OT: Hiroshima 75 Years Ago

[mdk02]

Did you know the British were almost the ones to drop the bomb?



Project Silverplate

And as they were based and trained in the UK in '43, and segregated like Tibbets' command on the US, it's one more indication that it could have been used against Germany if the timelines were different.

 

[Salvi's Headband]

I believe that dropping of the atomic bombs was a crime against humanity. I understand there are counter arguments.

BUT I also don't necessarily believe you can chalk it up to racism. Look at the firebombing of Dresden to see that we were just as capable of committing heinous atrocities against white Europeans.

 

[Salvi's Headband]

I'm glad you admit racism existed in the 1940s. No white country would have been nuked. No white people would have been rounded up.

I don't know about this...our conventional bombing campaign against Germany was in some ways so atrocious and inhumane that even Churchill, the ultimate Nazi hater, decried it. We probably would have nuked Germany if we could have.

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

I believe that dropping of the atomic bombs was a crime against humanity. I understand there are counter arguments.

BUT I also don't necessarily believe you can chalk it up to racism. Look at the firebombing of Dresden to see that we were just as capable of committing heinous atrocities against white Europeans.

yeah, i understand your argument, weak as it is......

Dropping 2 atomic bombs, which cost around 200k lives - saved over 25,000,000 (yes, that is 25 million)........ (and that was the Japanese estimate for loss of life on an American invasion of Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku and a Japanese victory) ... the American estimates were higher.......

The Japanese Army coup the night before the announcement of surrender by the Emperor came within a hairsbreadth of succeeding - an incorrect hallway and a jammed pistol - or the coup leaders would have captured the recordings and been able to take control - and the war would not have ended....

Even if the US unilaterally "ended the war" on Sept 25th 1945 (which is an absurd notion) --- the war would not have ended... Japan had no interest or intention of stopping - and certainly not returning any territory currently under their control...

Russia would have continued their invasion of China and taken Hokkaido - tens of millions would have died or been sent to forced labor.

so, spare me........ crimes against humanity nonsense...

My uncle was literally on a troop ship on his way to Okinawa for re-supply and then off to Operation Downfall when news of the A-bomb came on the radio. He fully expected to die before the end of 1945.... I will never agree that what happened was a "crime"...

Dropping the A-Bombs were the greatest life-saving acts in the history of mankind and the cold-hard calculus of war...

 

[e5fdny]

yeah, i understand your argument, weak as it is......

Dropping 2 atomic bomb, which cost around 200k lives - saved over 25,000,000 (yes, that is 25 million)........ (and that was the Japanese estimate for loss of life on an American invasion of Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku and a Japanese victory) ... the American estimates were higher.......

The Japanese Army coup the night before the announcement of surrender by the Emperor came within a hairsbreadth of succeeding - an incorrect hallway and a jammed pistol - or the coup leaders would have captured the recordings and been able to take control - and the war would not have ended....

Even if the US unilaterally "ended the war" on Sept 25th 1945 (which is an absurd notion) --- the war would not have ended... Japan had no interest or intention of stopping - and certainly not returning any territory currently under their control...

Russia would have continued their invasion of China and taken Hokkaido - tens of millions would have died or been sent to forced labor.

so, spare me........ crimes against humanity nonsense...

My uncle was literally on a troop ship on his way to Okinawa for re-supply and then off to Operation Downfall. He fully expected to die before the end of 1945.... I will never agree that what happened was a "crime"...

The “crime” was the start, the “justice” was the finish of what we are talking about.

“Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight” especially when the sleeping giant has one on his nightstand and the alarm clock just went off.

 

[ashokan]

Victor Davis Hanson:

Our Annual August Debate over the Bombs

Truman could have allowed Japan’s wounded military government to stop the killing and stay in power. But the Japanese had already killed more than 10 million Chinese civilians since 1931, and perhaps another 4 million to 5 million Pacific Islanders, Southeast Asians, and members of the Allied Forces since 1940...A mere armistice likely would have regrouped in a few years to try it again on more favorable terms....

Truman could have postponed the use of the new bombs and invaded Japan over the ensuing year. The planned assault was scheduled to begin on the island of Kyushu in November 1945, and in early 1946 would have expanded to the main island of Honshu. Yet Japan had millions of soldiers at home with fortifications, planes, and artillery, waiting for the assault.

