Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234 LastLast
Results 71 to 105 of 112

Thread: Hiroshima 75

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    12,376

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    1- There was no sign that Japan was going to surrender in a month of further blockade. As others have pointed out, the country had been largely blockaded since the Phillippine Islands were taken by the US.

    The Philippines were not "taken" by the US until the end of 1944. A proper blockade was not even possible before 1945. A proper blockade would cut off Manchukuo, which, as a look at the map will show you, does not involve the Philippines.

    Germany cried "uncle" and signed Versailles after six months of blockade in 1919, and they had far more resources on home soil than Japan.




    5- May I ask again what research you have done on this topic, and why you apparently assume that you know more about the factors involved than the people who were involved in the decision to drop the bomb and the research behind that decision?
    We don't need to "know more about the factors involved than the people who were involved in the decision" because they are all dead. Our generation must form its own opinion, and try to learn from history, and avoid knee-jerk patriotism in evaluating the past, because this is a grave matter that still threatens all of us.

    Beyond that, the Bilge is for debates, not academic theses. You don't get to demand anyone's bibliography.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,067

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    No, Germany did NOT cry uncle after six months of blockade in 1919. The blockade started at the outset of war in August 1914. The Germans "cried uncle" in 1918. So they managed to fight a two-front war of attrition for four years despite the blockade. They also lost, according to the British sources, 750,000 civilian lives due to starvation. Given that more lives were lost due to the WW1 blockade than due to the atom bombs, why do you say that blockade is a more humane method? (Sources include Terraine "Business in Great Waters")

    Yes, the USA only completed the recovery of the PI in 1944, but they had already caused the Japanese vast shipping losses. The main point about the taking of the PI was that it made it very difficult to run convoys from the NEI oilfields to Japan - and that oil traffic was the real reason the Japanese attacked the Allies. So the Japanese had lost the main goal for which they went to war, they had lost their main oil supply - and yet they did not surrender.

    I made an error in referring to the Inland Sea; I meant to refer to the Sea of Japan which of course lies between Japan and Manchukuo. But what you are missing was that there WAS effectively a blockade in the form of Operation Starvation, the mining of harbours and straits. While not a classical blockade per se, it did basically stop most Japanese traffic to China - and yet the Japanese did NOT surrender.

    Operation Starvation meant that there WAS a very effective blockade and yet it did not end the war, so your claim that an effective blockade between Japan and China would have ended the war earlier does not stand up. The Japanese had already lost the vast majority of their merchant fleet even before Operation Starvation started; the extremely effective submarine campaign of 1944 alone had cost them 1/3 of their pre-war merchant tonnage. They were down to about 25% of their pre-war tonnage by the time the war ended - and yet they had not surrendered due to that loss.

    To give a viewpoint from one who was almost one of the 10-25,000 victims of just one Japanese atrocity, "I have no doubts about whether the two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. Without them, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Malaya and Singapore, and millions in Japan itself, would have perished". The writer was Lee Kuan Yew, who no one can call a fan of colonialism or European rule.

    It is completely inconsistent of you to say that we must learn from history, and then for you to ignore history. An effective debate isn't based on ignorance. You do not know as much about the practicality of further blockading as the people who were there. You do not know as much about the discussions inside the Japanese government as those who were reading the Allied intelligence and code-breaking information. You do not have as much information as they had and therefore you cannot know if their decision was right or wrong.

    I also have no idea why you may be implying that I'm suffering from "knee jerk patriotism"; I'm actually just interested in the subject and have read about it a fair bit.
    Last edited by Chris249; 08-08-2020 at 07:23 AM.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    12,376

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    No, Germany did NOT cry uncle after six months of blockade in 1919. The blockade started at the outset of war in August 1914. The Germans "cried uncle" in 1918.
    You misunderstand my point. Between August 1914 and November 1918, Germany endured the blockade because it had a plausible strategy to win the war. As late as mid-1918 it looked like it might work. Cities and countries endured sieges since time immemorial as long as there is a chance of victory.

