Jump to content


The Bomb didn't beat Japan....Stalin Did


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
95 replies to this topic

I_Robot #61 Posted Aug 06 2013 - 18:45

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28969 battles
  • 704
  • [ELLAS] ELLAS
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011
I would say that the US government didn't exactly know what they were doing when they decided to use the atom bomb. They just thought they had the perfect weapon in their hands and they had to use it even if they could not completely understand it. So lets say that they meant good and that lives were saved and that they didn't know about radioactivity and stuff like that.

Wasn't it the same people that started the tests on the Bikini Islands? Did those tests end a war? Did they save lives? Weren't they a crime? And what about making people believe that radioactivity was nothing to worry about? Wasn't that a crime too?

War is basically a crime itself, a form of theft organized in a massive scale. In every war since the beginning of time crimes were committed and will continue to be committed as long as we, the people, justify war.  

PS.
check "Atomic Cafe"
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ssKiI1P3lT4
It's a documentary on radioactivity, Cold War and nuclear warfare, exclusively made by archival footage and government propaganda of the time.
At points I found myself laughing on how naive people were back then. Then I remembered how naive people are today and I stopped laughing.

callmecrazy #62 Posted Oct 08 2013 - 23:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 10174 battles
  • 2,122
  • Member since:
    01-15-2012

View PostBitter_N_Twisted, on May 31 2013 - 13:34, said:

Didn't read the article?

...In the three weeks prior to Hiroshima, 26 cities were attacked by the U.S. Army Air Force. Of these, eight -- or almost a third -- were as completely or more completely destroyed than Hiroshima (in terms of the percentage of the city destroyed). The fact that Japan had 68 cities destroyed in the summer of 1945 poses a serious challenge for people who want to make the bombing of Hiroshima the cause of Japan's surrender. The question is: If they surrendered because a city was destroyed, why didn't they surrender when those other 66 cities were destroyed?

The same reason Germany didn't surrender while the allies were bombing their cities.  It was a normal, if you can call acts of war normal, attack. Now when your enemy can, with one aircraft - not hundreds, destroy your country at will, maybe it's time to think about calling it quits.

It wasn't just the bombing of two cities, it was the uncertainty of how many atomic bombs the US had.

callmecrazy #63 Posted Oct 09 2013 - 00:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 10174 battles
  • 2,122
  • Member since:
    01-15-2012

View PostLert, on May 31 2013 - 13:43, said:

Old news. But deniers will continue to argue that the bomb was necessary. As far as I'm concerned, the bomb was a warcrime.

To clarify, the bomb did help. A lot. IMO it just wasn't necessary to drop two. On civilian population centers. Japan surrendered to the US because surrendering to the russians would've had worse consequences.

I have no problems with the bombs being dropped.  What Japan did to the people of the Asian (i.e. Mongolia, China, Korea, etc) countries they overran was a war crime.  What they did to Allied prisoners was the war crime.  The citizens of the country are responsible for their militaries actions, keep that in mind in todays world.

blowwer282 #64 Posted Oct 09 2013 - 00:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 6341 battles
  • 6,968
  • [TCR] TCR
  • Member since:
    05-24-2011
Russia did invade Japan for some land after the the Atom Bombs, but thats about it ...

beepybeetle #65 Posted Oct 31 2013 - 16:32

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 16989 battles
  • 255
  • [CMCAW] CMCAW
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011
The pressure put on the Japan by the Soviets certainly helped but in the end the war ministers and even the emperor said that the bombs were too much the madness had to end.

PVT_Roland #66 Posted Nov 02 2013 - 08:10

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 2954 battles
  • 221
  • Member since:
    07-24-2013
To be fair, the US had been bombing Japanese cities with massive B-29 raids for many weeks. More casualties actually resulted from the conventional bombing than both nuclear drops together. However, the idea that Japan would have to deal with Soviet battalions advancing from the east, and American bombers able to decimate a city each, certainly shifted Japan past the tipping point.

Apexalpha #67 Posted Dec 02 2013 - 19:55

    Private

  • Players
  • 12032 battles
  • 8
  • [7AD23] 7AD23
  • Member since:
    10-21-2013
I'm hearing that some folks consider the bombing of Nagasaki was a cruel redundancy. Not so. The Japanese had to believe we had more and a willingness to use them to end the war. They had to believe that Hiroshima's demise was not a one-off act of desperation, that this atrocity could be repeated maybe more times than which the US was actually capable. They had to believe that the next targets would be more audacious, Kyoto, Tokyo. One plane flying well over AAA ranges and over the maximum altitude of the bulk of their fighters with a single payload. Meanwhile the US hoped the rest of the world was paying close attention. It's far easier to grasp the horror of scores of bombers and fighter escorts trying to breach a very capable air force and weathering the incendiaries and HE only to rebuild anew for the next attack much as Britain did during the Blitz.