The fighting in Japan would have made the prior three-month bloodbath at Okinawa, which formally ended just six weeks before Hiroshima, seem like child’s play. The disaster at Okinawa cost the U.S. 50,000 casualties and 32 ships — the worst battle losses the American Navy suffered in the war. More than 250,000 Okinawans and Japanese soldiers were killed as well...Just the street fighting to recapture Manilla in the Philippines in early 1945 cost a quarter-million Filipino, Allied, and Japanese lives...

The napalming of Tokyo had already taken some 100,000 lives. With huge new Allied bomber fleets of 5,000 or more planes based on nearby Okinawa, the Japanese death toll would have soared to near a million...

To Americans and most of the world 75 years ago, each day in early August 1945 that the Japanese war machine continued its work meant that thousands of Asian civilians and Allied soldiers would die."


https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/our-annual-august-debate-over-the-bombs/

Using the bomb was an easy call

 

[patk89]

Victor Davis Hanson:

Our Annual August Debate over the Bombs

Truman could have allowed Japan’s wounded military government to stop the killing and stay in power. But the Japanese had already killed more than 10 million Chinese civilians since 1931, and perhaps another 4 million to 5 million Pacific Islanders, Southeast Asians, and members of the Allied Forces since 1940...A mere armistice likely would have regrouped in a few years to try it again on more favorable terms....

Truman could have postponed the use of the new bombs and invaded Japan over the ensuing year. The planned assault was scheduled to begin on the island of Kyushu in November 1945, and in early 1946 would have expanded to the main island of Honshu. Yet Japan had millions of soldiers at home with fortifications, planes, and artillery, waiting for the assault.

The fighting in Japan would have made the prior three-month bloodbath at Okinawa, which formally ended just six weeks before Hiroshima, seem like child’s play. The disaster at Okinawa cost the U.S. 50,000 casualties and 32 ships — the worst battle losses the American Navy suffered in the war. More than 250,000 Okinawans and Japanese soldiers were killed as well...Just the street fighting to recapture Manilla in the Philippines in early 1945 cost a quarter-million Filipino, Allied, and Japanese lives...

The napalming of Tokyo had already taken some 100,000 lives. With huge new Allied bomber fleets of 5,000 or more planes based on nearby Okinawa, the Japanese death toll would have soared to near a million...

To Americans and most of the world 75 years ago, each day in early August 1945 that the Japanese war machine continued its work meant that thousands of Asian civilians and Allied soldiers would die."


https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/our-annual-august-debate-over-the-bombs/

Using the bomb was an easy call

But it was the Russians who saved us all...

 

[ashokan]

Sovier Union was epic in its defense of Nazi invasion. But it was the Soviet Union's earlier pact with Hitler that kicked-off Nazi invasions. Karma.


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/victor-davis-hanson-world-war-ii

 

[BigWill]

Hitler made 2 early incorrect decisions.

1. He stopped his panzers too soon to capture the 300,000+ allied army at Dunkirk.
2. He listened to Goering about waiting to invade Britain, until the Luftwaffe controlled the sky.

If he had allowed the panzers to continue they would have trapped the entire British and part French army on the beaches of Dunkirk.
That would have allowed him to basically walk into Britain unopposed.
Even allowing for error # 1, with the 300,000 men getting off the beaches back to Britain, there was literally no armor, artillery or other arms/transport to repulse the German invasion.

 

[Ronnie_B]

Hitler made 2 early incorrect decisions.

1. He stopped his panzers too soon to capture the 300,000+ allied army at Dunkirk.
2. He listened to Goering about waiting to invade Britain, until the Luftwaffe controlled the sky.

If he had allowed the panzers to continue they would have trapped the entire British and part French army on the beaches of Dunkirk.
That would have allowed him to basically walk into Britain unopposed.
Even allowing for error # 1, with the 300,000 men getting off the beaches back to Britain, there was literally no armor, artillery or other arms/transport to repulse the German invasion.