    After the armistice, Germany did not want to accept the Treaty of Versailles, but no longer had any plausible strategy for prevailing. The blockade continued for another 6 months and Germany capitulated.

    Japan's position was far worse than Germany's. In 1941 and again in late 1944 they were cut off from oil, but had free access to Korea and Manchuria, where its industry got its natural resources. This only started to be cut off in mid-1945. At that point they not only had no air or sea power left, but no way to keep an industrial country running, even in an impoverished, deprived state. They were reduced to using US bomb fragments to make shovels.

    The Japanese government was seriously considering surrender by mid-1945, as long as they got to preserve the Emperor. Even this hope was predicated on a mediation by Stalin. When the USSR finally declared war on August 9, 1945, the Japanese knew all hope was lost and would most likely have surrendered within days - especially if they were told the Emperor would be allowed to stay.

    The US military knew all this, but couldn't wait a couple of weeks for it to play out. Hell, they couldn't wait a bit to drop the second bomb, and would have dropped more if they could.

    After that, they censored reporting of the aftermath of the bombings to pretend it was just a very big conventional bomb, and merrily make plans to use nukes at the first opportunity. If it were up to US military leaders, they would have nuked many places over the past 75 years. And they had no sense of limits, no hint of humanity in their plans. At one point there were something like 17 hydrogen bombs targeted at a single Siberian airstrip, where Soviet bombers might land after launching a strike. The mentality was: if we get into a fight, fVck the whole planet.

    Just to remind everyone, military people with the same mentality continue to have at their disposal an arsenal of several times more nukes than would be needed to obliterate Russia and China several times over, with enough left to destroy the biosphere. They have war plans for all sorts of places, far from the US, involving lots of nukes. And the only person who currently can reign them in is one Donald J. Trump.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    12,376

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    I also have no idea why you may be implying that I'm suffering from "knee jerk patriotism"; I'm actually just interested in the subject and have read about it a fair bit.
    Sorry about that. I didn't mean to direct that at anyone specifically, and I'll take your word for it. I also am interested in the subject, and if you read a fair bit you will agree that there are sources supporting both your position and mine. I hope to learn more from discussions like this one.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,123

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post

    Just to remind everyone, military people with the same mentality continue to have at their disposal an arsenal of several times more nukes than would be needed to obliterate Russia and China several times over, with enough left to destroy the biosphere. They have war plans for all sorts of places, far from the US, involving lots of nukes. And the only person who currently can reign them in is one Donald J. Trump.
    Wow. Just wow. I'll admit that many past US military leaders were war mongers, Curtis LeMay was one. But right now, the US joint chiefs of staff are the only people with power trying to reign in the psychopathy and treason of Donald Trump. In fact, I would bet even money that at least one of them has whispered to the person carrying the "football", also known as the "nuclear briefcase" which has the ability to launch the ICBMs and communicate with the nuclear air and sub fleet, and which accompanies the president at all times, that if Donald Trump ever asks for it to be opened without being in the presence of the joint chiefs, that they are to respectfully disobey and immediately notify the joint chiefs of the incident. Seriously. If I were on the joint chiefs, that's what I would do. Because Trump's mental illness gives him the mentality and emotional maturity of an eight year old.
    Last edited by Bob (oh, THAT Bob); 08-08-2020 at 05:50 PM.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    24,922

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    I wonder if that scenario is likely. I wonder iff we'll ever hear about it, historically.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    12,376

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Relying on generals to prevent Trump from dropping a bomb? The same kind of generals that in the past were only prevented from using it by more reasonable presidents?