Sgt_Sinful_Needs #68 Posted Dec 02 2013 - 20:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 5370 battles
  • 3,443
  • [51KIA] 51KIA
  • Member since:
    06-13-2013

View PostI_Robot, on Aug 06 2013 - 18:45, said:

I would say that the US government didn't exactly know what they were doing when they decided to use the atom bomb....

Awesome thread in it's entirely including all replies; just a few adds to maintain historical accuracy.
It was not USA dropping the bomb, a misconception born out of history being rewritten or lost in time.

"The Manhattan Project was a research and development program by the United States with the United Kingdom and Canada that produced the first atomic bomb during World War II..."

"It was known in 1940 that German scientists were working on a similar project and that the British were also exploring the problem. In the fall of 1941 Harold C. Urey and Pegram visited England to attempt to set up a cooperative effort, and by 1943 a combined policy committee with Great Britain and Canada was established. In that year a number of scientists of those countries moved to the United States to join the project there..."

The Manhattan Project
http://en.wikipedia....nhattan_Project
http://www.britannic...nhattan-Project

"It is agreed between us
First, that we will never use this agency against each other.
Secondly, that we will not use it against third parties without each other's consent..."

The Quebec Accord [1943]
http://avalon.law.ya...u/wwii/q003.asp

The atomic bomb [Manhattan Project] was a partnership between the three largest western allies of the day with Russia omitted by design... and as such no one partner could use it without the approval and agreement of all eg they were all in on the decision with all partners having veto power.
That was why the Manhattan Project was created, to nuke Germany... because Germany had a nuclear program going with every intent to nuke Britain Russia and the USA... they even were developing bombers that could reach the USA and across the Urals to deliver it.
http://en.wikipedia....rschmitt_Me_264
http://en.wikipedia..../Horten_H.XVIII

---------------------

It was not a war crime.

Morally argument can be made whether it was 'justified' pretending moral justification even exists, many still cling to the "if we invaded it would have cost many casualties..." but again that is an attempt at moral or military justification - all being moot points.

According to the Geneva Convention a military is not to wage aggressive war against civilians - doing so is a war crime.
However giving Articles in that same Convention once a civilian is armed they are no longer definated as 'civilian' under international law but instead an 'armed combatant' and thus fair game - an Article of the Convention that is practiced to current day.
Germany and Japan were arming their civilians, with those civilians being given the task of defending their homelands thus the atomic bomb was justified under the conventions of warfare.

That is why Dresden, Tokyo Hiroshima etal are not war crimes and the bombing of Rotterdam, London etal were.

Daigensui #69 Posted Dec 02 2013 - 20:59

    Major

  • Wiki Staff
  • 20005 battles
  • 20,171
  • [MUP] MUP
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostSgt_Sinful_Needs, on Dec 02 2013 - 20:53, said:

According to the Geneva Convention a military is not to wage aggressive war against civilians - doing so is a war crime.
However giving Articles in that same Convention once a civilian is armed they are no longer definated as 'civilian' under international law but instead an 'armed combatant' and thus fair game - an Article of the Convention that is practiced to current day.
Germany and Japan were arming their civilians, with those civilians being given the task of defending their homelands thus the atomic bomb was justified under the conventions of warfare.

That is why Dresden, Tokyo Hiroshima etal are not war crimes and the bombing of Rotterdam, London etal were.

This has got to be the worst piece of apologist BS I've seen. UK was arming its civilians, thus you're basically saying London was also a valid target.


Aside from that Dresden was a war crime, since the majority of targets were deliberately civilian areas with no relationship to the war effort.

Sgt_Sinful_Needs #70 Posted Dec 03 2013 - 00:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 5370 battles
  • 3,443
  • [51KIA] 51KIA
  • Member since:
    06-13-2013

View PostDaigensui, on Dec 02 2013 - 20:59, said:

This has got to be the worst piece of apologist BS I've seen. UK was arming its civilians, thus you're basically saying London was also a valid target.
Aside from that Dresden was a war crime, since the majority of targets were deliberately civilian areas with no relationship to the war effort.
Do feel free to think so, noting:
- the UK had no program with a set objective to arm citizens.  (one can hardly cite The Home Guard who were in uniform as 'civilian')   Were the Brits arming their civilians with anything akin to Panzerfaust anti-tank rockets, no they were not.
- so you say, albeit others would and have argued since that rail junctions, telephone systems, administration, and utilities equally have no inclusion in 'a war effort'.  Some may think the ability to communicate and transport logistics is vital to said war effort.

