Infamous Debate: The Bomb

[Gen. Sandworm]

Figure we needed a bit more in the American section. So the topic is: Was the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan the right one?

Personally, I have to say it was. Drop that thing twice. Not to say I dont feel sorry for the Japanese but they did start it. Plus i have to add that Japan probably fought more ferociously than any other country. An invasion of Japan would have been hell for both sides.

[TexWiller]

yup,it was.it was a great opportunity for testing the a-bomb.where(and when) else one can use this weapon on civilian targets without dire consequnces?

[Gen. Sandworm]

Well dropping the a-bomb i think has helped as a deterent to nuclear war. We have seen the destructive power of this bomb and it is horrible effects. Hopefully by burning the images of Nagasaki and Hiroshima into the peoples of the world we can prevent future use of this weapon. I would like to think all those Japanese people died to prevent future loss of life........but im not sure thats the case.

If the a-bomb had not been dropped on Japan by the USA you can be assured that someone would have used it. Could have been the Russians and Americans on each other. That being said we might not be here today. Dont forget Germany wasnt that far off from developing the a-bomb either. Then we all might be speaking German or dead.

[South African Military]

Then we all might be speaking German or dead.

lol :D yes, quite possibly, however the Germans where stuck on something, I cant remember what, but my science teacher told me, and it was quite technical... I actually think the Germans could never have dropped an a-bomb, before they lost WW2.

And I dont exactly know who leaked the secrets of how to make the bomb, but I wouldnt say that what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki will prevent us using a nuclear bomb. Im sure deffinetely now and for a very long time 1st world countries would never use a nuclear bomb against each-other. The only risk is with dictatorships, and countries like that, who have somehow got enough research in making a crude bomb. I think they would never care of wht happened.

[Gen. Sandworm]

I believe I heard somewhere Werner Hisenberg purposely held up the german atomic research. Also the norwegian resistence and british commandos in norway hampered the supply of hard water needed for research.

[Cactus]

I believe it was justified. I mean the Japanese were looking into it if they had it do you think they would hesitate to use it on us? Had we had an all out invasion you are looking at very high death count. You have the POW's that would have been killed and due to the Code of Bushido everyone down to the last woman would have had to fight. Regardless of what they had to fight with since it was the, "honorable" thing to do. I mean you look at the death toll with the islands, Okinawa, Iwo Jima and so forth the death count was bad but an invasion of Japan mainland would have been worse. Many Japanese and Americans died on the islands I believe one island had more deaths than Hiroshima I think it was just that so many people died at an instant did people seem ify about it. I bet if everyone that died on the island were to have died all of a sudden at once in one location then that event would be highly debated today too.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Cactus we are in agreement. Im assuming your an American as well?

[Cactus]

Cactus we are in agreement. Im assuming your an American as well?

You have assumed correctly kind sir. :P

[RighteousDuncan]

I believe it was justified. I mean the Japanese were looking into it if they had it do you think they would hesitate to use it on us? Had we had an all out invasion you are looking at very high death count. You have the POW's that would have been killed and due to the Code of Bushido everyone down to the last woman would have had to fight. Regardless of what they had to fight with since it was the, "honorable" thing to do. I mean you look at the death toll with the islands, Okinawa, Iwo Jima and so forth the death count was bad but an invasion of Japan mainland would have been worse. Many Japanese and Americans died on the islands I believe one island had more deaths than Hiroshima I think it was just that so many people died at an instant did people seem ify about it. I bet if everyone that died on the island were to have died all of a sudden at once in one location then that event would be highly debated today too.

Yes I agree with you there, the Japanese civilians were being armed to fight to the death. Plus the thousands of American Pow's who had been transfered to Japan would have been excecuted. I feel it was justified as we would have lost a large number of men in an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The thing you seem to be forgetting is the effects of radiation on the Japanese people in the years following the war. Thousands of people died far after the dropping of the the bombs due to the radiation effects. Those in the future generations had to pay for the mistakes of the past generation, which I feel is wrong.

[South African Military]

Yes I agree with you there, the Japanese civilians were being armed to fight to the death. Plus the thousands of American Pow's who had been transfered to Japan would have been excecuted. I feel it was justified as we would have lost a large number of men in an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The thing you seem to be forgetting is the effects of radiation on the Japanese people in the years following the war. Thousands of people died far after the dropping of the the bombs due to the radiation effects. Those in the future generations had to pay for the mistakes of the past generation, which I feel is wrong.

Yes I agree with you. I feel that the dropping the bomb was justified, however the impact on children and the later generation because of the radiation was horrible.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Yes I agree with you. I feel that the dropping the bomb was justified, however the impact on children and the later generation because of the radiation was horrible.

Good way to remember what you do now will always effect future generations. We can only hope that cooler heads will prevail in the future as more and more countries get nukes.

[HEINRICI]

Figure we needed a bit more in the American section. So the topic is: Was the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan the right one?

Personally, I have to say it was. Drop that thing twice. Not to say I dont feel sorry for the Japanese but they did start it. Plus i have to add that Japan probably fought more ferociously than any other country. An invasion of Japan would have been hell for both sides.
General MacArthur's staff estimated U.S. casualty totals for the invasion of Japan at 290,000. The first phase, Operation Olympic-invasion of Kyushu, was set for November, 1945. He could not know that the Japanese had managed to transfer a large portion of their Manchurian Army to Kyushu by March of '45. Probably more would have made it to Honshu for Operation Coronet in March of '46. Casualties would certainly have been more than the estimate. The Japanese would have suffered more than a million casualties in the event of invasion. Dropping the bomb was cruel, but it resulted in fewer overall deaths than invasion would have.

[South African Military]

Figure we needed a bit more in the American section. So the topic is: Was the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan the right one?

Personally, I have to say it was. Drop that thing twice. Not to say I dont feel sorry for the Japanese but they did start it. Plus i have to add that Japan probably fought more ferociously than any other country. An invasion of Japan would have been hell for both sides.
General MacArthur's staff estimated U.S. casualty totals for the invasion of Japan at 290,000. The first phase, Operation Olympic-invasion of Kyushu, was set for November, 1945. He could not know that the Japanese had managed to transfer a large portion of their Manchurian Army to Kyushu by March of '45. Probably more would have made it to Honshu for Operation Coronet in March of '46. Casualties would certainly have been more than the estimate. The Japanese would have suffered more than a million casualties in the event of invasion. Dropping the bomb was cruel, but it resulted in fewer overall deaths than invasion would have.

How can someone calculate the death of the Japanese to be over a million, but the death of the Americans only 290,000?

[HEINRICI]

How can someone calculate the death of the Japanese to be over a million, but the death of the Americans only 290,000?[/quote]

They based it on recent experience; Japanese casualties were uniformly several times higher than the Americans during the previous years of island-hopping. In the last stages of the war, the U.S. had total air superiority. Many painful lessons had been learned about Japanese defensive methods, and American tactics had evolved to deal with them.
The best tactic was to approach enemy strong points with flame-throwing tanks. When the Japanese revealed their positions, call in the air force with suffocating napalm attacks. In the final stages of the assault, the Japanese were prepared to fight using millions of civilians with bamboo
spears. It would have been hopeless slaughter.

[IRONMAN]

I agree that it was justified to bring an end to the war and save many thousands of lives. And I also agree that the japanese would have lost more than the Americans because of total air superiority.

I don't believe it was possible that Germany might have been able to drop an atomic bomb before the war ended. They had too far to go to develop it, Germany's best mathematicians had already left germany for the US before the war broke out, and everything was working against them... the Norweigan resistance, American and British bombing on those facilities and Germany itself, the economic and industrial demise of germany was hampering everything the Germans tried to do.

[Gen. Sandworm]

I agree that it was justified to bring an end to the war and save many thousands of lives. And I also agree that the japanese would have lost more than the Americans because of total air superiority.

I don't believe it was possible that Germany might have been able to drop an atomic bomb before the war ended. They had too far to go to develop it, Germany's best mathematicians had already left germany for the US before the war broke out, and everything was working against them... the Norweigan resistance, American and British bombing on those facilities and Germany itself, the economic and industrial demise of germany was hampering everything the Germans tried to do.

I agree and I think most just wanted to see the war come to an end. Crappy way to end it but was a crappy war so........was a kind of damned if you do and a damed if you dont situation.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Started the poll in this topic and it is on going so please vote. Continue to post the reasons for your vote.

[FW-190 Pilot]

by the end of the war, japanese have very little ship and very little planes left, i suggest americans should continue the bombings in japan and force japan to make a choice whether to let their citizens to live in fear everyday and possibly starve to death due to no resource or surrender with honour

[Gen. Sandworm]

by the end of the war, japanese have very little ship and very little planes left, i suggest americans should continue the bombings in japan and force japan to make a choice whether to let their citizens to live in fear everyday and possibly starve to death due to no resource or surrender with honour

I see what your are saying but surrender was almost not in the Japanese vocabulary. I think it was on Okinawa.....might be wrong but doesnt really matter you will get my point....... out of the 20000 Japanese defenders 17 surrendered and the rest fought to their deaths. :shock:

[FW-190 Pilot]

by the end of the war, japanese have very little ship and very little planes left, i suggest americans should continue the bombings in japan and force japan to make a choice whether to let their citizens to live in fear everyday and possibly starve to death due to no resource or surrender with honour

I see what your are saying but surrender was almost not in the Japanese vocabulary. I think it was on Okinawa.....might be wrong but doesnt really matter you will get my point....... out of the 20000 Japanese defenders 17 surrendered and the rest fought to their deaths. :shock:
i understand japanese soldiers have really high morale and seldom surrender, but if we put ships surround japan and try to cut off any supplies to japan, while bombing their civil facility to make sure japanese have no access to food or clean water, i believe they would have no choice but to surrender

[Cuts]

Yes, the buckets of instant sunshine were well justified both militarily and politically.
They spared more lives than they took, and the monetary saving was incalculable.

After years of war everyone needed relief from the killing, that the bombs were dropped on civilian targets was unfortunate, but the Axis had made the rules.......