Another big Hitler mistake was after the RAF bombed Berlin,Hitler responded with bombing London, before that the Luftwaffe was bombing strategic points in England, but the London bombings were just a waste of resources and manpower that hurt his plans to invading England.

 

[Doctor Worm]

Sovier Union was epic in its defense of Nazi invasion. But it was the Soviet Union's earlier pact with Hitler that kicked-off Nazi invasions. Kkarma.


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/victor-davis-hanson-world-war-ii

That is only part of the story.

Prior to the German/Soviet agreement of 1939, the USSR was eager to formalize a treaty with the UK and France. France was on board, but the UK (which was still in appeasement mode) was concerned that such a treaty might inflame Germany. Plus they questioned the military value of the USSR, given that Stalin had purged his generals. So the UK pretty much slow-played them. USSR got tired of waiting and found a different dance partner.

Obviously none of us know how events would have unfolded had the tripartite alliance been formed. Stalin, like Hitler, viewed alliances as fluid, to say the least. Stalin was probably being duplicitous in conducting clandestine negotiations with Hitler while in formal negotiations with the Allies. Or maybe he was just covering his bases.

Can't change history, but interesting to speculate. And learn from it.

 

[DJ Spanky]

Prior to the German/Soviet agreement of 1939, the USSR was eager to formalize a treaty with the UK and France. France was on board, but the UK (which was still in appeasement mode) was concerned that such a treaty might inflame Germany. Plus they questioned the military value of the USSR, given that Stalin had purged his generals. So the UK pretty much slow-played them. USSR got tired of waiting and found a different dance partner.

Was this Chamberlain or Churchill?

 

[mdk02]

Was this Chamberlain or Churchill?

Chamberlain. Churchill became PM in May or June 1940.

 

[Doctor Worm]

Was this Chamberlain or Churchill?

Chamberlain.

 

[DJ Spanky]

Chamberlain. Churchill became PM in May or June 1940.

Chamberlain.

I thought so, but was too busy to look up the timeline.

 

[BigWill]

Chamberlain was forced to declare war on Germany in 1939.

Winston took over when Chamberlain's govt failed with a vote of no confidence.

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

But it was the Russians who saved us all...

yes, there is certainly a strong argument that the Japanese feared complete annihilation under Stalin much more than rule under America

 

[Salvi's Headband]

yeah, i understand your argument, weak as it is......

Dropping 2 atomic bomb, which cost around 200k lives - saved over 25,000,000 (yes, that is 25 million)........ (and that was the Japanese estimate for loss of life on an American invasion of Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku and a Japanese victory) ... the American estimates were higher.......

The Japanese Army coup the night before the announcement of surrender by the Emperor came within a hairsbreadth of succeeding - an incorrect hallway and a jammed pistol - or the coup leaders would have captured the recordings and been able to take control - and the war would not have ended....

Even if the US unilaterally "ended the war" on Sept 25th 1945 (which is an absurd notion) --- the war would not have ended... Japan had no interest or intention of stopping - and certainly not returning any territory currently under their control...

Russia would have continued their invasion of China and taken Hokkaido - tens of millions would have died or been sent to forced labor.

so, spare me........ crimes against humanity nonsense...

My uncle was literally on a troop ship on his way to Okinawa for re-supply and then off to Operation Downfall when news of the A-bomb came on the radio. He fully expected to die before the end of 1945.... I will never agree that what happened was a "crime"...

Dropping the A-Bombs were the greatest life-saving acts in the history of mankind and the cold-hard calculus of war...

Your argument requires total and complete speculation about who would have died and how long the war would have lasted. That makes it a weak argument. For all you know, the Japanese would have surrendered when the Soviets entered the eastern war. Plenty of historians, in fact, believe this is the main reason they surrendered. Anyway, my point was not to get into another debate about the dropping of the atomic bomb, but "weak" only applies to the argument that relies on things that are completely made up (X NUMBER OF PEOPLES DEFINITELY TOTALLY ABSOLUTELY WOULD HAVE DIED IF WE DIDN'T DO THIS!)

My grandfather was also in the eastern theater. It is certainly possible that without the dropping of the bombs, neither you or I would exist. That's not an argument in favor of the morality of a nuclear strike on civilians.