Quote

This has got to be the worst piece of apologist BS I've seen
Again, noting I am Canadian - and have suggested Canada was as guilty as nuking Japan as the USA - as an apologist full of BS I don't seem very good at it.
"Fact" remains Canada was so horrified by the results of the atomic bombing, as I am of that black mark in our history we walked away from the nuclear family and never looked back - doing that to our own fellow human beings is hardly the sign of a great society to the point Canada not having nukes was and is a choice.... what happened to the civilians a barbaric act that I owed up to.  
Perhaps our definition of the word 'apologist' or what BS actually is varies.  What exactly am I apologizing for or bs'ing about?
By all means show me an image of a Rotterdam or British housewife with a government issued Thompson ready to take the fight to the Wehrmacht, or any Proclamation that proves your case.

Edited by Sgt_Sinful_Needs, Dec 03 2013 - 00:26.


Tiger_23 #71 Posted Dec 03 2013 - 00:16

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 8631 battles
  • 10,128
  • [1_BCB] 1_BCB
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

Quote

The Bomb didn't beat Japan....Stalin Did
I would say that Stalin ''imminent invasion'' did a pressure on the allied command into dropping the bomb, well, if Stalin had invaded Japan this would be a political and military disaster to the Western allies...
Posted Image

mattwong #72 Posted Dec 03 2013 - 00:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 18779 battles
  • 9,352
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostDingBat, on May 31 2013 - 13:56, said:

This. Conventional bombing was a known horror. It might have taken a new, unknown horror to shake the Japanese leadership out of their fantasy land and do the unthinkable: surrender.

Except that they had already sent out peace feelers and were willing to talk about a negotiated surrender.  The only reason it didn't happen was that Americans refused to tolerate the idea of anything but an absolutely unconditional surrender.  The ironic thing is that even after the A-bombs, they still allowed a single condition on the surrender.  They were actually willing to permit a certain amount of negotiation; they just didn't want to negotiate until they felt they'd increased their bargaining position enough, and I think everyone knows that the A-bombs were dropped in part as a message to Stalin.

But of course, that messy interpretation doesn't have the neat and clean moral smugness of saying that the A-bombs were absolutely necessary in order to save millions of lives.

PVT_Roland #73 Posted Dec 03 2013 - 15:01

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 2954 battles
  • 221
  • Member since:
    07-24-2013
Anyone mention the fact that the US only JUST finished handing out the purple hearts that were manufactured in preparation for an invasion of japan?

HatchetPrime #74 Posted Dec 04 2013 - 06:05

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7437 battles
  • 407
  • [WOONA] WOONA
  • Member since:
    05-27-2013

View PostPTwr, on May 31 2013 - 13:57, said:

Atomic Bombs = Hey Stalin! Look what we got, be a good boy.

Yes, thank you. That's why dropping the bomb was important, the US knew that they couldn't get a foothold in Europe fast enough to stop the Russians, so they needed to have a show of force. Patton was very vocal about the need to go to war against the USSR, he knew they were unstoppable by conventional means.

All Allied bombing was grotesquely calculated from the very beginning...it IS just as bad as the holocaust, but we 'won', so in our arrogance we convince ourselves we did the right thing.

SilkySmooth #75 Posted Dec 04 2013 - 06:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 28029 battles
  • 5,699
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

View PostToBe998, on May 31 2013 - 14:05, said:

Japan was not bombed to make them surrender. As others pointed out, they were already doing so. The bomb was dropped anyways, because the real goal was to demontrate it's power to the soviets.

Not just this.... Americans were still demanding atonement for Pearl Harbor.

Magick #76 Posted Dec 04 2013 - 06:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 2916 battles
  • 2,832
  • [10PZD] 10PZD
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View Post1SLUGGO1, on May 31 2013 - 13:52, said:

Name one area of military production (yes, there was military production going on at all the atomic bomb targets) that does not have a significant civilian population.
I suppose it's easy to say now, that it would have been better to surrender to the US.  But the current picture on the ground was they surrendered to the US after they destroyed the entire Imperial fleet and air force, killed thousands of troops and civilians, and dropped two atomic, dirty, weapons on Japan.
All russia managed to do was kick them out of a small country they had parked in since the 1930's, that wasn't even heavily defended.
.
Hiroshima, was a manufacturing center. However the whole "manufacturing" center was located in two factories.  Factories which just as easily could have been destroyed by normal carpet bombing or even precision bombing.
.
Nagasaki on the other hand, had been marked as off limits by the US prior to the atomic bombing for a number of reasons.  First, it had the largest population of foreign citizens. (It had at one time been the main port where all western trade was held.)  Secondly there was a sizable Franciscan Monastary and an equally sizable Catholic presence there. Finally, it was deemed to be of utmost historical value to protect, to the point that prior to the atomic bomb being dropped, Pilots were warned to abort raids if they feared their bombs would strike something of historic value.
.
Now, talking of War Crimes? Firebombing of Tokyo.  300 US bombers attacked a portion of Tokyo that was a civilian residential district.  No one knows how many died, but numbers range from as low as 40,000 to as high as 250,000.  I visited that area myself when I lived in Japan.  One of the things I remember most, was this old concrete bridge over one of the canals.  There was a memorial there to those who had died in the attack.  Perhaps the most unnerving thing though, was looking at the bridge railings.  I thought at first I was seeing handprints and fingerprints in the paint, but I realized upon closer inspection that these prints were in the IRON.  The iron of that bridge had gotten so hot that people trying to cross it had their flesh sink into the iron.  Even to this day, when they build something new there, they have to call a Buddhist priest out to watch over during the excavations, as they are still turning up cremated remains.  You dig down about six feet and you hit a foot thick layer of nothing but ash and human remains.

Edited by Magick, Dec 04 2013 - 06:33.


Frogstar_B #77 Posted Feb 06 2014 - 00:49

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6965 battles
  • 797
  • Member since:
    09-01-2012

View PostBitter_N_Twisted, on May 31 2013 - 08:34, said:


But the atom bomb ended it.

Didn't read the article?
...In the three weeks prior to Hiroshima, 26 cities were attacked by the U.S. Army Air Force. Of these, eight -- or almost a third -- were as completely or more completely destroyed than Hiroshima (in terms of the percentage of the city destroyed). The fact that Japan had 68 cities destroyed in the summer of 1945 poses a serious challenge for people who want to make the bombing of Hiroshima the cause of Japan's surrender. The question is: If they surrendered because a city was destroyed, why didn't they surrender when those other 66 cities were destroyed?

Because while the regular bombing raids flattened those cities too, the atomic bomb had the potential to kill 80,000 people in a single flash, burn their shadows into the ground, and then subsequently kill 80,000 more people with radiation, for a grand total of 160,000 dead. And, the radiation also made the area toxic with fallout, so you needed Hazmat suits to rescue and/or repair damage, let alone scrub fallout.



doonglerules #78 Posted Feb 06 2014 - 00:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 5631 battles
  • 3,500
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011

Surrender to Russia: rape rape rape concentration camp Stalin laughs and takes your money

Surrender to 'merica: Free money, rebuilding, and a new  government.



acosnil #79 Posted Mar 14 2014 - 00:24

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 2339 battles
  • 430
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View Postdoonglerules, on Feb 06 2014 - 01:52, said:

Surrender to Russia: rape rape rape concentration camp Stalin laughs and takes your money

Surrender to 'merica: Free money, rebuilding, and a new  government.

 

IIRC relatively little money actually went to rebuilding Japan.

 

 

The biggest thing the US did was the fact that they did relatively little beyond dictating terms in Japan's new constitution. There was no repeat of Versailles.

 

 

War's never about one thing. There's no "a-ha!" moment. The A-bombs didn't make Japan surrender. They weren't solely about sending a message to the Soviets- there were other ways of doing that which didn't involve a 2 billion dollar military project. The Soviets sweeping through China, and it's prospect didn't solely make Japan surrender. If you want to be blunt, the nukes may have been about the US looking at Japan trying to get the Soviets to intercede on their behalf and saying, "oh, no, nonononono, you want us to intercede for you with the Soviets, not the other way around, silly Japanese!"

 

 

The nukes were about saying, "We've been bombing you for months. Now we can do this. We can do it to just about any city you control. If you think you have the option and the time to play political games to try and ensure surrender is as inconsequential as possible, you got the wrong idea. If you think this is the time to ensure your behavior abroad doesn't bite you later on, you've got the wrong idea. Surrender is your only option. Unconditional surrender is the only thing we'll accept. The only thing you're gaining with waiting is more graves to dig. No nation ever got anywhere by having a booming coffin industry."



Meplat #80 Posted Mar 14 2014 - 03:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 5996 battles
  • 6,543
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Postacosnil, on Mar 13 2014 - 16:24, said:

 

IIRC relatively little money actually went to rebuilding Japan.

 

 

The biggest thing the US did was the fact that they did relatively little beyond dictating terms in Japan's new constitution. There was no repeat of Versailles.

I remember hearing a figure around 10 billion US dollars. But yes a lot of the support for reconstruction was indirect. Things like technical help from industrial and civil experts rather than actual dollars.