    Here is a story on todays WP about how military people think of the bomb:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/americans-insist-the-atom-bomb-ended-the-war-in-japan--ignoring-its-human-cost/2020/08/06/2095f314-d76f-11ea-aff6-220dd3a14741_story.html?hpid=hp_save-opinions-float-right-4-0_opinion-card-b-right%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans&itid=hp_save-opinions-float-right-4-0_opinion-card-b-right%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans



    Starting in 1946, top U.S. officials devised a campaign to quell growing public criticism of the bombings and to promote public support for further U.S. nuclear weapons development. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, a longtime friend of former secretary of war Henry Stimson, the government needed to quell the “sloppy sentimentality” of any dissenters.
    ...
    The campaign culminated in an extended article on the decision to use the bomb written by Stimson, published in Harper’s Magazine in February 1947 and filled with critical misstatements and omissions. Stimson failed to mention, for example, that U.S. officials had debated dropping their demand that Japan’s surrender include the removal of the emperor, which Stimson himself had recognized as a possible way to bring Japan to an earlier capitulation. Stimson also omitted the most critical military development in August 1945: the Soviet Union’s entry into the war against Japan, which would have forced Tokyo to fight on two fronts, altered Allied strategies and probably ended the war before any land invasion. Through his military authority and strategic reasoning, Stimson forged a singular atomic bomb narrative with such moral certitude that it has superseded all others and fundamentally shaped American memory and perception ever since: The atomic bombings ended the war and saved more than 1 million American lives.

    But there is no historical evidence that the Nagasaki bombing helped bring about Japan’s surrender. Before the nuclear attack that morning, Japanese leaders were already panicked over the Soviet Union’s massive invasion of Japanese-held Manchuria, 11 hours earlier. As the mushroom cloud rose high above Nagasaki, Japan’s leaders were already in a heated debate over whether to surrender and under what conditions; the news of the second atomic bombing had no apparent impact on their deliberations, which, according to notes from their meeting, continued throughout the day and evening with no further mention of Nagasaki. Late that night, the emperor broke their stalemate by sanctioning the surrender.

    Back when I lived in the US, most Americans believed that the US defeated the Nazis, and knew precious little about the Ostfront, where 80% of the war took place. That was what they were taught during the Cold War. And most Americans were taught that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary and convinced Japan to surrender, when it was once again most likely the Soviets.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    56,422

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    1946 was a long time ago, at the end of a gigantic war - one that came as close to a 'just war' as anything in the past several centuries, at least. Attitudes then, among both military folks and the general public, are not a good measure of attitudes now.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Oriental, NC USA
    Posts
    5,309

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    1946 was a long time ago, at the end of a gigantic war - one that came as close to a 'just war' as anything in the past several centuries, at least. Attitudes then, among both military folks and the general public, are not a good measure of attitudes now.
    Yes Keith, hindsighters love being hindsighters with no penalty for being wrong in their future. It is simply not possible to accurately place yourself in the position of those who made crucial decisions of WW2. Distance of time and changing attitudes resulting from changes in presumed knowledge absolutely prevent any such knowledge.

    I am also too far removed from WW2 to make knowledgeable decisions that make sense but I'm probably closer than most here. I was part of the occupying military in Japan as well as on the front lines of the Korean war. I think we made decisions regarding a future Japanese government that were more correct than wrong although some were made in both directions.

    Only hindsighters can ask for more than that.

    And yes, I would have dropped the bomb facing the decision choice of those who did make that decision.
    Tom L

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    12,376

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Lathrop View Post
    ... hindsighters love being hindsighters with no penalty for being wrong in their future.
    If only.

    Whether you realize it or not, people who defend the bombs as justified are defending the following principle:

    - dropping atomic weapons on cities is justified if it might shorten a war that you are already winning against a country that currently cannot attack you -

    (and by extension, even more so if you are losing, or if the other country is a present danger)

    Think about that for a second. Think of what it means, in a world with 13 thousand nukes, and badder ones in development.

  11. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    25,040

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Lathrop View Post
    Yes Keith, hindsighters love being hindsighters with no penalty for being wrong in their future. It is simply not possible to accurately place yourself in the position of those who made crucial decisions of WW2. Distance of time and changing attitudes resulting from changes in presumed knowledge absolutely prevent any such knowledge.

    I am also too far removed from WW2 to make knowledgeable decisions that make sense but I'm probably closer than most here. I was part of the occupying military in Japan as well as on the front lines of the Korean war. I think we made decisions regarding a future Japanese government that were more correct than wrong although some were made in both directions.

