Hiroshima: a (probably overly long) exposé

[Imran Siddiqui]

I do wonder why people still believe the atom bombings were unjusitfied and just for the US to have a bit of fun or something. I do wonder if they have seen the divided nature of the Japanese even after the second bomb (as stated before by someone) and the carnage at Iwo Jima and Okinawa?

[Odin]

People questioning if we should of used the A-bomb has more to do with our horror of nukes TODAY than anything else.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Odin
People questioning if we should of used the A-bomb has more to do with our horror of nukes TODAY than anything else.

I do have to agree. Though that horror did serve us well by (probably) preventing a World War 3.

[rah]

We should not do anything until 20 years after the fact so we can put every action into the proper perspective

Even hindsight is blind every now and then.,

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I do wonder why people still believe the atom bombings were unjusitfied and just for the US to have a bit of fun or something.

Well, that's a strawman of the arguments if I ever heard one. I think the OP mentioned several of the other reasons for the a-bomb droppings, none of which were for "fun."

[Admiral]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Manchukuo was still 'occupied territory'.

If anyone wants to understand the mindset of the Japanese defending what they felt to be 'home' territory, then a brief glance at their tactics and propaganda produced during the siege of Saipan should put any doubts about the willingness of even Japanese women civilians to kill themselves and their babies rather than be captured by Allied forces.

Ironically enough, Japanese propaganda said that the Americans and other Allied personnel would cannibalize the Japanese. Materials and evidence (partly suppressed after the war) discovered in the latter part of the 20th Century showed that the only people cannibalizing anyone (and not habitually through dire need either) were the Japanese.


And before people get into the whole 'well you wouldn't have used the A Bomb on Caucasians' schtick, take time to remember that the Asian people who were supposedly liberating Asian colonies from European occupiers tortured, experimented upon, raped and mass murdered Asian Korean, Chinese, Indonesian, Indian, Burmese, Viet Namese and Malaysian and also Pacific Islander civilians.

I have yet to work out how the Rape of Nanking was 'liberating' the Chinese population there.

I have yet to understand how the firebombing of Lubeck, Hamburg and Dresden and the firestorms created thereby, are less 'racist' than atomic bombs. Yes, death by radiation poisoning is excruciatingly unpleasant, and there are lingering long term after effects.

But what on earth do you imagine the after effects of Japanese germ warfare experimentation on Chinese prisoners was like?

Or protein and vitamin deficiency and other dietary diseases on impressed 'coolies' and Allied prisoners?

Death by boiling alive in hot water or being dry roasted or suffocating in a Hamburg cellar isn't exactly pleasant.

An interesting tidbit relating to the firebombings of Germany.
The US never engaged in it. The US spent the entire war (that they participated in) conducting precision bombing, during the daytime, over occupied Europe. The British condoned firebombing because they argued that precision bombing was impossible, and yet, the US proved that to be a lie. Why then, did the US conduct such a heavy firebombing campaign in Japan?

FDR, in one of his many forays beyond the constitution, ordered that all Japanese americans be put into internment camps. He ordered this, and it seemed reasonable to Americans, because Japanese might still have a connection with their homeland, and hence try to hinder the US war effort. Why weren't Germans interned? The Commander of the US airforce, Hap Arnold, was rather German in heritage, why was he allowed to continue in his position? For that matter, the US wasn't fighting Germany. The US was fighting the Nazis. Yet, there was no distinction between Nazi Germany, and Germany. There was no credible resistance movement, or anything. So, why were we fighting Nazi Germany, but just Japan? Why did the Los Angelos Times say, regarding interment of the Japanese, that "A viper is nonetheless a viper regardless of where it is hatched?" Why did General Blarney, in an interview on the front page of the NYT, say, "We must exterminate the Japanese. We are not dealing with humans as we knew them. We are dealing with something primitive. Our troops have the right view of the Japs. They regard them as Vermin?"
No, racism had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Admiral]

In response to various speculation that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagaski was necessary to end the war, you are missing the point. It may have been necessary to drop the bombs, but why was it necessary to drop them on cities? The destructive power of the bomb could be easily demonstrated without the need to kill 100k+ civilians.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, racism had absolutely nothing to do with it.