 

[Salvi's Headband]

Victor Davis Hanson:

Our Annual August Debate over the Bombs

Truman could have allowed Japan’s wounded military government to stop the killing and stay in power. But the Japanese had already killed more than 10 million Chinese civilians since 1931, and perhaps another 4 million to 5 million Pacific Islanders, Southeast Asians, and members of the Allied Forces since 1940...A mere armistice likely would have regrouped in a few years to try it again on more favorable terms....

Truman could have postponed the use of the new bombs and invaded Japan over the ensuing year. The planned assault was scheduled to begin on the island of Kyushu in November 1945, and in early 1946 would have expanded to the main island of Honshu. Yet Japan had millions of soldiers at home with fortifications, planes, and artillery, waiting for the assault.

The fighting in Japan would have made the prior three-month bloodbath at Okinawa, which formally ended just six weeks before Hiroshima, seem like child’s play. The disaster at Okinawa cost the U.S. 50,000 casualties and 32 ships — the worst battle losses the American Navy suffered in the war. More than 250,000 Okinawans and Japanese soldiers were killed as well...Just the street fighting to recapture Manilla in the Philippines in early 1945 cost a quarter-million Filipino, Allied, and Japanese lives...

The napalming of Tokyo had already taken some 100,000 lives. With huge new Allied bomber fleets of 5,000 or more planes based on nearby Okinawa, the Japanese death toll would have soared to near a million...

To Americans and most of the world 75 years ago, each day in early August 1945 that the Japanese war machine continued its work meant that thousands of Asian civilians and Allied soldiers would die."


https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/our-annual-august-debate-over-the-bombs/

Using the bomb was an easy call

Not a single real historian takes VDH seriously. He's a doddering crank.

 

[ashokan]

Not a single real historian takes VDH seriously. He's a doddering crank.

You're a dope. But we knew that. Go easy on the knuckles

 

[Salvi's Headband]

The firebombing of Dresden was also a crime against humanity, FWIW.

 

[Salvi's Headband]

You're a dope. But we knew that. Go easy on the knuckles

You don't know the first thing about it. I was a classics minor at Rutgers and VDH was a consistent target of mockery by the faculty there. Prof. Figueira called him "an *** and a poseur." Cory Brennan made fun of him in our Ancient Rome class once for a solid half an hour.

He is a reactionary boob, who long pissed away all his credibility.

He's a perfect historian for doddering Trumpkins with atrophied brains like you.

 

[mdk02]

Your argument requires total and complete speculation about who would have died and how long the war would have lasted. That makes it a weak argument. For all you know, the Japanese would have surrendered when the Soviets entered the eastern war. Plenty of historians, in fact, believe this is the main reason they surrendered. Anyway, my point was not to get into another debate about the dropping of the atomic bomb, but "weak" only applies to the argument that relies on things that are completely made up (X NUMBER OF PEOPLES DEFINITELY TOTALLY ABSOLUTELY WOULD HAVE DIED IF WE DIDN'T DO THIS!)

My grandfather was also in the eastern theater. It is certainly possible that without the dropping of the bombs, neither you or I would exist. That's not an argument in favor of the morality of a nuclear strike on civilians.

The experiences of Manila, Iwo Jima and Okinawa totally contradict your "total and complete speculation" statement.

 

[Salvi's Headband]

The experiences of Manila, Iwo Jima and Okinawa totally contradict your "total and complete speculation" statement.

Uh, no they don't. Not even a little bit. The circumstances are completely different.

Fact: every justification of our nuclear strikes on these two non-military targets are based on total speculation about how the war would have unfolded subsequently. You might call them informed speculation or whatever, but they are made up numbers that have no basis in objective reality.

 

[Salvi's Headband]

The “crime” was the start, the “justice” was the finish of what we are talking about.

“Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight” especially when the sleeping giant has one on his nightstand and the alarm clock just went off.

I too base my ethical arguments on one liners from 80s actions movies.

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

Your argument requires total and complete speculation about who would have died and how long the war would have lasted. That makes it a weak argument. For all you know, the Japanese would have surrendered when the Soviets entered the eastern war. Plenty of historians, in fact, believe this is the main reason they surrendered. Anyway, my point was not to get into another debate about the dropping of the atomic bomb, but "weak" only applies to the argument that relies on things that are completely made up (X NUMBER OF PEOPLES DEFINITELY TOTALLY ABSOLUTELY WOULD HAVE DIED IF WE DIDN'T DO THIS!)