    Only hindsighters can ask for more than that.

    And yes, I would have dropped the bomb facing the decision choice of those who did make that decision.
    Very well put.

    Some enthusiast here has been poking about in RAF archives and turned up the buried factoid that the RAF were incredibly keen on dropping the bomb. There was a technical issue with the standard B-29 in that it had two bomb bays with the main spar between them. Therefore it could not carry either Fat Man or Little Boy. The modified Lancasters used to carry Talboy and Grand Slam - the British “earthquake bombs” used for viaducts and U-boat pens, could easily carry either.

    Obviously, the USAAF told Boeing to fix this, and they did (the “silver plate” model B-29) but whilst Boeing were doing this the British were practicallly hopping on one leg with our hand up trying to get attention for a proposal which involved one Lancaster carrying the bomb with another to refuel it in mid-air. The Lancaster had a ceiling 5,000ft below the B-29 and was 100mph slower... They actually trained for this!

    Needless to say the USAAF told the RAF where to put their idea.

    But it does give an insight into the thinking of the time.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  12. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    downward bound
    Posts
    5,571

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    1946 was a long time ago, at the end of a gigantic war - one that came as close to a 'just war' as anything in the past several centuries, at least. Attitudes then, among both military folks and the general public, are not a good measure of attitudes now.
    It lasted much later than 1946. Truman removed MacArthur, in part, because MacArthur wanted to deploy nuclear weapons. Johnson has to shutdown the military’s planning for use of nuclear weapons in 1968 “fracture jaw”.

  13. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Oriental, NC USA
    Posts
    5,309

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    If only.

    Whether you realize it or not, people who defend the bombs as justified are defending the following principle:

    - dropping atomic weapons on cities is justified if it might shorten a war that you are already winning against a country that currently cannot attack you -

    (and by extension, even more so if you are losing, or if the other country is a present danger)

    Think about that for a second. Think of what it means, in a world with 13 thousand nukes, and badder ones in development.
    Sorry George, In any legitimate argument you don't get to look at situations from later in time or make up a principle that you wish to guide those who had that responsibility in that time. The projected loss of Americans in an invasion of Japan was real, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Hundreds of thousands of our battle weary servicemen en route to the Pacific came home to a family and later life because of that decision and I am all for that decision. Even though the loss of Japanese non combatants and soldiers resulted from that momentous decision. It's also real that millions of civilians were fully prepared to give their lives in dedication to a god-Emperor to repulse us in an invasion.

    You say Japan was fully beaten. You need to study that opinion more carefully even if it might be logistically correct.

    Perhaps leaving a military Japanese structure in power as part of a "peace" agreement would have been better than using the bomb in your view. Douglas MacArthur had a fairly free rein in setting up a post war Japanese government structure and egotistical demigod he was, he did a pretty good job of it in that area. Failing to understand a difference in the fog of war and deliberate thought taken at leisure from a couch later on is a fatal error.
    Tom L

  14. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,067

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    If only.

    Whether you realize it or not, people who defend the bombs as justified are defending the following principle:

    - dropping atomic weapons on cities is justified if it might shorten a war that you are already winning against a country that currently cannot attack you -
    And looking from the other side, those who advocate blockade instead of dropping nukes are defending the following principles;

    - that using a weapon (blockade) that has killed 750,000 enemy civilians is more humane than using a weapon that kills 300,000 enemy civilians.

    - that using time to starve the civilians of a blockaded country while their armies kill even more people in the countries they invaded is a good thing.

  15. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,067

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    You misunderstand my point. Between August 1914 and November 1918, Germany endured the blockade because it had a plausible strategy to win the war. As late as mid-1918 it looked like it might work. Cities and countries endured sieges since time immemorial as long as there is a chance of victory.

    After the armistice, Germany did not want to accept the Treaty of Versailles, but no longer had any plausible strategy for prevailing. The blockade continued for another 6 months and Germany capitulated.

