A bombs were not needed to end the war?

I think the key to the argument is within Tiso's statement of "what is known now."

It is impossible to study history only through the lens of today. We must look at the events through the lens of the day if we are to understand what happened. We cannot say that Truman shouldn't have dropped the bombs because of the Cold War. He wasn't a Seer!

It is imperative that we look at what was going on then. What were the goals of the day? We must stop using hindsight as a benchmark.

 

Did you ever notice how Japanese anime cartoons are always so damn bleak? always about post-apocalyptic futures and extinction of humanity at the hands of giant robots and/or Godzilla...

Its prolly because the Japanese are the only culture to have experienced something that really felt like the apocalypse... One of my (many) crackpot theories is that the bombs must have really messed with their popular culture.

Pikachu is also a mutated gerbil

 

Seen in hindsight, and with contemporary Japanese culture in mind (Pokémon, Dragonball Z) perhaps two A bombs were too little...

 

Don't forget that Germany was also in ruins after the war, with many cities still being largely rubble well into the fifties.

 

lol, you should walk through Hildesheim, Hannover, Würzburg, Berlin, Lübeck etc, with an pre WW2 travel guide. Or should visit some russian cities like Wolgograd and St.Peterburg.

Regards,
Che.

 

or Caen or Coventry. We all suffered but that is not the point

BTW, the thread is called "A bombs were not needed to end the war?" which is actually true. The Allies could have won without dropping the nukes.

But what you need to look at is how long it would have taken, how much it would have cost, how many soldiers would have died on both sides and how many japanese civilians would have been shot, bombed, starved and commited suicide. On that balance I think the nukes were right to bring a sudden end to the war.

However there is one more factor which is completly over looked. The Allies in July 45 were not happy. Already the US/Brits were worried about the Ruskies and I believe that plans were drawn up to counter or pre-empt further attacks by the Ruskies to head further west than Berlin.

The UK and commonwealth were spent. There was no way we could fund financially or manpower wise further war either in Eastern Europe or Asia as such everything would be left to the US. Further the US were risking fighting on two fronts. If the Ruskies pressed West could America stop them and continue to fight Japan? Could America risk messing around with Japan for another 6 to 18 months allowing the Ruskies to gain land to the east?

for those reasons the war needed to be ended and ended fast. There was a weapon available that could do it and it was used. At the time it seemed a sensible and correct decision and I am inclined to agree with their reasoning.

FNG

 

Didn't mean to infer than German or Russia were any less devastated than Japan, just that a conventional invasion (however devastating) is at least something which humanity has had alot of experience in and knows how to fight. Humanity is certainly no stranger to war, Germany and Russia in 1945 especially had had plently of experience of being invaded/razed/occupied throughout the ages.

Blinding white mushroom clouds, on the other hand, might have been a bit harder to handle. They were something Japan never envisioned, as a veil of propaganda had convinced the Japanese that they were going to win the war with superior discpline and giant robots. To combat such a powerful weapon that no-one had seen before and to which there was no known defence would have crushed their souls. I wouldn't be suprised if the atom bombs had a more traumatic effect on Japanese cultural identity than the war had on European culture... But like I said its a crackpot theory