Atomic bomb

Thanks for the link Kai, I enjoyed it a lot!!

 

Interesting Kai,

My favorite Harry Truman quote.

When I was young and deciding on a career, I decided I'd like to be either a piano player in a whorehouse, or a politician.

I now find there's not much difference.

Everyone has an opinion, and I'm not trying to persuade, just writing mine along with the others.

I can't change anyone/anything, and I wont move either. Perhaps we need a piano player?

 

Okinawa. That's the reason why the first bomb was dropped. it was such a brutal and vicious battle that it convinced Truman to use the bomb. every Japanese in Japan was willing to fight to the last man. the war would've gone on another 5 years with over 1/2 million American dead and unknown amounts of Japanese.The first bomb was dropped, no reply from Japan, a few days later a second one was dropped. then came the surrender. Yes Japan would've surrendered anyway. That was inevitable. There were many ways to win the war. But in the end when you sum it up the A-bomb actually saved lives on both sides and brought the quickest possible end to the war.

And one more thing. If there had never been an attack on Pearl Harbor, there would have never been a bomb dropped on Hiroshima or a Nagasaki.

 

Another five years? I find that a little hard to believe, please enlighten me on how this could be the case.

 

Ted,

Not sure if the war would off gone another 5 years if the bomb wouldnt have been dropped.

But I do agree that if there was no Pearl Harbor there would have been no A bomb dropped on Heroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Maybe not 5 years. But that is one of the higher estimates by historians. I didn't make it up, I personally don't know how long it would've taken. I'm simply quoting what "they've" said. Maybe it would've, maybe not, who knows? All i know is that it would've taken alot longer with alot more dead.

 

About 2-3 months according to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey on........ www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm - 164k

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported that the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering and would have done so before Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, set to begin in November 1945.

The submarine campaign had practically wiped out the Japanese merchant fleet, and food and fuel were at a critical stage by August, plus the bombing was to be stepped up, destroying crops as well as infrastructure.

 

Wasn´t Germany destroyed completely also by bombing but did it surrender until the "boss" was dead and the country almost completely cut in two by the invading troops?

 

The difference was that Hitler wanted Gotterdammerung, that Germany and Germans be obliterated because they weren't worthy enough to be saved.

Hirohito on the other hand had been advising in private that Japan surrender from as early as July and the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported that the Japanese would have done so before Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, set to begin in November 1945.

 

Yes, but Hitler´s example shows that bombing the country to pieces and food and fuel at critical level does not always do the trick even what the reports say.

 

Also keep in mind that the Soviets killed or captured over 1 million Japs in the liberation of Manchuria............this event also sealed the fate for Japan and helped the leaders realize that defeat was inevitable.

 

I hear tell that Japan knew the US had "One" bomb, and that they prepared (as much as one could) to accept that hit and to fight on. When the second came down, it was obvious that their intelligence was lacking. Not knowing how many there actually were, and that it was more than the one, they decided to fold, rather than run the bluff to the end of their....South East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Don't you just love semantics!
You can dis-prove Gravity with it!

 

It's strange, on one hand you have the fanatical Japanese, who would prefer death to the dishonour of surrendering, quickly looking for chance to surrender when they faced inevitable defeat by blockade and fire bombing [and would probably have done so before the invasion, even if the atomic bombs were not dropped and Russia hadn't entered the war.]

And on the other hand the Germans, who you would expect to surrender in an unwinnable desperate situation, fighting on to annihilation, all on the whim of one insane man. [although for how much longer even if Hitler was still in charge is debatable]

 

Without the "Unconditional surrender" request by the Allied in 1943 Hitler would have been killed by early 1944 at the latest....by dooming them to the same fate as Hitler the only way they could get out was to fight back until the end.

 

The problem was Hitler seemed to live a charmed life.

There was at least 17 assassination attempts, the first in 1939, two in 1941 and at least three in '43.

Probably the only way to finish him was an army coup, is that what you mean?

 

Japan was like boxer that wouldn't go down. All you could do was keep hitting em'. I think it wouldn't gone on longer than 3 months. Maybe not 5 years, but certainly more than 3 months. We would've had a tough time. As stated before Russia's amphibious warfare tactics were largely undeveloped or possibly non-existant. So they would've had trouble launching an amphibious assault on Japan. America was broke and in debt by early 1945. morale was low on the homefront and the battlefront. I'm not sure how much longer we could've toughed it out. The rest of the world was in no better condition either. The A-bombs were the most logical way I believe. It was the right decision. President Truman had guts. Enough to make such a huge decision as that one. And thats why he was one of our greatest Presidents.

 

What I´ve read books on the "Enola gay" crew and preparing to drop the A-bomb at least the soldiers never had any doubts. "The bigger the better" was the slogan if it could be dropped in Japan. The scientists might have wanted to reconsider but definitely the soldiers did not.

 

A professor of mine was a meteorologist in the Pacific, and on the team planning the invasion of Japan. Their estimates were over 1 million U.S. troops. The casualties of Iwo Jima were the big factor in many estimates. 7000 dead marines in a month for such a small island.

The evidence is there that the Japanese were building elaborate tunnels and stores for the invasion. In August they were ready to move the symbols of the Emperor into special tunnels made for them.

The nation was tired of burying their dead. The nukes were a sure bet to either end the war, or to take out major facilities. It was no worse than the firebombing of Tokyo, the London bombing, the rape of Nanking, or the destruction of Dresden.

My father was in Puerto Rico awaiting shipping orders for the invasion. I have no regrets about the bombings. It is easy to moralize about how horrific this was. It is simply proof that mankind still has a long way to go.

 

There have always been crimes.

So crimes are OK.

So A crimes against B are excused because of B previous crimes against A.

this is the Bibilc eye for an eye type of theory - simple minded people do like this a lot , but it has nothing to do with justice.

I hope you're not the kinda person who sees the world through the biblic scope - I know this turns out to be a fashion nowadays in the US of A even at the highest level

Anyway thanks, this was brilliant.

It takes time for a country to admit its crimes, but I would have expected USA being a little more sincere and honest about nuking civilians, than Japan are about what they did in China.

Especialy people like you who don't seem afraid of bold statements and definite judgements (about those Japaneses = fanatic canibals of course)

Think about it was only a few years ago that France officialy admitted the responsability of the French Vichy government into the jewish genocide...60 years after the facts !

Think about the ongoing polemic between France and Turkey about the Armenian genocide.

I know that, with the ongoing wars and policy, USA are not ready now for this kind of debate, but maybe someday...

There are many reasons to understand why it happened, but it's hard to understand some people are still lying to themselves say there's nothing to blame, while feeling so guilty they keep on giving crappy excuses.


You don't aim at civilians, and if you do, you don't say it's OK.

There are no such things as good civilian casualties and bad civilian casualties, a victim is a victim.

Undertand this, otherwise go cry on somebody's else's shoulders when you'll be aimed at.

 

Ted,

I would have to agree with the dropping off the A-bomb as a good idea. However there were also many factors that went with dropping it, besides the U.S. casualties. Another major reason ( and ive stated this before ) was to show Stalin that U.S. had a new and deadly weapon, just in case Stalin had any thoughts. The other reason is because Soviets liberated Machuria and defeated 1 million japs, in less time then anyone ever predicted. A Russian invasion was almost seen as imminent. And if Stalin said "DO IT" it would have been done. By this time Japan had no navy and virtually no airforce. And after taking Berlin and beating the Germans, Japs were a peace of cake to the Russians and everyone knew this. Dropping the bombs would secure the victory for the U.S. and not let Japan fall in communist hands.