    Japan's position was far worse than Germany's. In 1941 and again in late 1944 they were cut off from oil, but had free access to Korea and Manchuria, where its industry got its natural resources. This only started to be cut off in mid-1945. At that point they not only had no air or sea power left, but no way to keep an industrial country running, even in an impoverished, deprived state. They were reduced to using US bomb fragments to make shovels.

    The Japanese government was seriously considering surrender by mid-1945, as long as they got to preserve the Emperor. Even this hope was predicated on a mediation by Stalin. When the USSR finally declared war on August 9, 1945, the Japanese knew all hope was lost and would most likely have surrendered within days - especially if they were told the Emperor would be allowed to stay.

    The US military knew all this, but couldn't wait a couple of weeks for it to play out. Hell, they couldn't wait a bit to drop the second bomb, and would have dropped more if they could.

    After that, they censored reporting of the aftermath of the bombings to pretend it was just a very big conventional bomb, and merrily make plans to use nukes at the first opportunity. If it were up to US military leaders, they would have nuked many places over the past 75 years. And they had no sense of limits, no hint of humanity in their plans. At one point there were something like 17 hydrogen bombs targeted at a single Siberian airstrip, where Soviet bombers might land after launching a strike. The mentality was: if we get into a fight, fVck the whole planet.

    Just to remind everyone, military people with the same mentality continue to have at their disposal an arsenal of several times more nukes than would be needed to obliterate Russia and China several times over, with enough left to destroy the biosphere. They have war plans for all sorts of places, far from the US, involving lots of nukes. And the only person who currently can reign them in is one Donald J. Trump.
    I may start by mentioning I'm not from the USA and that I attended my first demonstration against US-led wars when I was taken to anti-Vietnam rallies in my stroller/baby carriage when I was a toddler. I've taken my own kids to more recent ones. I'm a leftist, vegetarian peacemonger in most ways, and I think "strategic" bombing in WW2 was a tragic waste on all sides. Therefore I have zero tendency to fall into line behind the US military leadership.

    I'm also not saying that I'm sure that the nuclear bombs were necessary, either in hindsight or going by what was known at the time. However, what I'm trying to say is that the decision was not as easy as many make it appear, and it was not in general driven by the stereotypical Dr Strangelove types. For example, from what I can find out from sources like Prof Sheffield Garon from Princeton, the US leadership was NOT that sure that Japan was going to surrender soon; in fact they were surprised when they did.

    Garon raises an interesting point about Germany - but not the Germany of WW1 which lost 750,000 to blockade (far more than were killed by nukes) but by the Germany of WW2. Germany refused to surrender even in the face of sure defeat, even after they had lost their munitions-producing areas and even when their capital was being taken in battle. When one of the major Axis countries had fought so hard and so long in such a hopeless cause (as had minor Axis nations) why assume that the other major Axis nation was going to surrender before it was even invaded?

    By the way, the blockade did not render Japan defenceless against conventional ground attack; as noted here, by late 1945 the Japanese were still producing 22% and 45% of their peak production of ordnance and explosives.

    While it's arguably fair to raise the issue of the psychology of some of the US military, logically we must also note that those who disagree with them may also have psychological or political motivations. It's very easy to sit back with 20/20 hindsight, without seeing your own sons, brothers and families at risk from an aggressor nation, and deride and abuse those who had to make the decisions given the information they had at the time.

    It appears to be significant that some leaders of the US military were AGAINST the use of nuclear weapons. That indicates that there was no some general madness among the top brass, as often implied. On the other hand, many of those top brass had other psychological and political reasons to claim that their own forces were the ones that "really" defeated Japan. How can we, at this distance, untangle those motivations and say that one bunch were right and the other wrong?

    Personally I tend to think that abusing any class of people, whether it's all the US military or all Japanese people or Muslims or whoever, is the wrong thing to do. Just as people from other racial backgrounds deserve respect, so do those from other countries, other positions, and other eras.

  16. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,067

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    After that, they censored reporting of the aftermath of the bombings to pretend it was just a very big conventional bomb.
    By the way, that's competely and utterly wrong. See for example all these headlines;

    https://www.google.com/search?q=hiro...w=1366&bih=576

    It's hard to see how you could believe the US military was pretending the nukes were anything but world-changing.