It may also have been because the Japanese actually attacked US soil in a sneak attack? Nah...

In response to various speculation that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagaski was necessary to end the war, you are missing the point. It may have been necessary to drop the bombs, but why was it necessary to drop them on cities? The destructive power of the bomb could be easily demonstrated without the need to kill 100k+ civilians.

Yeah, hey look at how big and bad it was. Now, you'll surrender, right? You have to demonstrate that your threat to drop the bombs on every Japanese city is credible.

Hell, why didn't we and the Brits just firebomb forests to show the destructive power?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Does that mean the Soviets fought better than the Yankees?

Their equipment and tactics for mobile warfare were superior to those of the British and Americans, who were more casualty averse and overly dependent on airpower. The Red Army had fought the Germans for 5 years and were proficient in blitzkrieg tactics.

In Aug 1945, the Japanese had 49 divisions and 2000 aircraft facing the Soviets. The Red army had a 1.2:1 edge in manpower and a 5:1 superiority in tanks and a 2:1 edge in aircraft. The attacked on Aug 8, and the Kwantung Army began surrendering on the 18th. During this time a very rapid advance liberated most of Manchuria and killed up to 80,000 Japanese combatants. Nearly 600,000 prisoners were taken. 8,000 Soviets were killed. The area taken was about the size of France and Germany put together and had much more primitive communications.

So Ted's statement

"The victory at Manchuria was no astonishing feat, and the Soviets would have been completely inept if they had not succeeded there."

is inoperative.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by techumseh


Their equipment and tactics for mobile warfare were superior to those of the British and Americans, who were more casualty averse and overly dependent on airpower. The Red Army had fought the Germans for 5 years and were proficient in blitzkrieg tactics.

In Aug 1945, the Japanese had 49 divisions and 2000 aircraft facing the Soviets. The Red army had a 1.2:1 edge in manpower and a 5:1 superiority in tanks and a 2:1 edge in aircraft. The attacked on Aug 8, and the Kwantung Army began surrendering on the 18th. During this time a very rapid advance liberated most of Manchuria and killed up to 80,000 Japanese combatants. Nearly 600,000 prisoners were taken. 8,000 Soviets were killed. The area taken was about the size of France and Germany put together and had much more primitive communications.

So Ted's statement is inoperative.

The red army did a superb job in manchuria, but how do you back up your claims that the allies were less effective at blitzkrieg? The allies blitzkreiged through western europe even faster than did the soviets through eastern europe despite the fact that the soviets had greatly superior tanks to the allies throughout the war.

I doubt we could be sure which was truly better at that type of warfare in the absence of any battles that pitted the one against the other.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Geronimo

It was precisely this fear of atom bombs which prevented ww3 and I doubt anyone sees that as a bad thing.

How do you know what prevented something that didn't happen, and doesn't exist?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by rah
We should not do anything until 20 years after the fact so we can put every action into the proper perspective

Even hindsight is blind every now and then.,

It shouldn't take hindsight to know that blowing thousands of people up is a bad thing.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by General Ludd


How do you know what prevented something that didn't happen, and doesn't exist?

since all things which are prevented do not by definition exist, your logic would seem to imply that nothing is ever prevented.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by General Ludd


It shouldn't take hindsight to know that blowing thousands of people up is a bad thing.

wow you're the last person I would expect to say this!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Geronimo


since all things which are prevented do not by definition exist, your logic would seem to imply that nothing is ever prevented.

I was trying to make the distinction that WW3 didn't happen, there is no real reason to believe that WW3 was going to happen, or even what WW3 would of been if it did happen. So how can you say with any certainty what stopped WW3, when WW3 can not even be defined?