My grandfather was also in the eastern theater. It is certainly possible that without the dropping of the bombs, neither you or I would exist. That's not an argument in favor of the morality of a nuclear strike on civilians.

why do you think Stalin finally entered the war? 'cause he knew the bomb was coming.....

it wasn't a nuclear strike "on" civilians (as you so intentionally, misleadingly call it).

 

[mdk02]

Uh, no they don't. Not even a little bit. The circumstances are completely different.

Fact: every justification of our nuclear strikes on these two non-military targets are based on total speculation about how the war would have unfolded subsequently. You might call them informed speculation or whatever, but they are made up numbers that have no basis in objective reality.

What is any decision but informed speculation? And informed speculation can never be total speculation.

 

[CERU00]

Another big Hitler mistake was after the RAF bombed Berlin,Hitler responded with bombing London, before that the Luftwaffe was bombing strategic points in England, but the London bombings were just a waste of resources and manpower that hurt his plans to invading England.

Think this is correct. They were very close to wiping out the RAF.... It was costing them a lot in return but if they kept focus on the RAF, they could have been in a position to invade. Who knows how that would have turned out. In his grand scheme, Hitler really didn't want to invade Britain. He thought they'd make a separate peace. He wasn't expecting a Churchill.

 

[e5fdny]

I too base my ethical arguments on one liners from 80s actions movies.

I was keeping it simple for the simple.

Glad you got the reference. :ThumbsUp

 

[LC-88]

That is only part of the story.

Prior to the German/Soviet agreement of 1939, the USSR was eager to formalize a treaty with the UK and France. France was on board, but the UK (which was still in appeasement mode) was concerned that such a treaty might inflame Germany. Plus they questioned the military value of the USSR, given that Stalin had purged his generals. So the UK pretty much slow-played them. USSR got tired of waiting and found a different dance partner.

Obviously none of us know how events would have unfolded had the tripartite alliance been formed. Stalin, like Hitler, viewed alliances as fluid, to say the least. Stalin was probably being duplicitous in conducting clandestine negotiations with Hitler while in formal negotiations with the Allies. Or maybe he was just covering his bases.

Can't change history, but interesting to speculate. And learn from it.

Good info. Ironically the French-UK-Russian alliance worked out for France and UK in WWI. Germans had to divert around 20? divisions (too lazy to look it up) from their attack on France/Belgium aka Schlieffen Plan. Germans came real close to taking Paris in 1914. What if Russia stayed neutral? German win? No USSR? No Hitler?

 

[Blitz8RU]

However justified that you think dropping the bomb was. It was still a war crime that was never prosecuted.

200,000 civilians killed... That's half of the total number of US soldiers killed in WWII (a little over 400,000)

Justification of the killing 200,000 noncombatants/civilians and probably many more from subsequent radiation poisoning of the area and birth defects is inexcusable if you don't plan to be grouped with those with a similar moral compass to Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

If you don't mind that grouping then bombs away...

If you aren't fine with that grouping then you can't justify the bomb's use whilst also taking the moral high ground.

When left with a decision for doing the right thing or doing the easy thing we decided to do the easy thing. Target civilians to weaken the enemy's moral and conserve our own troops.

Just as the Japanese, Germans and Russians did throughout WWII...

 

[LC-88]

why do you think Stalin finally entered the war? 'cause he knew the bomb was coming.....

it wasn't a nuclear strike "on" civilians (as you so intentionally, misleadingly call it).

Cause he wanted South Sakhalin Island. And he got it.

 

[mdk02]

However justified that you think dropping the bomb was. It was still a war crime that was never prosecuted.

200,000 civilians killed... That's half of the total number of US soldiers killed in WWII (a little over 400,000)

Justification of the killing 200,000 noncombatants/civilians and probably many more from subsequent radiation poisoning of the area and birth defects is inexcusable if you don't plan to be grouped with those with a similar moral compass to Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

If you don't mind that grouping then bombs away...