  17. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,123

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    If only.

    Whether you realize it or not, people who defend the bombs as justified are defending the following principle:

    - dropping atomic weapons on cities is justified if it might shorten a war that you are already winning against a country that currently cannot attack you -

    (and by extension, even more so if you are losing, or if the other country is a present danger)

    Think about that for a second. Think of what it means, in a world with 13 thousand nukes, and badder ones in development.
    As applied to Japan at the end of WWII, that's a big leap of logic.

    US intelligence into Japan was limited.

    Further, never underestimate an enemy until they are totally overwhelmed (Germany) or offer surrender (Japan). The US, in more recent decades, has foolishly declared victory ("Mission Accomplished") when if fact the war was just beginning.

    Lastly, the US military has reduced nuclear forces in favor of spending limited resources on conventional forces. B-1B bombers, designed to replace the B-52, have been converted from nuclear roles to conventional bombing only. Probably the biggest spending on nuclear forces in the last 30 years has been to refurbish components in nuclear warheads that are decades old. In fact it had been so long since warheads were produced that a critical technology had been forgotten and had to be relearned:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOGBANK
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  18. #88
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Vigo, Galicia, Spain
    Posts
    473

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    among other good books i recommend:

    Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use The Bomb

    ---

    the tremendous thing is to confirm that for believers the satanic founding act of this new empire is quasi sacred

    George, thanks

    it's a break to hear your voice in the midst of blindness

  19. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Vigo, Galicia, Spain
    Posts
    473

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75


  20. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Vigo, Galicia, Spain
    Posts
    473

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    maybe there are many links, and the fat book has a lot of pages, so a summary would be the fourth link

    https://consortiumnews.com/2020/08/0...-of-hiroshima/

  21. #91
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the hills
    Posts
    57,488

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Well we may suck at responding to pandemics or promoting the general welfare but we do maintain a fantastic arsenal for killing entire nations.

    https://www.armscontrol.org/factshee...rModernization

  22. #92
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,067

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Juan View Post
    among other good books i recommend:

    Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use The Bomb

    ---

    the tremendous thing is to confirm that for believers the satanic founding act of this new empire is quasi sacred

    George, thanks

    it's a break to hear your voice in the midst of blindness
    Juan, your claim that those who do not agree with you are part of a blind satanic cult is extremely abusive, insulting, and dishonest.

    Oh, and by the way my country is not part of any "new empire" and is not a nuclear power.

  23. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    12,376

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    I'll go with what Einstein thought:

    In Einstein's judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political-diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.

  24. #94
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,067

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Juan View Post
    If that stuff is what you are relying on then it's easy to show that it's overly simplistic and simply wrong. It is, for example, ridiculous for the first link to claim that Eaker "almost single-handedly made strategic bombing an accepted practice " As noted above, I think that strategic bombing was a vast tragedy - but it was a vast tragedy that the British, for example, had been following for years; since April 1918, in fact. The claims in that link are therefore transparently un-historic and wrong and the article is therefore unreliable.

    The first link also notes that Germany had surrendered and that " Japan was on the verge of a similar capitulation". That is wrong, because Germany had only surrendered after its leader had committed suicide and the Allies had entered its capital. Japan's leaders were still alive. Japan's entire country was free of Allied troops, and the best estimates were that 250,000 US servicemen would die to get a foothold. Again, the article is unreliable and appears to be written in a misleading fashion.

    Your second link shows that your own source, Alperovitz, states "“What really happened in the days leading up to the decision to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki may never be known." Just to repeat - at no stage have I said the bombs should have been dropped. However, as your own source says, we don't know why the decision was made, and therefore it is unconsconionable of you to assume that it was made for the wrong reasons and to abuse people who have different views about that decision.
    Last edited by Chris249; 08-10-2020 at 07:12 AM.