[Bluffcove]

Dropping the bomb was justified casualties would have been huge in a landwar. the Enemy was indoctrinated and had its back to the wall. added to that The US wasnt able to use it's air superiority against the japanese on the Islands. These were the days prior to Agent Orange and Napalm. well dug in and Well fortified it would be impossible to dislodge the defenders without massive bloodshed and Costly in all manner of ways too. (err halls of montezuma shows that I think)

The World was terrified of Nuclear weapons for 50 years and concerned about them possibly for ever after. Yet only two have ever been dropped in action.

With a garuantee that there would be a new world order after 1945 it was a grand opportunity to showcase new weaponry before it all calmed down again and you couldnt chuck big load weapons about (tongue firmly in cheek)

[Preatorian]

........ These were the days prior to Agent Orange and Napalm............

Just so you know napalm was developed and used during WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

I agree with you but just an FYI :wink:
I hawe seen once photos and documental movies - somekind of report about combat usage BM-12 Katusha, but not with usual rockets. There were rockets, stuffed with some substance equal napalm (or maybe it was napalm ?). I may be wrong, i hardly remember where these pictures and movie were taken - it was Orsha or Stalingrad, but picture was terrible...
These pictures i never seen publicated, archives still closed.

About bomb. If i was a somebody, who can decide - use a-bomb against japans in 1945 or not - my descision would be - "Use that thing immidiatelly."
Why ? I sure - is somebody shot in you from pistol - you need shot that guy with rifle. Then sooner you give a good lession - then better will be result. And i sure - japans learned that lession completly. How i can see - they hawe turned into pacifists... great result.
By the way, some japanese soldier fighting with USSR troops till 1946, they just don't matter official capitulation... these fighters deserved something better than usual bombs.

[Voluntary Escaper]

To briefly paraphrase someone who served in Burma and wrote a book on his soldiering:

The commentator felt that modern-day armchair generals and politicans wrongly assume the right to act as judge and jury on the morality of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. When asked if they would have sacrificed their lives or the lives of their families, such armchair generals say "that's not the point". This commentator wrote of the comrades he served with in World War 2: if they had been given the choice of soldiering on for another year or two with all the inherent risks, or seeing the end of the war with two cities razed to the ground by terrible new weapons, he felt they would have wearily picked up their rifles and packs and said something along the lines of "lets get on with it then".

[Man of Stoat]

Arguably the use of the atomic bombs against Japan meant that the world had seen how terrible they were and didn't use them again.

Otherwise the first use may have been in Korea, or by the Soviets in Europe in the Cold War.

[PzKpfw VI Tiger]

I believe that the Atomic Bomb and the Manhattan Project were both justified. After the Pearl Harbor bombings from Japan (we were at peace then), we needed a way to show them that we wouldnt take that sitting down. It was good to drop the A bomb b/c it showed the Japs who they were dealing with.

[Caliber]

i always stuck to saying it was a good decision.

[LargeBrew]

The use of the Atom Bomb on Japan was not just about preventing the need for a land War in Japan and it's resulting casualties but was to prevent the need for the Russians to move down from the North and grab land as we saw in Europe. Had the conclusion of the Asian Theatre depended on conventional force's part of Japan would have spent decades under soviet control.

[Commando Jordovski]

Dropping the Atom Bomb on Japan, i can not really vote yes or no for the poll, seeing as Either way your going to lose millions of people.
Still today people suffer from nagasaki and hiroshima.
The U.S.A could of come to an agreement with the Japanese and to cease all the bloodshed.

[pdf27]

The U.S.A could of come to an agreement with the Japanese and to cease all the bloodshed.
Like what? The only agreement the Japanese would have accepted would have been an "I surrender" from the US. Given the Japanese behaviour in WW2 (which can only be described as deeply evil in very many cases), this is not a good thing.
My only regret about the atomic bombs is that we didn't have them available earlier.

[Walther]

I have heard theories that the involvement of the Russians (by whom the Japanese suffered some crushing defeats in 1938 when they tried to expand northwards from China into Siberia), as was planned according to the Yalta agreement (Russians concentrate on Germany first, after defeat of Germany they have three months time to move their troops from Europe to East Asia), showed, together with the nukes, that the war was over for Japan.

I think another reason for the nukes on Japan was that by August 1945, relations between Russia and the weatern Allies started to turn sour and that Truman wanted to demonstrate to Stalin that he had an ace up his sleeve.

Jan

[LargeBrew]

I agree there is a school of though that indicates that the US did not want to replicate Europe, with the USSR expanding west. A protracted land war across the main Japanese Islands would have allowed Russian forces to move rapidly east. The US did not want Russia to make significant land gain in the region so it was expediant to use their "super weapons" to limit the engagement.
The US had hoped to prevent the British from re-establishing their trading base's in Hong Kong and Singapore and to establish a system similar to the British commonwealth but under US influence.

[WaistGunner]

I recently read in Secret Weapons of World War II that Japan was actually very close to having its own nuke (closer then Germany who hadn't even built a reaction chamber yet and if I remeber correctly the Japanese had already successfully triggered a reaction but just needed to put it into bomb form). I think that over the long run the Bomb did save more lives then it took and I too have heard the theory that it was dropped as much to threaten the Russians as it was to end the war in the South Pacific.

[Jon725]

I'd have to say it was justified, for these reasons.


- japan was the first country to attack america on its soil and declare war on the united states (yea there was the civil war and uk during revolutionary war, but during the revolutionary war you can argue that america was still uk's territory till they lost).
- the treated american pows horribly example. bataan death march.
- crippled united states naval fleet
- the japanese people fought to the very end and making it a very costly war for each country fighting them. if the bomb wasnt dropped more allied forces would have been lost.


there are also the atrocities the japanese commited but i wont include those because many of these things werent known of till after the war. The dropping on the atomic bomb sent a strong message into history, and from my point of view it means...
if you play with fire you're going to get burned

to drop any bomb on any people is bad, but i think with all the things the japanese forces were during this war, there honestly wasn't a better answer to save allied forces lives. yes it opened a horrible chapter in history, but with the circumstances that were goingon. better them then us.

[pdf27]

I recently read in Secret Weapons of World War II that Japan was actually very close to having its own nuke (closer then Germany who hadn't even built a reaction chamber yet and if I remeber correctly the Japanese had already successfully triggered a reaction but just needed to put it into bomb form).
The Japanese were closer than the Germans.
The Germans thought an atomic weapon would have a critical mass of several tonnes, was therefore impractical and not worth bothering with.
The Japanese had a reasonable estimate of critical mass and knew what needed to be done. They were incapable of solving the engineering problems involved within a reasonable timescale and in any case did not have the industrial capability required to produce nuclear weapons.

The wikipedia article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program) currently has a good entry, but it should be noted that this article is apparently one of those frequently edited by those pushing an agenda. What is currently the last paragraph is the relevant part, which is frequently edited to make a highly implausible claim that the Japanese detonated a mini-nuke in August 1945 appear to be historical fact. A mini-nuke is in fact very unlikely for the simple reason that small nuclear weapons are much harder to design and make than the Hiroshima sized ones.

[Dani]

I'd have to say it was justified, for these reasons.


- japan was the first country to attack america on its soil and declare war on the united states (yea there was the civil war and uk during revolutionary war, but during the revolutionary war you can argue that america was still uk's territory till they lost).
- crippled united states naval fleet


The quoted reasons are childish. (The POW treatement as a reason are debatable - only the fourth reason it worths).

[cpl condor]

It was a response of the japanese attack.
A lot of KIA, MIA and POW, How many more have to wait until drop the bomb? :arrow:
In a war, the higher cost, ALWAYS pay the enemy.

[Dani]

I'd have to say it was justified, for these reasons.


- japan was the first country to attack america on its soil and declare war on the united states (yea there was the civil war and uk during revolutionary war, but during the revolutionary war you can argue that america was still uk's territory till they lost).


I'd say that Mexico is in great danger (according to your logic). :lol: :lol: :lol: http://www.lone-star.net/mall/texasinfo/mexicow.htm

Edited: Mate, proudness of being American is good, but learning is needed!

I hope that you weren't bothered by my replies. If so, I apologise!

[Twitch1]

Hard to believe that this topic is even half way seriously broached on an ongoing basis. With 2 horrendous alternative outcomes it's puzzling as to why, A- invasion with the probable 1-10 million Japanese deaths or B- the old naval blockade to starvation with millions of deaths, was even considered especially with the attendent presense of the Russians and the certain division of Japan that would have certainly complicated the region as badly as Eastern Europe. :roll:

[Firefly]

As the Japanese were already making overtones for surrender and the horrendous conventional firebombing attacks on Japanese cities was far more damaging than a A-Bomb, I have always wondered if the attacks were meant as a symbol of US power more than anything else?

[Man of Stoat]

As the Japanese were already making overtones for surrender and the horrendous conventional firebombing attacks on Japanese cities was far more damaging than a A-Bomb, I have always wondered if the attacks were meant as a symbol of US power more than anything else?

Given that there were genuine (and not completely unfounded) fears that the Russians would just keep going when they met the other allies, it seems fairly likely that one of the reasons for dropping the bombs was to scare the bejeezus out of Ivan.

[pdf27]

As the Japanese were already making overtones for surrender and the horrendous conventional firebombing attacks on Japanese cities was far more damaging than a A-Bomb, I have always wondered if the attacks were meant as a symbol of US power more than anything else?
From memory, it turned out postwar (possibly quite recently actually) that the surrender feelers were completely unauthorised and the diplomat sending them out (in Moscow IIRC) almost certainly couldn't have delivered a surrender anyway. Thus, even if they were meant as a symbol of US power they worked in their nominal task of shocking the Japanese into surrendering.

[Twitch1]

Why would anyone in the decision-making corps of the Allied high command believe anything perpetrated by the Japaneze with a history like they had which made Pearl Harbor into a surprise attack after the translation debacle in Washington? Why believe they were serious for peace when EVERY island from Guadalcanal on through to Okinawa was turned into a no-surrender blood bath by the Japanese themselves owing to their stubborn attitude of inflicting as much damage as possible on the enemy with no regard for their own lives? Why believe seemingly half-hearted peace feelers not even sent directly at the USA when Allied intell showed massive hostile build up and fortification of Kyushu?

Knowing now in post-war times that Hirohito interviened in the War Council tie to continue the war and send out peace feelers simply doesn't validate things. Assorted persona in the 3rd Reich did the same thing and all such querries were sumarily rejected. Why would the Allied command do the opposite and embrace a half baked querry of peace by the Japaneze?

The intell that the Allies missed revealed in the immediate post-war times that we'd sorely UNDERestimated the stockpiled raw materials, supplies, weapons, complexity of fortifcation, underground production facilities, manpower already in place to make a last stand to the last man.

It just doesn't matter about any perceived or imagined morality issues of the A-bomb use when we ABSOLUTELY know that the alternative outcomes would have resulted in the worse bloodbath ever recorded and Soviet fingers in the pie that took over 40 years to overcome in Eastern Europe.

For those that wish to make knee-jerk reactions and lament the many that were nuked it is fine as long as we keep in perspective that it is simply opinion only. Relentless study of the complex ingredients will show all but the most prejudiced that the bombs ultimately saved an extensive number of human lives.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Topic moved here from European Theater

[Chevan]

Topic moved here from European Theater
Thank's Gen.
I note this interesting thread only now.

Gentlemens , i am got a shock
You are practically all justify this unhuman mass murdering. :(

How can it to name the burning at least 150 000 peoples ( and about 20% of them were the children) as "showing of terrible power of A-bomb" or " as saving a millions lives"?!

As you know a total number of victims of A-bombing of Japane is over 500 000 ( including died from radiation consequences after the war).
This is the one of worst war crime of WW2.

:( :(

[Nickdfresh]

Thank's Gen.
I note this interesting thread only now.

Gentlemens , i am got a shock
You are practically all justify this unhuman mass murdering. :(

How can it to name the burning at least 150 000 peoples ( and about 20% of them were the children) as "showing of terrible power of A-bomb" or " as saving a millions lives"?!

As you know a total number of victims of A-bombing of Japane is over 500 000 ( including died from radiation consequences after the war).
This is the one of worst war crime of WW2.

:( :(



How many people would have died had the bombs were not dropped?

[Gen. Sandworm]

How many people would have died had the bombs were not dropped?

I am sorry the bombs were ever dropped and maybe it should be looked at as a crime but however war is war and people die. Dont like getting bombed ......... stop starting wars then. Im sorry but in the global perspective it saved lives. More people would have died if those bombs had not been dropped.

Reminder.......Even after the bombs were dropped we didnt get a unconditional surrender from the japanese. Emperor stayed on the throne! So im sure japan would have thrown everything into the defense of their homeland and many more on all sides would have died. I hate to agree with them but as far as saving live I cant disagree.

The only way to win is to not go to war. God "War games" is an awesome movie :D

[Nickdfresh]

Well, there are some rather interesting statements from some that effectively deny the Holocaust, and fail to equate the crimes of Stalin as War Crimes, since by reasonable standard --he, a large proportion of the Communist Party SU, and the NKVD should bear responsibility for their "war-crimes" or "crimes against humanity" rather than just cherry-picking out more horrific actions of the Western Allies: such as Hiroshima and Dresden. But we'll leave that all aside.

You can make arguments (as I have) that the invasion of Japan (the overall Operation Downfall) would have been easier and had resulted in fewer U.S. casualties proportionally than they suffered in the island-hopping campaign, because the terrain of the home islands (the Tokyo plain) was more favorable to armor and massed firepower than were the mountainous, jungle covered Pacific atolls and islands. But, an amphibious invasion of Japan was fraught with many more complications than even the D-Day Normandy landings were.

The difference being that the Japanese knew exactly where the the Anglo-American landings were to take place (Operation Olympic -the initial landings on Kyushu) since there was only one suitable area for landings, and concentrated an enormous amount of resources to exacting as many casualties as possible. This included Kamikazes that may well have had a better chance to sink fully loaded troops ships than they did to hit a carrier in the open sea, since the troops ships would have been sitting targets stuffed into a large bay. Not to mention a large proportion of the Japanese population not only would have fought to the death, but many civilians were prepared to kill their own children (as they had at Okinawa) rather than submit to the "cannibal-rapist" Americans, as falsely depicted in their propaganda.

And a second factor that that Atom bomb second-guessers also tend to miss is that the chance of a nuclear war was greatly reduced by the horrors, many of which were unforeseen by the U.S. planners, and the aftermath.

If there had been no Hiroshima or Nagasaki, there may fuck-well have been a Moscow, New York City, London, Peking, Berlin, Leningrad, and/or Tokyo by 1965! Something to chew on kiddies.

[Gen. Sandworm]

........
And a second factor that that Atom bomb second-guessers also tend to miss is that the chance of a nuclear war was greatly reduced by the horrors, many of which were unforeseen by the U.S. planners, and the aftermath.
...........

Here Here

[Chevan]

Here Here

Not so far we had the simular discussion

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3667
Please , read this attentively.
And about "million saved lives"
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/hiro-a08.shtml
I don't fully support the World Socialist movement, but this article could be interested for everybody.

[redcoat]

Given that there were genuine (and not completely unfounded) fears that the Russians would just keep going when they met the other allies, it seems fairly likely that one of the reasons for dropping the bombs was to scare the bejeezus out of Ivan.The European war was aready over when the bombs were dropped, and the US and British had already downsized their armies in this theater.

[redcoat]

Thank's Gen.
This is the one of worst war crime of WW2.

:( :(
I've noticed that you tend to over use the expression 'war crime'.
If an act didn't break the then existing rules of war, and the use of A-Bombs on Japanese cities didn't, you cannot call them 'war crimes'.
You can state that you think they were wrong to have used them, and you could state that the use of A-bombs on cities should be made a war crime, but you cannot state that these were war crimes.

[Panzerknacker]

Agree, debatable as it are, polemic as it may be, is not a war crime "per se".

Remember Nanking in 1937 ..? that was crime, perpetrated by japaneses. :neutral:

[stephen]

have you forgoten the fire storms that killed many more people and also destroyed more citys.It all depends on which side you are on,if you are on the americans side then tink how many thousands of men would have dies to take japan by force,and with the japaneses fanatical belifes in honor all of those civilians and more and their soldiers would have died anyway.Sugest you read the book "Death is light as a feather" by David Westheimer it goes in to what would have happend if the americans trted to invade japan.

[Chevan]

I've noticed that you tend to over use the expression 'war crime'.
.

My "tend to over use expression 'war crime'" ..?
I know you are not along time in this forum, and spesially for you repeat - i am comsider just 'two worst thing of allies' as war crime -Fire Storm tactic in Europe and A-bombing of Japane.
And i try consequentally defend my point,using the information and oppinion of some professional historians.
But this is absolutly don't mean that i refuse the nazi and japanes war crime in this war.

[Chevan]

Agree, debatable as it are, polemic as it may be, is not a war crime "per se".

Remember Nanking in 1937 ..? that was crime, perpetrated by japaneses. :neutral:

We remember about Nankin, also we remember about Batan island ("road of death ") were were died at least 20 000 of americans POWs.
Also we remember a cruel execution of american pilots and POW in Japane.
But what then?
Is this could be the justification of burning alive peoples in Japanes cities?..

I want to tell you one story....
In july of 1945 the japanece prime-minister send to the Stalin a telegramm.
In diplomatic language Japanece asked a possibility USSR's assistence in futured capitulation of Japane. They puted just the single condition: saved the monarchy institute in Japane.
They exellently knew about decision of USSR to involve in the war with Japane.
It was absolutly evidently for the Japanes the sensless to continie the fight in july of 1945. Stalin considered possibility of take the Japenes capitulation, but this is certainly not suit the USA.
USA with Britain demand in rough notes the full Japane's capitulation without any conditions and Trumen ordered to accelerate the preperation of A-bomb program.
Japane was ready capitulated not later then end of august 1945, whithout A-bombing and "invasion to the Japane". Becouse USSR entered the war in Far East.
I think that A-bomb was realy needed for:
1. Execute the Japanes.
2. Stope the uncle Joe-Stalin in its motion to the Sout-Eastern Asia , were after the banishment of Japanes the positions of communists were strong (Birma , China, Vietnam, Korea and ets).
3. Political reason - to show the other world "who is new master of house".
(in american press is was named as "demonstrated a terrible power of A-bomb - new american political toy")

Today all the worl listen the nonsense about "million saved japanese lives".
This gentlemens prefer the imagine the Japanes as idiots which all were ready "to die for Imperor".
USA simple ignored the Japanes attempts of capitulation, and prefered to made a "big public execution" for all the world.
How many lives could losed ....;) Zero
Becouse this landing invasion to the Japanes island would never be ..
Japanes should be capitulated befor the possible invasion of USSR to the Japane.
What could be worst the A-bomb - just Communist Japane in 1945.

Cheers.

[Panzerknacker]

Everybody has his own opinion, the mine is that the cruelty depicted by the japaneses in the early stages of the war made that the americans show no mercy at the time of planing heavy bombardement campaings against civilian population, conventional and nuclear.

And I honestly believe that as terrible, cruel, etc,etc, that the A-bombs are it was an act of war and not a war crime. C est la guerre.

[Egorka]

Hello,

Every war has escentially a goal that is not purely war related. The purpose of any war as whole is what happenes after it not during it. And the closer the end the more true it is.

Especially in July 1945 when all parties were thinking about the world order after the war. The minds of the world leaders were already kind of in the post war state. That is why the purpose of doing something so dramatic as using nuke for the first time was to do much more than just getting military victory here and now...

So in my oppinion the main (not the only one though) reason was to scary USSR and limit it's advance in the east.

By the way, Stalin would do the same if he could.


Best regards
Igor Korenev

[VonWeyer]

I have always said that dropping "the bomb" was the right thing to do and still do.

[Nickdfresh]

Hello,

Every war has escentially a goal that is not purely war related. The purpose of any war as whole is what happenes after it not during it. And the closer the end the more true it is.

Especially in July 1945 when all parties were thinking about the world order after the war. The minds of the world leaders were already kind of in the post war state. That is why the purpose of doing something so dramatic as using nuke for the first time was to do much more than just getting military victory here and now...

So in my oppinion the main (not the only one though) reason was to scary USSR and limit it's advance in the east.

By the way, Stalin would do the same if he could.


Best regards
Igor Korenev

There is no question that the USSR weighed heavily in the decision to drop the A-bomb. Not just purely intimidation or deterrence stand point either. The US was also afraid a land invasion of Japanese Islands proper would give the Red Army/Naval Infantry a chance to catch up and land large numbers effectively dividing the home islands as was Germany...

As for the right or wrong of using the bomb from a moral stand point, I wish the bombs would have been used not on two largely untouched (by conventional strategic bombing) cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but on military targets such as the Tokyo Naval Yard...

But one thing that those that find the bombing to be completely immoral should consider is that even after the bombs were dropped, and Emperor Hirohito was prepared to surrender, there were still hard-liner officers in the IJA that wanted to continue the War to the extent that they launched a coup de'tat against the emperor. The only thing that stopped it was an air-raid in which B-29s knocked out the power to Tokyo thus slowing down the coup plotters and preventing them from taking over Japan...

[Egorka]

Nickedfresh,

So as I undestand you agree that the bomb was used mainly (I am not talking about all other secondary "benefits") as an instrument in geopolitical battle (against USSR, as Japan was done) not as a local millitary tool.

Thta is why for me it is very close to be crime because it had not practical purpose but political one. For which mostly civilians had to pay price (there were also killed app. 400 american POW in Nagasaki. And the american genrals knew forehand that they were in the blast zone).


Best regards
Igor Korenev

[Nickdfresh]

Nickedfresh,

So as I undestand you agree that the bomb was used mainly (I am not talking about all other secondary "benefits") as an instrument in geopolitical battle (against USSR, as Japan was done) not as a local millitary tool.

No, I'm saying it was mainly used to end the War with Japan. But the USSR's advances in the far east were a consideration. And yes, it was a demonstration of power, but mainly to the Japanese (whom were also working on an A-bomb, as was the USSR)...

Thta is why for me it is very close to be crime because it had not practical purpose but political one. For which mostly civilians had to pay price (there were also killed app. 400 american POW in Nagasaki. And the american genrals knew forehand that they were in the blast zone).


Best regards
Igor Korenev

All war is political! thus all military operations are inherently political. And you could say that the entire waging of WWII (and I'd throw WWI in there too, since I think of these wars as rather interrelated!) was a crime and that all sides were 'criminal,' the only question here is scale. And those 400 US POWs would have surely been killed if the US had invaded Japan, this was clearly the plans of the Japanese (to kill all Allied POWs during an Anglo-American advance in the home-islands). It is easy for you to make such moral pronouncements since you were not there, as neither was I, but I have made the attempt to read books such as "Flyboys" and "Flags of Our Fathers" by Bradley, which deal extensively with the Pacific War. You could ask the Americans what they thought of fighting a brutally suicidal enemy that often forced their own civilian population to commit suicide (there is stunning footage of Japanese civilians jumping off cliffs with their children rather than submit to the pleading US Marines begging them not to kill themselves on Okinawa) rather than surrender to the Americans. How many cases in the European Theater did a German force fight truly to it's "last man?" On Tarawa, a Japanese force of 5000 fought to the absolute death, only 17 Imperial Japanese Army soldiers were captured by the US Marines! and then they were only captured after being incapacitated by wounds or battle shock.

What do you think the Allies were in in store for after they invaded the Home Islands? A civilian population charging them with bamboo spears? Mass suicides? Who knows? You could make the argument that quick moving US massed-armor may have changed things a bit as Soviet armor had "shocked" the Japanese Army in Manchuria, and it probably would have. But no one can argue that UK-US casualties would have been horrendous in the opening days of the invasion, as they could only land in one area of Japan during the amphibious operations: Operation Downfall (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm). To dismiss the A-bombing as merely criminal mass murder effectively deflects all blame away from a Japanese high command that was brutal, sadistic, and highly indifferent to the lives on not only its enemies, but to its own soldiers whom they referred to as what can be translated as "postage," meaning the cost of mailing a draft card --and to its own civilian population.

If German had been on the crusp of producing a bomb, and the Allies had learned this, and the US decided to drop the bomb on Berlin in order to kill the Nazi high command and thereby preventing any plans to use the A-bomb, would it still have been a 'crime?' Or is it okay then?

Is it okay to kill civilians in artillery attacks as long as soldiers are nearby? But not okay to use bombs or nuclear weapons? You can tell me many things, but one thing you cannot is that the US A-bomb attacks actually prevented more deaths in the end, because by any rational historically-based analysis, they did...

[Egorka]

Obviously US did not want the land invasion. They were not mad. But again Japain was about to capitulate, because USSR was about to join the war and eliminated about one million strong Japaneese army in the Manchuria from the equation. So the invasion is a part of it but an auxilary issue.

I do not doubt that A-bombs were a enormous accelerator for the Japanese capitulation.
But my point is that the main strategical goal of US was not Japan but USSR at that point.

Peace, love and a little bit of sex...

[Nickdfresh]

Obviously US did not want the land invasion. They were not mad. But again Japain was about to capitulate, because USSR was about to join the war and eliminated about one million strong Japaneese army in the Manchuria from the equation. So the invasion is a part of it but an auxilary issue.

I don't think so. The Emperor may, or may not, have been considering capitulation, but members of his own Army tried to overthrow him even after the bombs had been dropped. And I doubt the Japanese ever considered its Manchurian armies much use in defending the Home Islands or Japan.

Peace, love and a little bit of sex...

Agreed man!

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/images/smilies/gulp.gif

[Egorka]

(whom were also working on an A-bomb, as was the USSR)...

As I know USSR did not have dedicated nuclear weapon program until Podsdam conference where Truman tried to impress Stalin with it (it is kind of a famous story). Starin call right way to Beria and ordered to enforce the program.

[Egorka]

Nickedfresh,

Thanks for your long post. It was interesting. I mean it.

But it does not really prove your point I think. What you say about japanese being fanatic is very true. And again I agree that US was trying to avoid the land invasion. That is why USSR was obliged to declare war to Japan during Yalta and Podsdam conference.

What I am talking about is what the US generals had in thier minds. I beleive they were thinking about USSR not Japan at that point. That's firstly.

Secondly, US would drop the bomb on Japan even if country USSR never existed. Because the gratest democracy in the world did not give a f*ck about the people when the stakes are high. In my subjective oppinion of course.

Nowadays we kind of got used to nukes. But back then everyone informed (fery few people) we petrified and scared of this thing. And yet they made the step to unleash the beast. Twice.

And thirdly, regardless of the development stage of German nuclear program US would have A-bombed Berlin if they got the bomb earlier.

These all because they are not better than Stalin when it come to international affairs (internal affares is a different subject and it is difficult to chalange Comunist revolutionary's cruelty level).

IMHO!

[Chevan]

.....Is it okay to kill civilians in artillery attacks as long as soldiers are nearby? But not okay to use bombs or nuclear weapons?

Nicdfresh , my friend, thanks a lot for the spreaded post. But don't lead your point to the absurd please.
Don't make equal the artillery attack and the MASS-DESTRUCTION wearpon application.
This is absolutly "not okay" to use any wearpon against civil population, but it case of A-bomb is not the same that storm of cities by the infantry troops. I hope you'll agree.
[quote]
You can tell me many things, but one thing you cannot is that the US A-bomb attacks actually prevented more deaths in the end, because by any rational historically-based analysis, they did...
Well firstly mate it cann't prevented more death becouse you couldn't to know will the Japane continie the war after USSR joined to the alllias. Stange but today iit's the popular point that Japanes will continie the war with allies ( beeng in isolation and full economical and war blockade). Many peoples simply overestimates the Japanes ability to suicide prefere represent them as fanatic idiots.
Second. The hight US military command had not the single point about A-bombing.

"In my opinion, the application of this barbaric weapon in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not render essential aid in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already conquered and ready to be returned. Personally I consider that, after using by its first, we accepted the ethical standard, characteristic for the barbarians of the middle ages, thus they did not learn to wage war similarly, and war cannot be won, destroying women and children."

Admiral William Legi, the chief of staff of the President OF THE USA in 1945



"In 1945..., to year the Minister of Defense Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany and reported to me that our government prepares to drop A-bomb in Japan. I was one of those, who saw a number of convincing reasons to doubt the sense of a similar step...
In proportion to Stimson transferred facts, the desperation grew in me, and I shared with it with bad presentiments. In my opinion, in the nuclear bombardment not there was need, since Japan already lost war. I assumed that to our country to nothing to shock world community by the weapon, whose application for the rescuing of the lives of American citizens is already not necessary. In my view, Japan at that moment already searched for the ways of capitulation with the smallest possible "loss of the person". To Minister of Defense my position was not pleased, and it here began to refute my reasons, calling their prompt."
General D. Eisenhower -future president of USA.
So my friend american hight officer in contrast to the american politicians could see the reason to doubt in need to test the a-bomb in the alive people..
And the third. As you wrote rational historically-based analysis prove for you that Japane in august 1945 beeing in full sea blockade , without oil- and matterial- supplies, whithout food and petrol could not to continie the war no more than the latest till december of 1945.
Thus mate whithout a-bombing , whithout mythical "millions death", whithout land-operation Japane simply would be forced to capitulate in at latest end of 1945.
But certainly american politics didn't wist to wait to the end of 1945 while the Red Army and uncle Joe moved with gigantic strides through China. ( and directly to the South- Eastern Asia where were the former british colonies ).This was unpossible.
So they used a-bomb. They did it.They were steep guys.:)
But my friend don't please repeat this propogandic slogans about "saving a millions japanes lives".
Even Hoebbels don't told the jews that he killed them for the "saving a millions of lives".
This was a war - most unhuman war in history.

Cheers.

[Nickdfresh]

Nickedfresh,

Thanks for your long post. It was interesting. I mean it.

But it does not really prove your point I think. What you say about japanese being fanatic is very true. And again I agree that US was trying to avoid the land invasion. That is why USSR was obliged to declare war to Japan during Yalta and Podsdam conference.

The USSR was never "obliged" to declare War on Japan. They indeed resisted doing so until Japan was clearly going to be defeated, and the Germans were nearly defeated.

The Soviet Nuclear program began in 1939, and was accelerated by 1943, two years before Potsdam. Are you going to blame the US for this as well?

What I am talking about is what the US generals had in thier minds. I beleive they were thinking about USSR not Japan at that point. That's firstly.

Well, I believe you're clearly wrong. There is no evidence that the Soviet Union was anything but a distant secondary consideration...

Secondly, US would drop the bomb on Japan even if country USSR never existed. Because the gratest democracy in the world did not give a f*ck about the people when the stakes are high. In my subjective oppinion of course.

Now you're clearly contradicting yourself.

And how is the US supposed to be concerned with Japanese lives when their own gov't isn't? Where the Soviets more concerned about Germans and Poles they were raping?

And if the US didn't "give a fuck" about people, then why did we rebuild Europe via the Marshall plan, and indeed build one of the most stable, technologically advanced democracies in Japan? One that indeed took a big economic toll on the US in the 1970s & 80s?

Again, you're applying a hyper-critical standard to the US whilst ignoring all others and completely ignoring historical contexts...:rolleyes:

Nowadays we kind of got used to nukes. But back then everyone informed (fery few people) we petrified and scared of this thing. And yet they made the step to unleash the beast. Twice.

And thirdly, regardless of the development stage of German nuclear program US would have A-bombed Berlin if they got the bomb earlier.

As anyone would have done...

These all because they are not better than Stalin when it come to international affairs (internal affares is a different subject and it is difficult to chalange Comunist revolutionary's cruelty level).

IMHO!

Really? Then why did Germans flee in droves to the US and British sectors, away from Stalin's gloriously humanitarian Red Army? Because he nice to them?

And most Eastern Europeans will strongly disagree with this notion...

[Nickdfresh]

[quote]
Nicdfresh , my friend, thanks a lot for the spreaded post. But don't lead your point to the absurd please.
Don't make equal the artillery attack and the MASS-DESTRUCTION wearpon application.

Really? Then how were people killed in Rwanda? How was your citizenry murdered in WWII? By nuclear weapons? Poison gas? Or was it rifle-fire and explosives? Did they die a nicer death since they weren't killed by WMDs? Were the millions of Soviet casualties inflicted by the Germans an exaggeration for political purposes? The vast majority of deaths in WWII occurred from malnutrition, summary execution, and disease caused by the cruel actions of occupiers.



This is absolutly "not okay" to use any wearpon against civil population, but it case of A-bomb is not the same that storm of cities by the infantry troops. I hope you'll agree.

No. What I believe you are saying is that it is not okay for the US and UK to use weapons against a civil populace. Everyone else, well it seems to be just fine...

Well firstly mate it cann't prevented more death becouse you couldn't to know will the Japane continie the war after USSR joined to the alllias. Stange but today iit's the popular point that Japanes will continie the war with allies ( beeng in isolation and full economical and war blockade). Many peoples simply overestimates the Japanes ability to suicide prefere represent them as fanatic idiots.
Second. The hight US military command had not the single point about A-bombing.

Well, Japan did continue to fight, even after the Soviets entered the War. And you can read Japanese home island defense war planning on the internet, and it's plainly clear that massive civilian casualties would have resulted.


So my friend american hight officer in contrast to the american politicians could see the reason to doubt in need to test the a-bomb in the alive people..
And the third. As you wrote rational historically-based analysis prove for you that Japane in august 1945 beeing in full sea blockade , without oil- and matterial- supplies, whithout food and petrol could not to continie the war no more than the latest till december of 1945.

Well, you didn't read my link, because the Japanese could easily have continued since they grew most of their food on the islands, and did not have a great reliance on oil since they had limited mechanization and would have inflicted the majority of casualties in the opening phases of the invasion.

Thus mate whithout a-bombing , whithout mythical "millions death", without land-operation Japan simply would be forced to capitulate in at latest end of 1945.

"Mythical?" These were projections based on Japanese defenses of their home islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Granted, the US would have eventually advanced and broken Japanese resistance in short order once they reached the Tokyo Plain with Sherman and Pershing tanks, but only after suffering 100,000s of casualties in difficult amphibious operations and operating on terrain that was not conducive to armor or vehicles.

But certainly american politics didn't wist to wait to the end of 1945 while the Red Army and uncle Joe moved with gigantic strides through China.

Which was Gen. MacArthur's plan (to invade what is Taiwan, using it as a staging base to thrust into China after landing with armor), because China was ideal tank country against an Imperial Japanese Army that lacked any sort of modern anti-tank weapons and effective tanks. The British had similar experiences in Burma, as did the US troops engaging the Japanese anytime the fought battles of maneuver in open terrain.

The Soviet troops weren't conducting amphibious assaults, were they? The most complex and predictable operations in modern warfare, making the attacker extremely vulnerable and largely immobile for a time.



And BTW, the people you quoted had little or nothing to do with the Pacific Theater or Operations, their opinions are largely invalidated, especially since they killed thousands of Germans via strat. bombing...

( and directly to the South- Eastern Asia where were the former british colon"In 1945..., to year the Minister of Defense Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany and reported to me that our government prepares to drop A-bomb in Japan..."

[Chevan]

.... Then why did Germans flee in droves to the US and British sectors, away from Stalin's gloriously humanitarian Red Army? Because he nice to them?

You forgot about one inportaint reason my friend. The FEAR FOR THE ITS CRIMES.
2.5 millions of perished soviet POWs who had the much worst relation then even the Jews in Getto.
about 6 million civils victims who had died firstly becouse the german henocide politic on the occuped Eastern Europe territories.
about 3 millions civils died under jermans bombs , artillery or from the starvation and ills.
My be you forgot my friend about those millions?No?
Now tell me please how many millions civils or POWs from America or Britain were killed by the Germans? Zero million.
So don't tall the stupid questions about germans who run to the British and US sector.
We are all know the why. Those countries HAD NEVER BE OCCUPED BY GERMANS and never feeled the germans henocide on the own skin.
They run away firstly becouse its fate was absolutly clear in the "Stalin's gloriously humanitarian Red Army" hands.

And most Eastern Europeans will strongly disagree with this notion...
you forgot to say that most East Europeans (except the Poland and Yougoslavia) supported the Hitler during his invasion to the Russia.

[Chevan]

Really? Then how were people killed in Rwanda? How was your citizenry murdered in WWII? By nuclear weapons? Poison gas? Or was it rifle-fire and explosives? Did they die a nicer death since they weren't killed by WMDs? Were the millions of Soviet casualties inflicted by the Germans an exaggeration for political purposes? The vast majority of deaths in WWII occurred from malnutrition, summary execution, and disease caused by the cruel actions of occupiers.

Yes you right the total victims of WW2 is about 45-50 millions. So you want to say this is the reason to use A-bomb which totally killed about ONLY 500 000 in Japane. About 100 00 of them simply were burned during the explosion.
Is it right Nickdfresh?

Well, Japan did continue to fight, even after the Soviets entered the War. And you can read Japanese home island defense war planning on the internet, and it's plainly clear that massive civilian casualties would have resulted.

Oh those stupid japanes idiots who will continie to die for the imperor. Yes we heared this version already.
The problem my friend was that Japanes in summer of 1945 were ready to begin the capitulation. They bring up only one condithions - saving the Monarhy Institute in Japane i.e. post of Imperor. They were agreed for the any war conditions.
That what wrote former american intelligent officer Zacharias E. M. in his memours :"Secret Missions. The Story of an Intelligence Officer"; New York, 1946

Japan was ready to capitulate. In order to gather harvest, to us it remained to only shake it as the apple tree, strewn by ripe apples.
Investigations carried out on the spot after the capitulation of Japan showed that the emperor was completely informed about the psychological campaign conducted by us and about that success, which it had. He understood, that we clearly visualize the situation in Japan and that precisely toward the end of June 1945 was created such situation, when it was necessary to conclude peace. With the examination of several high ranking Japanese, close to the emperor, one of them, the representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he stated: "the radio transmissions Of zakhariasa had clout, especially to the government circles... Important significance in these transfers had a question about the difference between the unconditional surrender and the dictated peace. The Japanese knew the position of Germany under similar conditions already, how Zacharias promised, that if Japan will take the conditions of unconditional surrender, then to it will be disseminated Atlantic charter.
People began to look at the possibility of this turning of the matter concerning the hope even he understood that this nothing of the kind, about which spoke the militarists. It seemed people that the unconditional surrender in the interpretation Of Zacharias presents the specific output for Japan ".
Tosio Siratori read the record of my radio transmissions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At first he related to them skeptically, then he believed in them. They transferred the record of each radio transmission to emperor. To Siratori it stated that these transfers had an effect both on the emperor himself and on his those approximated.
http://militera.lib.ru/memo/usa/zacharias_em/33.html

So Nickdfresh, if the Potsdam declaration of US-Britis-China had less agressive anti-japane demand , Japane could capitulate already in the jule of 1945.
But strange , why did the US-British politicans desided continie the war and ignored Japanes attempts to capitulate.


Well, you didn't read my link, because the Japanese could easily have continued since they grew most of their food on the islands, and did not have a great reliance on oil since they had limited mechanization and would have inflicted the majority of casualties in the opening phases of the invasion.

...you want to say possible invasion Nicdfresh?



Which was Gen. MacArthur's plan (to invade what is Taiwan, using it as a staging base to thrust into China after landing with armor), because China was ideal tank country against an Imperial Japanese Army that lacked any sort of modern anti-tank weapons and effective tanks. The British had similar experiences in Burma, as did the US troops engaging the Japanese anytime the fought battles of maneuver in open terrain.

The Soviet troops weren't conducting amphibious assaults, were they? The most complex and predictable operations in modern warfare, making the attacker extremely vulnerable and largely immobile for a time.

Right mate, therefore quickly surrending and crashing the 1.5 millions Kvantun Army in august of 1945 Red Army was extremaly danger for the US-Britain. And don't forget about powerful pro-communist movement in China and Sout-Eastern asia - the obvious reason quick defeat of Gomindan in China in 1945-46.
Now you know why the US and British politicans prefered the cruel demonstration of A-bomb through the execution of Japan.

And BTW, the people you quoted had little or nothing to do with the Pacific Theater or Operations, their opinions are largely invalidated, especially since they killed thousands of Germans via strat. bombing...
Who ordered the str. bombing in Europe? Eisenhower and Legi?
Are you sure?

[Egorka]

To Nickdfresh:

The USSR was never "obliged" to declare War on Japan. They indeed resisted doing so until Japan was clearly going to be defeated, and the Germans were nearly defeated.
If I repeat my statement you most likely will not beleive me. So he is the third party comment (check it up if you want) from the book Worldwar 1939 - 1945, printed by International affairs institute in Stockholm in 1947, volume 4, page 316 (my translation from Danish):
On the 8th of August Russia declared war on Japain in accordance with the agrement taken during Yalta conference in January 1945.
Russian troops gained quickly a fast advance in Manchuria.

The Soviet Nuclear program began in 1939, and was accelerated by 1943, two years before Potsdam. Are you going to blame the US for this as well?
As I said I did not think USSR had dedicated nuclear programm. I was not sure about it.
I just looked it up here (http://nuclear-weapons.nm.ru/russia/weapons/first-bombs/rds-1.htm), and it looks like on 28/09/1942, after a tip about American programm, an order was given to start works on uran aplications.
On 11/Feb/1943 special lab is organised.
But it all turned to top priority on 20/Aug/1945 after the Potsdam conference, where Truman tried to scare Stalin (24-july) saying him privately "US posesses now the weapon of enormous destructive power". Truman actually got mesage ("The Baby is born") that the weapon is working during the very first day of the conference.

And if the US didn't "give a fuck" about people, then why did we rebuild Europe via the Marshall plan, and indeed build one of the most stable, technologically advanced democracies in Japan? One that indeed took a big economic toll on the US in the 1970s & 80s?
Marshal paln is to build anti-Soviet block. It ia not a secret. By the way it was not done out of generocity. Lending someone money to buy your products and then getting the money back with interest. It is called business. The same happened in Kuwait after first Gulf war.

Regarding "giving f*ck for the people", I can just tell you that during and after the unjustly started by US war in Iraq already died several times more people than during whole 24 years of Saddam rule. Please get back to the ground from the sky!


I do not claim that US did extremely terrible crime. Holocaust was worse. But claming that it was just another ordinary episode is just not true. It was an exceptional even during WW2 and US is fully responsible for it. But it is up to you to deny it.


Best regrads
Igor korenev

[Chevan]

Marshal paln is to build anti-Soviet block. It ia not a secret. By the way it was not done out of generocity. Lending someone money to buy your products and then getting the money back with interest. It is called business.

Egorka did you hear the point that Marshal plan let the American corporation took under its control practically all Western Europ production. Shares of Western European firm get to the american hands.
US simply need to do something with enourmous quantity of dollars - resault of war economy.

[Firefly]

Lads, the Marshal Plan can be debated in another topic, it has nothing to do with Firebombings in Japan.

Cheers

[Chevan]

Lads, the Marshal Plan can be debated in another topic, it has nothing to do with Firebombings in Japan.

Cheers
OK, OK boss ;)
Certainly we need another thread.

Cheers.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Lads, the Marshal Plan can be debated in another topic, it has nothing to do with Firebombings in Japan.

Cheers

This one is about THE BOMB. Yes it made fire but all things to do with ww2 nuclear weapons and japan please post.

[Nickdfresh]

Yes you right the total victims of WW2 is about 45-50 millions. So you want to say this is the reason to use A-bomb which totally killed about ONLY 500 000 in Japane. About 100 00 of them simply were burned during the explosion.
Is it right Nickdfresh?

You must enjoy throwing complete exaggerations. It was more like 210,000 Japanese subjects died from radiation poisoning and the blasts, not 500,000.

For someone that cries that "Jews exaggerate the Holocaust," you sure seem to have little interest in the true number of deaths? :rolleyes:

Oh those stupid japanes idiots who will continie to die for the imperor.

Who said they were "stupid...idiots?" In fact their strategy was quite viable and clever --to inflict high percentages of casuaties on a technologically superior enemy forced to conduct amphibious landings, forcing a "negotiated peace" since the cost of invasion would be too high in blood. Far from stupid...

Please stop implying that I do not respect the Japanese honor and courage of their War dead. The Japanese soldier, when adequately armed and supplied, was second-to-none. It was their ruthless high command I despise...


Yes we heared this version already.
The problem my friend was that Japanes in summer of 1945 were ready to begin the capitulation. They bring up only one condithions - saving the Monarhy Institute in Japane i.e. post of Imperor. They were agreed for the any war conditions.

Oh really? What an intellectually-false collection of half truths. Here's a clue as to what was about to take place:


...

From: http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm

Prior to the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, elements existed within the Japanese government that were trying to find a way to end the war. In June and July 1945, Japan attempted to enlist the help of the Soviet Union to serve as an intermediary in negotiations. No direct communication occurred with the United States about peace talks, but American leaders knew of these maneuvers because the United States for a long time had been intercepting and decoding many internal Japanese diplomatic communications. From these intercepts, the United States learned that some within the Japanese government advocated outright surrender. A few diplomats overseas cabled home to urge just that.

From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.

Joseph Stalin, Harry Truman, and Winston Churchill at the Potsdam Conference, July 1945The one possible exception to this was the personal status of the emperor himself. Although the Allies had long been publicly demanding "unconditional surrender," in private there had been some discussion of exempting the emperor from war trials and allowing him to remain as ceremonial head of state. In the end, at Potsdam, the Allies (right) went with both a "carrot and a stick," trying to encourage those in Tokyo who advocated peace with assurances that Japan eventually would be allowed to form its own government, while combining these assurances with vague warnings of "prompt and utter destruction" if Japan did not surrender immediately. No explicit mention was made of the emperor possibly remaining as ceremonial head of state. Japan publicly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and on July 25, 1945,Mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, August 6, 1945 President Harry S. Truman gave the order to commence atomic attacks on Japan as soon as possible.

Following the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 (right), the Japanese government met to consider what to do next. The emperor had been urging since June that Japan find some way to end the war, but the Japanese Minister of War and the heads of both the Army and the Navy held to their position that Japan should wait and see if arbitration via the Soviet Union might still produce something less than a surrender. Military leaders also hoped that if they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of Emperor Hirohito negotiated settlement. Next came the virtually simultaneous arrival of news of the Soviet declaration of war on Japan of August 8, 1945, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki of the following day. Another Imperial Council was held the night of August 9-10, and this time the vote on surrender was a tie, 3-to-3. For the first time in a generation, the emperor (right) stepped forward from his normally ceremonial-only role and personally broke the tie, ordering Japan to surrender. On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state.

Planning for the use of additional nuclear weapons continued even as these deliberations were ongoing. On August 10, Leslie Groves reported to the War Department that the next bomb, another plutonium weapon, would be "ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August." Fat Man at Tinian Island, August 1945 Following the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, only two targets remained from the original list: Kokura Arsenal and the city of Niigata. Groves therefore requested that additional targets be added to the target list. His deputy, General Kenneth Nichols, suggested Tokyo. Truman, however, ordered an immediate halt to atomic attacks while surrender negotiations were ongoing. As the Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace recorded in his diary, Truman remarked that he did not like the idea of killing "all those kids."

B-29s on bombing run On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only. Debate raged within the Japanese government over whether to accept the American terms or fight on. Meanwhile, American leaders were growing impatient, and on August 13 conventional air raids resumed on Japan. Thousands more Japanese civilians died while their leaders delayed. The Japanese people learned of the surrender negotiations for the first time when, on August 14, B-29s showered Tokyo with thousands of leaflets containing translated copies of the American reply of August 12. Later that day, the emperor called another meeting of his cabinet and instructed them to accept the Allied terms immediately, explaining "I cannot endure the thought of letting my people suffer any longer"; if the war did not end "the whole nation would be reduced to ashes." Aircraft fly in formation over the U.S.S. Missouri during the Japanese surrender ceremony, Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945.

The only question remaining now was if Japan's military leaders would allow the emperor to surrender. Loyalty to the emperor was an absolute in the Japanese military, but so was the refusal to surrender, and now that the two had come into conflict, open rebellion was a possible result. The emperor recorded a message in which he personally accepted the Allied surrender terms, to be broadcast over Japanese radio the following day. This way everyone in Japan would know that surrender was the emperor's personal will. Some within the Japanese military actually attempted to steal this recording before it could be broadcast. General Douglas MacArthur signs the Japanese surrender document, U.S.S. Missouri, Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945. broadcast, while others attempted a more general military coup in order to seize power and continue the war. Other elements of the Japanese military remained loyal to the emperor. The Minister of War, General Anami Korechika, personally supported continuing the war, but he also could not bring himself to openly rebel against his emperor. The strength of his dilemma was such that he opted for suicide as the only honorable way out. In the end, his refusal to assist the coup plotters was instrumental in their defeat by elements within the military that remained loyal to the emperor.

...

Cont'd

[Nickdfresh]

So in summary, the Japanese pre-atomic attacks musings on "surrender" were actually little more than negotiations in which surrender was out of the question.

And...

If the Emperor had surrendered without the bombs being dropped, his Army may well have had a successful coup.

Not quite as easy as you would like to make it, is it?