If you aren't fine with that grouping then you can't justify the bomb's use whilst also taking the moral high ground.

When left with a decision for doing the right thing or doing the easy thing we decided to do the easy thing. Target civilians to weaken the enemy's moral and conserve our own troops.

Just as the Japanese, Germans and Russians did throughout WWII...

I'd be interested in knowing, what do think was the right thing?

 

[CERU00]

However justified that you think dropping the bomb was. It was still a war crime that was never prosecuted.

200,000 civilians killed... That's half of the total number of US soldiers killed in WWII (a little over 400,000)

Justification of the killing 200,000 noncombatants/civilians and probably many more from subsequent radiation poisoning of the area and birth defects is inexcusable if you don't plan to be grouped with those with a similar moral compass to Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

If you don't mind that grouping then bombs away...

If you aren't fine with that grouping then you can't justify the bomb's use whilst also taking the moral high ground.

When left with a decision for doing the right thing or doing the easy thing we decided to do the easy thing. Target civilians to weaken the enemy's moral and conserve our own troops.

Just as the Japanese, Germans and Russians did throughout WWII...

If we were aiming to kill civilians why did we drop leaflets warning then what was about to happen and telling them to leave? We aimed for targets that impacted their ability to wage war.

 

[BigWill]

I don't bother to reply to some who are of so little intellect to argue what they don't understand in an historical fact.

 

[Salvi's Headband]

Slavery existed LONG before the Western Hemisphere was known to exist. Slavery still exists in parts of the world. The United States is the only Country where as many as 750,000 soldiers were killed to end the infamy.

Lizard brain take.

 

[Salvi's Headband]

If we were aiming to kill civilians why did we drop leaflets warning then what was about to happen and telling them to leave? We aimed for targets that impacted their ability to wage war.

lmfao

 

[Salvi's Headband]

The most potent racism in US is coming from the left - as they seek to defame white people and militate against them. Black racism has become particularly and its openly seeking to overturn the country and seek to militate as white people, males heteronormals etc. Its easy to see all this too (if you're honest)

Americans Say Blacks More Racist Than Whites, Hispanics, Asians

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...acks_more_racist_than_whites_hispanics_asians

It's sad to see someone having a stroke in real time.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

Victor Davis Hanson:

Our Annual August Debate over the Bombs

Truman could have allowed Japan’s wounded military government to stop the killing and stay in power. But the Japanese had already killed more than 10 million Chinese civilians since 1931, and perhaps another 4 million to 5 million Pacific Islanders, Southeast Asians, and members of the Allied Forces since 1940...A mere armistice likely would have regrouped in a few years to try it again on more favorable terms....

Truman could have postponed the use of the new bombs and invaded Japan over the ensuing year. The planned assault was scheduled to begin on the island of Kyushu in November 1945, and in early 1946 would have expanded to the main island of Honshu. Yet Japan had millions of soldiers at home with fortifications, planes, and artillery, waiting for the assault.

The fighting in Japan would have made the prior three-month bloodbath at Okinawa, which formally ended just six weeks before Hiroshima, seem like child’s play. The disaster at Okinawa cost the U.S. 50,000 casualties and 32 ships — the worst battle losses the American Navy suffered in the war. More than 250,000 Okinawans and Japanese soldiers were killed as well...Just the street fighting to recapture Manilla in the Philippines in early 1945 cost a quarter-million Filipino, Allied, and Japanese lives...

The napalming of Tokyo had already taken some 100,000 lives. With huge new Allied bomber fleets of 5,000 or more planes based on nearby Okinawa, the Japanese death toll would have soared to near a million...

To Americans and most of the world 75 years ago, each day in early August 1945 that the Japanese war machine continued its work meant that thousands of Asian civilians and Allied soldiers would die."


https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/our-annual-august-debate-over-the-bombs/

Using the bomb was an easy call

VDH is one of the more intelligent humans in the planet

His haters are simply jealous simps

 

[jreinsdorf]

I often wonder if the people against dropping the bombs would have scaled a cargo net onto a LCV and then disembarked into the hell that would have been the amphibious assault of Japan to kill or be killed? Or sent sons to do the same? Or does the abrupt end to the war look a lot more merciful and palatable now?