  25. #95
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,067

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    I'll go with what Einstein thought:
    Sure, dropping the bomb may have been a political decision rather than a military one. So too was the decision of France and the UK to not just sit back while Hitler took over much of Eastern Europe. So was the decision of the UK to reject Hitler's peace offers that would have allowed him to rule Western Europe. It was also a political decision for the USA to try to use economic sanctions to stop the Japanese massacres in China. While none of the above means that the Allies were perfect, they show that the mere fact that something is a political decision doesn't mean it's a bad one.
    Last edited by Chris249; 08-10-2020 at 07:12 AM.

  26. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    12,376

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    the mere fact that something is a political decision doesn't mean it's a bad one.
    No, but this particular one was. In order to intimidate Stalin and establish the US at the top of the post-war pecking order, hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made to suffer and die.

    Like I said, just try to justify it in terms of principle and precedent, rather than look at it from a US-centric point of view. Imagine if Stalin had dropped those nukes instead of Truman.

  27. #97
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,067

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    No, but this particular one was. In order to intimidate Stalin and establish the US at the top of the post-war pecking order, hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made to suffer and die.

    Like I said, just try to justify it in terms of principle and precedent, rather than look at it from a US-centric point of view. Imagine if Stalin had dropped those nukes instead of Truman.
    I'm not from the USA. As mentioned, I have marched against the wars they led from Vietnam to the Gulf. There is no reason for your assumption that I have a US-centric point of view. I'm a very strong critic of much of the Allied war effort, including the strategic bombing campaigns. Any assumption that I'm just falling in line with the conventional history or US strategy in general is incorrect.

    There are claims that the bombs were dropped to intimidate Stalin, but as even Alperovitz says, there is no solid evidence that that was actually the motivation. How, therefore, can you state it as a fact?

    Again, it's hard to ignore the fact that the USA knew that vast numbers of people were dying each month because of the Japanese occupation, and that further delays meant many more deaths of other innocents. The loss of life in Japan due to the bombings was roughly similar to the number who were killed by the Japanese in Indochina alone in 1945 alone. This was not a battle against a reasonable or humane enemy, or one who had a history of surrendering.

    You still have not shown actual evidence that the USA knew that Japan would surrender quickly if the bombs were not dropped. While I agree that there are many who have studied the topic who feel that the Japanese would have surrendered soon anyway, few seem to have considered the innocents who were going to die if the Japanese fought on.

    At the end of a long and horrific war, there was possibly a decision between dropping the bombs or risking 250,000 dead US troops, hundreds of thousands of Japanese dead, and vast numbers of dead Chinese, Phillipinos, Vietnamese, Singaporeans, etc. It doesn't seem to hard to think that the US government's choice was reasonable.

    Sometimes it does seem odd that the vast death toll that was still being inflicted by the Japanese even in 1945 is not mentioned, almost as if Singaporeans, Chinese, Indonesians etc do not rate as highly as Japanese. The fact that the Japanese had their own atomic bomb programme and intended to use even more germ warfare in 1945 is also often ignored.

    PS - if Stalin had dropped bombs on Berlin in late 1944 or early 1945 and killed 250,000 people and ended the war, hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides would have been saved. Is that a bad thing? The horror of nuclear weapons would have been shown as it was in Japan, and just as with the Japanese bombings the superpowers would have realised that no one wins nuclear wars and therefore we'd have had an incredibly long period without a war amongst the major powers. Is that a bad thing?

    PPS - just to reiterate since it keeps on getting ignored - I'm anti-war, anti-nuke, and not from the USA or a fan of their foreign policies in general. I devoutly hope there will never be another atomic bombing of any sort. One can be against future wars while still realising that some parts of past wars (including Brazil's war of independence, for example) may have been necessary tragedies given the situations that occurred.
    Last edited by Chris249; 08-10-2020 at 08:27 AM.

  28. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Vigo, Galicia, Spain
    Posts
    473

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    The head of the Manhattan Project said, “The purpose of the whole project was to subdue the Russians"

    The explanation is a sum of things, from the mere inertia of a project through the let's say 'scientific curiosity', in fact two different bombs were launched, there was a desire to know the result, and the icing on the cake was to make it clear to the Whole world who was the top dog

  29. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15,030

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    No, but this particular one was. In order to intimidate Stalin and establish the US at the top of the post-war pecking order, hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made to suffer and die.