That what wrote former american intelligent officer Zacharias E. M. in his memours :"Secret Missions. The Story of an Intelligence Officer"; New York, 1946

He was a US Navy officer, and these were his own speculations based on limited information. That's his opinion, not necessarily the "truth."

So Nickdfresh, if the Potsdam declaration of US-Britis-China had less agressive anti-japane demand , Japane could capitulate already in the jule of 1945.
But strange , why did the US-British politicans desided continie the war and ignored Japanes attempts to capitulate.

...you want to say possible invasion Nicdfresh?

"Capitulation?" See above. They never ignored the possibilities, they merely never believed the sincerity...



Right mate, therefore quickly surrending and crashing the 1.5 millions Kvantun Army in august of 1945 Red Army was extremaly danger for the US-Britain. And don't forget about powerful pro-communist movement in China and Sout-Eastern asia - the obvious reason quick defeat of Gomindan in China in 1945-46.

Why were they a danger for the US/UK?

They were an ally, correct?

BTW, why did the Soviets cynically attack Japan to steal territory and get the bloody spoils of War only in 1945 in an area where they had absolute strategic and tactical advantages, even though they knew Japan supposedly wanted to "capitulate?"

Could it be that the Red Army is a cruel, inhuman force that existed only for the nationalist benefit for the Soviet Union, and really had little interest in "liberating" anyone?

Now you know why the US and British politicans prefered the cruel demonstration of A-bomb through the execution of Japan.

As opposed to Stalin's cruel power grab in Eastern Europe? And the primary "demonstration" was to the Japanese gov't/military (one in the same really), not to crabby Russians...

Who ordered the str. bombing in Europe? Eisenhower and Legi?
Are you sure?

That's not the point. Why didn't they speak out against the "bombings" that killed far more people than the A-bombs ever did?

[Nickdfresh]

Lads, the Marshal Plan can be debated in another topic, it has nothing to do with Firebombings in Japan.

Cheers

Neither does half of the other crap in this thread...

But point taken.

[Nickdfresh]

To Nickdfresh:


If I repeat my statement you most likely will not beleive me. So he is the third party comment (check it up if you want) from the book Worldwar 1939 - 1945, printed by International affairs institute in Stockholm in 1947, volume 4, page 316 (my translation from Danish):
On the 8th of August Russia declared war on Japain in accordance with the agrement taken during Yalta conference in January 1945.
Russian troops gained quickly a fast advance in Manchuria.

I don't disbelieve you, I just wonder why they waited eight months?


As I said I did not think USSR had dedicated nuclear programm. I was not sure about it.
I just looked it up here (http://nuclear-weapons.nm.ru/russia/weapons/first-bombs/rds-1.htm), and it looks like on 28/09/1942, after a tip about American programm, an order was given to start works on uran aplications.
On 11/Feb/1943 special lab is organised.
But it all turned to top priority on 20/Aug/1945 after the Potsdam conference, where Truman tried to scare Stalin (24-july) saying him privately "US posesses now the weapon of enormous destructive power". Truman actually got mesage ("The Baby is born") that the weapon is working during the very first day of the conference.

Semantics and perception. But the fact is that the Soviet Union WAS conducting "serious" nuclear weapons research, but so was everybody else. (Which is my point)


Marshal paln is to build anti-Soviet block. It ia not a secret. By the way it was not done out of generocity. Lending someone money to buy your products and then getting the money back with interest. It is called business. The same happened in Kuwait after first Gulf war.

No. It was to rebuild Europe and prevent another rise of fascism like the Versaille Treaty had done. It was also to build markets for US goods. Most of the money was not "lent," it was mostly GIVEN. I don't deny a selfish US interest, there WAS ONE! It was to build populations where we could sell our goods, but at least it was a farsighted one that benefited everybody...

Regarding "giving f*ck for the people", I can just tell you that during and after the unjustly started by US war in Iraq already died several times more people than during whole 24 years of Saddam rule. Please get back to the ground from the sky!

Actually, that "fact" isn't true, and it has nothing to do with this conversation. So I won't discuss this here...


I do not claim that US did extremely terrible crime. Holocaust was worse. But claming that it was just another ordinary episode is just not true. It was an exceptional even during WW2 and US is fully responsible for it. But it is up to you to deny it.

Okay, on this point we agree. I won't argue that a the nuclear decimation to two cities was "normal." And I've never denied anything. I only ask that it be looked at in proper historical context.

The Holocaust, or the systematic murder or Soviet citizens, perpretrated by the Nazis were acts carried out by a sovereign power(s) in territories that they controlled and were telling policies that they sought to institute once they had "won" the War, which thank god they did not! That atomic bombings, and I agree the targeting was terrible and should have been military, were combat missions designed to end the War. The Japanese were treated quite well by the US after the War, so calling it a "genocide" is hyperbole.

Best regrads
Igor korenev

You too!

[Chevan]

You must enjoy throwing complete exaggerations. It was more like 210,000 Japanese subjects died from radiation poisoning and the blasts, not 500,000.

Really? Only 210 000 dead was till 1950 but the total quantity of death since 1945 till today is about 500 000. Read the sources more attentive.

For someone that cries that "Jews exaggerate the Holocaust," you sure seem to have little interest in the true number of deaths? :rolleyes:

someone that cries?
You are ........er. I never cries about Holocaust. I just have to considered the 6 million figures of Holoucaust as full shit. The jewish propogandic organisation and someone "catholic" actualy cry and ..... cover the zionist extremism.

Who said they were "stupid...idiots?" In fact their strategy was quite viable and clever --to inflict high percentages of casuaties on a technologically superior enemy forced to conduct amphibious landings, forcing a "negotiated peace" since the cost of invasion would be too high in blood. Far from stupid...

Oh yeah....
so why those 'far from stupid" must died themself,must wait while US burned and killed all their wafes and children becouse ...... they must continie to fight for Imperor.
You even don't see the racism in your point Nickdfresh.

Please stop implying that I do not respect the Japanese honor and courage of their War dead. The Japanese soldier, when adequately armed and supplied, was second-to-none. It was their ruthless high command I despise...

You are not respect them - you simply imagine them as stupid.You has the racist point according of which the all Japanese - are a stupid or low-human which had raruthless high command . This is direct resault of your point - We need to kill 200 000 to save the millions of japance.

And BTW, the people you quoted had little or nothing to do with the Pacific Theater or Operations, their opinions are largely invalidated, especially since they killed thousands of Germans via strat. bombing...


Now look to here clever boy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

....One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include
-General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater)
-Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President)
-General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific)
-Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials)
-Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations
-Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,
-Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
.............................................
Many, including General MacArthur, have contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition....

So Nickdresh as can we both see the most of higher US war command were a more honest and humane people. They saw the detailed picture in the Pasific , They knew the situation. In contrast to the americans politicians they didn't see the military necessary to execute the Japanese civilians by the worst barbarian way.
Ist it not strange for you that people who has the direct professional duty to kill the enemy peoples were more human and moral that american polical leaders??


Oh really? What an intellectually-false collection of half truths.
Oh yeah , certainly this is half-truth. For the whole truth we need to learn the Japane own oppinion.
BTW do you hear oppinion of Japanes? I'm sure not.

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945
-----------------------------------------------
Iccho Ito, the mayor of Nagasaki, declared:

"It is said that the descendants of the atomic bomb survivors will have to be monitored for several generations to clarify the genetic impact, which means that the descendants will live in anxiety for [decades] to come. [...] with their colossal power and capacity for slaughter and destruction, nuclear weapons make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants or between military installations and civilian communities ...... The use of nuclear weapons therefore is a manifest infraction of international law
----------------------------------------------
Hiraoka, mayor of Hiroshima, upholding nuclear disarmament, said in a hearing to The Hague International Court of Justice (ICJ):

"It is clear that the use of nuclear weapons, which cause indiscriminate mass murder that leaves [?effects on] survivors for decades, is a violation of international law"


now let me the finish with words of Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC :

”He knew (Harry Trumen) he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species. It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity."

[Chevan]

So in summary, the Japanese pre-atomic attacks musings on "surrender" were actually little more than negotiations in which surrender was out of the question.

And...

If the Emperor had surrendered without the bombs being dropped, his Army may well have had a successful coup.
Not quite as easy as you would like to make it, is it?

You are don't know the the matter of japance demands in 1945. Thay wished only single - saving the Imperor institute. Other military or political demands were excluded.

He was a US Navy officer, and these were his own speculations based on limited information. That's his opinion, not necessarily the "truth."

Well Nickdfresh certainly US hight command had a limited oppinion.But they detailed knew the war situation in 1945 in the Pacific. Called it's professional oppinion as "not necessarily the "truth" you blame them as "liers".
Will somebody believe you?

Why were they a danger for the US/UK?

They were an ally, correct?

Were they ally?
Tell me please if they were ally why UK/US prepeared the operation "Untinkable" - direct war agression of the Red Army in Europe in 1 jule 1945( while Red Army according the Potsdam agreements regrouped the troops to the East against Japane)?

BTW, why did the Soviets cynically attack Japan to steal territory and get the bloody spoils of War only in 1945 in an area where they had absolute strategic and tactical advantages, even though they knew Japan supposedly wanted to "capitulate?"

You forgot ( or absolutly don't know) it was not Japane - it was MANCGURIA ( territory of Mongolia and Nothern China) . And Chinese were very thankfull for the Red Army. ( Yeah comminism brother help to fuck the Gomindan). NOBODY didn't steal territory.
Study the history please
And about "only in 1945" - it's seem you forgot thet 90% of Red Army was in the Europe SINCE 1941. May be you don't knew it was the battle for survival with Germans?
MAy be you don't knew the victims for the victory of Red Army was enourmous?
I though don't need to be the genius to understand that WAR WITH JAPANE WAS UNPOSSIBLE WHILE RED ARMY WAS IN WESTERN EUROPE?

posed to Stalin's cruel power grab in Eastern Europe? And the primary "demonstration" was to the Japanese gov't/military (one in the same really), not to crabby Russians...

This "demonstration" showed the "democratic" humanism for all the world indeed, not just crabby Russian. And now when (ecpesially after Iraq slaugther ) all the world see the who is the real empire of evil .:D

That's not the point. Why didn't they speak out against the "bombings" that killed far more people than the A-bombs ever did?

I don't know, maybe they suddenly recalled about conscience and the human compassion ;)
Anyway the american politic forgot about those christians principles forever.

Cheers.

[Nickdfresh]

Really? Only 210 000 dead was till 1950 but the total quantity of death since 1945 till today is about 500 000. Read the sources more attentive.

Care to post any? Even your admitted biased Wiki link never made that claim.

someone that cries?
You are ........er. I never cries about Holocaust. I just have to considered the 6 million figures of Holoucaust as full shit. The jewish propogandic organisation and someone "catholic" actualy cry and ..... cover the zionist extremism.


You are not respect them - you simply imagine them as stupid.You has the racist point according of which the all Japanese - are a stupid or low-human which had raruthless high command . This is direct resault of your point - We need to kill 200 000 to save the millions of japance.

What a fascinating paradox. Any more Nazi-esque propaganda to post?

BTW, one of my best friends in the Army was half-Japanese, so that's just rich, fool...

Any actual quotes linking me to 'hatred' of the Japanese?

Oh yeah....
so why those 'far from stupid" must died themself,must wait while US burned and killed all their wafes and children becouse ...... they must continie to fight for Imperor.
You even don't see the racism in your point Nickdfresh.

Oh God, you are quite emotional Chevy.



Now look to here clever boy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

....One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include
-General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater)
-Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President)
-General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific)
-Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials)
-Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations
-Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,
-Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
.............................................
Many, including General MacArthur, have contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition....


Well, "clever boy," maybe you should check the veracity of a biased Wiki article:

From your link:

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.[/url]

So Nickdresh as can we both see the most of higher US war command were a more honest and humane people. They saw the detailed picture in the Pasific , They knew the situation. In contrast to the americans politicians they didn't see the military necessary to execute the Japanese civilians by the worst barbarian way.
Ist it not strange for you that people who has the direct professional duty to kill the enemy peoples were more human and moral that american polical leaders??

Or somebody, anybody, posted their opinion as fact, one that actual historians reject.

BTW, perhaps you can produce the telegram showing the Japanese were "suing for peace" via the USSR as proxy in mid-1945, and then tell me why the USSR decided to invade Manchuria, knowing the Japanese supposedly wanted to surrender. Wouldn't that make them just as guilty as the Americans, as culpable in the bombings as they prolonged the War then?


Oh yeah , certainly this is half-truth. For the whole truth we need to learn the Japane own oppinion.
BTW do you hear oppinion of Japanes? I'm sure not.

The funny thing is the Japanese have an insatiable, almost obsessive fixation on the US and for American culture in general. So, while most detest the bombing, I think there tends to be more sorrow than hatred.

We'll leave the hatred of all things Western, and the Jews, to you.:)


now let me the finish with words of Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC :

”He knew (Harry Trumen) he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species. It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity."

And that is his opinion, good for him! it's one I find it flawed and completely dishonest...

I prefer Ozzy Osborne's:

Like moths to a flame
Is man never gonna change
Time's seen untold aggression
And infliction of pain
If that's the only thing that's stopping war

Then thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

War is just another game
Tailor made for the insane
But make a threat of their annihilation
And nobody wants to play
If that's the only thing that keeps the peace

Then thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

Today was tomorrow yesterday
It's funny how the time can slip away
The face of the doomsday clock
Has launched a thousand wars
As we near the final hour
Time is the only foe we have

When war is obsolete
I'll thank god for the war's defeat
But any talk about hell freezing over
Is all said with tongue in cheek
Until the day the war drums beat no more

Then thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya:)

[Nickdfresh]

You are don't know the the matter of japance demands in 1945. Thay wished only single - saving the Imperor institute. Other military or political demands were excluded.

Well Nickdfresh certainly US hight command had a limited oppinion.But they detailed knew the war situation in 1945 in the Pacific. Called it's professional oppinion as "not necessarily the "truth" you blame them as "liers".
Will somebody believe you?

What exactly is this based on? Which historians? Some intercepted communications filled with contradictions?

Were they ally?
Tell me please if they were ally why UK/US prepeared the operation "Untinkable" - direct war agression of the Red Army in Europe in 1 jule 1945( while Red Army according the Potsdam agreements regrouped the troops to the East against Japane)?

They "prepared" a speculative document? Boy, I bet the Soviets never thought about continuing to roll their tanks after Berlin fell. I bet there were no hypothetical Warplans kept by the Red Army either..:rolleyes:

Were not the Red Army's central warplans all offensive in nature until the end of the Cold War?

You forgot ( or absolutly don't know) it was not Japane - it was MANCGURIA ( territory of Mongolia and Nothern China) . And Chinese were very thankfull for the Red Army. ( Yeah comminism brother help to fuck the Gomindan). NOBODY didn't steal territory.
Study the history please
And about "only in 1945" - it's seem you forgot thet 90% of Red Army was in the Europe SINCE 1941. May be you don't knew it was the battle for survival with Germans?
MAy be you don't knew the victims for the victory of Red Army was enourmous?
I though don't need to be the genius to understand that WAR WITH JAPANE WAS UNPOSSIBLE WHILE RED ARMY WAS IN WESTERN EUROPE?

I never said Manchuria was Japan, that's not the point. But they received a telegram from Japan saying they wanted to "sue for peace," didn't they? So why bother attacking at all at that point?

This "demonstration" showed the "democratic" humanism for all the world indeed, not just crabby Russian. And now when (ecpesially after Iraq slaugther ) all the world see the who is the real empire of evil .:D

What's the difference between Iraq and Chechnya, other than the scale? In fact, I would be the least bit surprised if a higher percentage of Chechens have died in the last ten years than the last three years deaths of Iraqis in our idiotic war there...

And I think the majority of people killed in Iraq were actually killed by other Iraqis --it's the insecurity and the breakdown of social order by the US invasion that allowed this to happen. But historically, your gov't has killed more people than my gov't. And my father can beat up your father too.:)


I don't know, maybe they suddenly recalled about conscience and the human compassion ;)
Anyway the american politic forgot about those christians principles forever.

Cheers.

Unless they're "hook-nosed," "Elder of Zion" Jews, right anti-Semite?

[Chevan]

Care to post any? Even your admitted biased Wiki link never made that claim.

well may be this source will make clear your mind:
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm

...No one will ever know for certain how many died as a result of the attack on Hiroshima. Some 70,000 people probably died as a result of initial blast, heat, and radiation effects. This included about twenty American airmen being held as prisoners in the city. By the end of 1945, because of the lingering effects of radioactive fallout and other after effects, the Hiroshima death toll was probably over 100,000. The five-year death total may have reached or even exceeded 200,000, as cancer and other long-term effects took hold...
...
...As with the estimates of deaths at Hiroshima, it will never be known for certain how many people died as a result of the atomic attack on Nagasaki. The best estimate is 40,000 people died initially, with 60,000 more injured. By January 1946, the number of deaths probably approached 70,000, with perhaps ultimately twice( i.e. 140 000) that number dead total within five years. For those areas of Nagasaki affected by the explosion, the death rate was comparable to that at Hiroshima

Thus only after the period 1945-1950 died about 200 000 + 140 000= 340 000 peoples in Japane. But peoples continied to die TILL TODAY. Therefore the figure of 500 000 lives which was called in EuroNews cannal report from Hirosima is more that probable.

What a fascinating paradox. Any more Nazi-esque propaganda to post?

BTW, one of my best friends in the Army was half-Japanese, so that's just rich, fool...

Any actual quotes linking me to 'hatred' of the Japanese?

as soon as you'll call them to be ready to death for imperor ;)


Oh God, you are quite emotional Chevy.

Don't worry Nicky please for my emothions. I 'm calm enought, but your tend to use the personal insultings based on national origin ( like " crabby Russians") is bothers me. I just can't remember when i told something worst about personaly americans.

Well, "clever boy," maybe you should check the veracity of a biased Wiki article:

And that's all what you say?
WIKI is already BIASED, surprise for me.
Did you read the whole Wiki-article. I think not becouse you must to see the different points: FOR and AGAINST of using A-bomb.
So do you want to say that US- gov version is also biased?Why?
And why did you not check the origin of your sources about famine in Ukraine?
You are strange and non-sequential person .
It seems for me you just have nothing to say for protection of you poit -therefore you simply deny the objective different international sources.

Or somebody, anybody, posted their opinion as fact, one that actual historians reject.

BTW, perhaps you can produce the telegram showing the Japanese were "suing for peace" via the USSR as proxy in mid-1945, and then tell me why the USSR decided to invade Manchuria, knowing the Japanese supposedly wanted to surrender. Wouldn't that make them just as guilty as the Americans, as culpable in the bombings as they prolonged the War then?

i'll show it to you as soon as possible. Don't worry.

The funny thing is the Japanese have an insatiable, almost obsessive fixation on the US and for American culture in general. So, while most detest the bombing, I think there tends to be more sorrow than hatred.

We'll leave the hatred of all things Western, and the Jews, to you.:)

You absolutly missunderstood me. I'm too like the US culture and american at all.But i don't think it's the reason to forgot about crimes of american politics. The historical true is more importain than current political profit.
And don't begin EastVsWest hysteria please again.It's not my point.

I prefer Ozzy Osborne's:

:)
I don't listen Ozzy.i've never liked his style. And now he is a fu.. of a-bomber stupid.

But it's not the point to dislike personaly you...:)

[Chevan]

What exactly is this based on? Which historians?
Well if you too lazy to watch the sources links in Wiki i repit it for you no problems.
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

HIROSHIMA
WHO DISAGREED WITH THE ATOMIC BOMBING?


From what we read in the general media, it seems like almost everyone felt the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary. Aren't the people who disagree with those actions just trying to find fault with America?
Positions listed refer to WWII positions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DWIGHT EISENHOWER

Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
-----------------------------------------------------
ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.