consider that the USA had adopted a "Europe first" strategy after Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine how the Pacific war would of went had it got top priority?

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2015, 07:22:49 AM »

Agreed. I must admit to flip flopping on this issue over the years but ultimately, the dropping of the bombs saved lives, not just American but Japanese as well. You just need to see how they fought on Iwo Jima & Okinawa to understand what was in store for anybody invading Japan. It really boggles the mind when you consider that the USA had adopted a "Europe first" strategy after Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine how the Pacific war would of went had it got top priority?
While I can't disagree with your assessment of how the Pacific theater would have been effected, I do agree with the Europe first policy.  Whether or not the US should have entered the war earlier was directly a result of the isolationist mood here.  When we finally did enter the war England was the LAST country to be standing so to speak.  Had England succumbed to an invasion, the war perhaps would have been longer and more drawn out, same result though.  So the "political" direction was Europe first, while supplying the Pacific with enough resources to prevent further Japanese advances.  Of course this had the negative aspect of letting them prepare their defenses.  Additionally the German/Italian armies were larger than the Japanese, but would ultimately be faced with much larger forces once Germany attacked Russia.   Hitler in essence did what a more concentrated effort in the Pacific required, splitting your forces in two. 
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2015, 10:27:00 AM »
"terrorism" is a word that gets thrown about a lot for emotive purposes.

It's probably the modern equivalent of "piracy". Back in the day, one nation's pirates were another nation's privateers. It all depends on how much you want to demonise.

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2015, 10:34:00 AM »

Agreed. I must admit to flip flopping on this issue over the years but ultimately, the dropping of the bombs saved lives, not just American but Japanese as well. You just need to see how they fought on Iwo Jima & Okinawa to understand what was in store for anybody invading Japan. It really boggles the mind when you consider that the USA had adopted a "Europe first" strategy after Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine how the Pacific war would of went had it got top priority?
While I can't disagree with your assessment of how the Pacific theater would have been effected, I do agree with the Europe first policy.  Whether or not the US should have entered the war earlier was directly a result of the isolationist mood here.  When we finally did enter the war England was the LAST country to be standing so to speak.  Had England succumbed to an invasion, the war perhaps would have been longer and more drawn out, same result though.  So the "political" direction was Europe first, while supplying the Pacific with enough resources to prevent further Japanese advances.  Of course this had the negative aspect of letting them prepare their defenses.  Additionally the German/Italian armies were larger than the Japanese, but would ultimately be faced with much larger forces once Germany attacked Russia.   Hitler in essence did what a more concentrated effort in the Pacific required, splitting your forces in two.
The UK wasn't the only one. The Commonwealth were along for the ride too and since the Statute of Westminster, the dominions were sovereign in terms of foreign policy. So Canada and Australia and the others joined the war at the beginning with their own declaration of war on the Axis. This is unlike in the first world war, when these dominions were at war automatically as part of the British Empire.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2015, 10:40:52 AM »
The UK wasn't the only one. The Commonwealth were along for the ride too and since the Statute of Westminster, the dominions were sovereign in terms of foreign policy. So Canada and Australia and the others joined the war at the beginning with their own declaration of war on the Axis. This is unlike in the first world war, when these dominions were at war automatically as part of the British Empire.
That's true however, I was referring to the European nations at that time.  I guess I should have stated that more clearly.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline DD Brock

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2015, 11:01:05 AM »
"terrorism" is a word that gets thrown about a lot for emotive purposes.

It's probably the modern equivalent of "piracy". Back in the day, one nation's pirates were another nation's privateers. It all depends on how much you want to demonise.

I believe you hit the nail right on the head, there.

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2015, 01:01:20 PM »
The US commitment to "Europe First" didn't really work out that way for most of the war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #28 on: August 09, 2015, 01:19:25 PM »
The US commitment to "Europe First" didn't really work out that way for most of the war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

Good read thanks for linking it.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
« Reply #29 on: August 09, 2015, 07:16:40 PM »
"terrorism" is a word that gets thrown about a lot for emotive purposes.
It certainly is. And it's been hard to nail down a precise definition.

The most common one seems to be the threat or actual use of violence by private actors to influence or coerce public opinion or government policy.

The restriction to private actors means it's impossible for sovereign governments to commit terrorism. This is just as well because it's exactly what they (including we) do with their militaries on a regular basis.

In other words, terrorism is simply warfare conducted by private actors instead of governments.

« Last Edit: August 09, 2015, 07:18:43 PM by ka9q »