    Like I said, just try to justify it in terms of principle and precedent, rather than look at it from a US-centric point of view. Imagine if Stalin had dropped those nukes instead of Truman.
    I have read some of the correspondence between Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall, Dodge, etc. dating at the end of WWII. It was clear that foremost on their agenda was stopping the Soviets from continuing a march across Europe, and secondarily across Asia. It doesn't seem far-fetched that this was a major consideration in dropping the bomb on Japan--as a demonstration of U.S. military capability.

  30. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    56,422

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    A couple of points:
    - Multiple overlapping motives are very common; almost ubiquitous with any complicated decision.
    - The atomic bombs were used both get the Japanese to surrender and to intimidate the Russians.
    - The former worked. Japan surrendered six days after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The war ended. A lot of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died badly. My father, and a bunch of other people on all sides, got home alive.
    - Whether the Russians were intimidated or not is hard to tell - but who would you rather have 'at the top of the post-war pecking order', the US with all its faults, or the Stalinist Soviet Union? Not much of a choice there.

    It's very easy to second-guess 75 years later. Knowing what Truman knew at the time, I'd probably make the same decision.

    Note also that nuclear weapons have never once been used in a war since.
    Last edited by Keith Wilson; 08-10-2020 at 10:21 AM.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  31. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Vigo, Galicia, Spain
    Posts
    473

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Recall that it is necessary to argue (A) the launching of two atomic bombs (B) followed one after the other in a short space of time and ... (C) Truman admits in surrender what the Japanese asked to surrender in the month of April

  32. #102
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the hills
    Posts
    57,488

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan McCosh View Post
    I have read some of the correspondence between Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall, Dodge, etc. dating at the end of WWII. It was clear that foremost on their agenda was stopping the Soviets from continuing a march across Europe, and secondarily across Asia. It doesn't seem far-fetched that this was a major consideration in dropping the bomb on Japan--as a demonstration of U.S. military capability.
    Coincidentally one of the major reasons for the invasion of Iraq was a demonstration of US military capabilities to future rising powers like China. Seems that carrying a big stick isn’t sufficient.

  33. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    12,376

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    You still have not shown actual evidence that the USA knew that Japan would surrender quickly if the bombs were not dropped.
    No. But there is plenty of evidence that the USA knew that Japan would surrender before the bombs were dropped if they were allowed to keep the Emperor. The US rejected that, then dropped the bombs, then accepted it, then Japan surrendered. How do you explain that sequence of events?

  34. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    12,376

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    A couple of points:
    - Multiple overlapping motives are very common; almost ubiquitous with any complicated decision.
    - The atomic bombs were used both get the Japanese to surrender and to intimidate the Russians.
    - The former worked. Japan surrendered six days after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The war ended. A lot of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died badly. My father, and a bunch of other people on all sides, got home alive.
    - Whether the Russians were intimidated or not is hard to tell - but who would you rather have 'at the top of the post-war pecking order', the US with all its faults, or the Stalinist Soviet Union? Not much of a choice there.
    I agree with all but the third point. Japan surrendered after:

    1) the second bomb was dropped
    2) the Soviets attacked
    3) The US agreed to let the Emperor stay

    There is plenty of evidence that 2) and 3) were necessary and sufficient reasons. 1) was neither.

    FWIW, to the Japanese, the Emperor was the basis of religion. Demanding that he be handed over, perhaps to be tried for war crimes, was akin to demanding that Germany not only surrender unconditionally, but give up Jesus and hand over their priests.

  35. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Vigo, Galicia, Spain
    Posts
    473

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    and ... it will be necessary to justify the extermination of a million Indonesians for wanting their communal agrarian way of life, and to be labeled as "communists"

    https://www.amazon.com/Jakarta-Metho...6465319&sr=8-1

    exactly the same reason that Adolf and "the blond beast"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •