The 65th anniversary of Hiroshima - Page 2

oh, I wouldn't doubt he was. He is ultra liberal, and makes Bill Maher look like Dick Cheney. Like I said, I accept they used the bomb, I don't like it, but I think it was something that had to be done.

Forwarded from yahoo answers:

"At the time it was wrong, in hindsight it was wrong.

It was militarily unnecessary to drop atomic bombs to end WWII. Generals including Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur believed that Japan would've surrendered eventually without dropping atomic bombs. Eisenhower believed atomic bombs were not the answer to save American lives and refused to support the idea of killing civilians en masse. MacArthur (who was in charge in the Pacific) believed that Japan would surrender if the Allies simply told Japan that they could keep their emperor after the war. Japan thought that an unconditional surrender meant that their emperor was to stand down and be tried as a war criminal. This was not the case but the Allies failed to tell Japan. Had they done so, MacArthur believed Japan would've surrendered much earlier.

It was also militarily unnecessary to invade Japan. Generals including Carl Spaatz believed that Japan was in fact hoping for a US invasion because that would mean US casualties which could lead to a negotiated surrender (what Japan was hoping for). Spaatz wanted the US to publicly deny any US invasion. No invasion - he believed - would've forced Japan to surrender. Fleet Admirals including Chester Nimitz and William Leahy were of the opinion that the sea blockade was enough to get a Japanese surrender since they were facing starvation.

With no navy, no air force, their armies getting beaten by the Chinese, their people starving at home, American bombers virtually ruling their skies, and the Soviet Union having just declared war on them, Japan was essentially defeated by August 1945. From a military point of view, the atomic bombs and a US invasion were both simply not needed to end the war and get a Japanese surrender.

In fact, what ended WWII was the Soviet Union's declaration of war on Japan followed by the subsequent Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Looking back, historians now believe that Japan surrendered specifically on August 15 due to the Soviet intervention. By that date all hope in Manchuria was lost and Japan faced a potential Soviet invasion. The Soviet intervention had a much more profound effect than the atomic bombings (Japan introduced martial law after the Soviets declared war). If the US refrained from dropping atomic bombs and simply sat back and did nothing, Japan would've still surrendered on August 15. Truman really should've waited to see if Japan would surrender in the wake of the Soviet intervention.

Ultimately, the atomic bombs did nothing but kill 250,000 people, of which 20,000 of them were Koreans and 3,200 of them were Japanese Americans. The fact that 3,200 Americans were killed by the atomic bombings compared to 2,300 Americans killed at Pearl Harbor, means that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed more American citizens than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did. The decision to use atomic bombs was simply militarily unnecessary and a total disregard for human life. It is an absolute joke that there are actually people in the US who believe the atomic bombs saved lives.

If a Nazi used an atomic bomb on the US he would've been hanged at Nuremberg, don't you think? Truman committed a war crime by using atomic bombs but he was saved because he (along with all the other Allied officers who committed a war crime) was on the winning side. Curtis LeMay lamented that if the US lost the war he would've been tried for war crimes for the firebombing of Japanese cities, let alone the atomic bombings.

Unless you agree with war crimes and disagree with our top Allied military commanders of WWII, you cannot possibly see the use of atomic bombs as right. It never ended the war and it never saved lives. I suggest you read the Soviet invasion of Manchuria."

Whilst I accept the argument that an assault on the home islands would have resulted in the deaths of many thousands of Allied soldiers, I am not convinced that the nuclear decision was sound.

Certainly many of the most prominent US strategists weren't convinced - including the Chief of Staff, Eisenhower, Nimitz and even MacArthur (a warmongering looney if ever there was one).

In the end I think the Manhattan Project grew into a kind of headless monster. With so much money and resources sunk into it the decision to drop the bomb became almost fait accompli. It appears that in the immediate run-up Truman was lobbied extensively by a small cadre with other senior staff cut out of the loop.

I believe that the US could have dropped the "Little Boy" device in the nearest uninhabited area (with, in the case of non-compliance, the threat of a second bomb over a major city) and the Japanese would have surrendered.

I do not believe there was any strategic requirement to drop the "Fat Man" bomb. I think the decision was to test the viability of a technologically superior "implosion" weapon and as such a totally inhumane and reprehensible act.

Hahahahahah no

Here is a map of Japan before the bomb:


Japan took over half of Asia and in the process gave a new meaning to the word "ruthless". If you add up the death statistics from the populations of each of the countries Japan occupied, it would be certainly be high (China alone is bad), and would be worse if they didn't surrender. Lots of countries in Asia have a "when Japan took over" section in their national museums, all loaded with stories of the sick and twisted stuff (from rapes to the "bayonet the baby in the air" game) that was done to the local populations. There are lots of old folks still around in the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Korea, and China who might choose to remember the 65th anniversary for a different reason. Its amazing that Hirohito and his upper echelon escaped any kind of war crimes tribunal.

At the time the bombs were dropped, Japan was in a much weaker position making the decision more tricky in terms of the total "lives saved" argument, as the Japanese had already enslaved, raped and murdered so many that it was arguably too late. Stopping Japan (by nukes or otherwise) around the late 30s would have saved millions throughout Asia. Hundreds of thousands in one city (Nanking) alone.

Anyway, I can't fathom the kind of crazy that took over the country back then, as it totally contrasts my views of modern day Japan. I travel there a bit and have a Japanese boss who's great, and it just baffles me.