Discussion in 'WWII General' started by Friedrich, Aug 9, 2005.
We've discussed it more than one time, but I was wondering…
they knew their war was over and yet they carried on fighting after first nuke.
With the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the war with Japan there has been a lot of information about the atomic bombs. It is funny how the political motivations of the previous generations get spun by future generations. Most of what I have seen paints the Truman administration as being heartless hate mongers who want to pay back the Japanese for their treachery, and want somebody to use their new toy upon. Oh yeah, and to flex their muscle to show those Russians that we are not to be triffled with!
All of the weapons of war are terrible, they are meant to do horrible traumatic damage to people and their surroundings in order to end their lives. Those who were killed in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no less dead than those fire-bombed in Tokyo. Those who suffered from the burns and radiation sickness from the atomic blasts suffered no more than those ravaged by the fire storms. We can only hope that somehow the end of the hostilities by this dramatic show of force, no matter what the motivation behind it, did save lives on both side of the Pacific Ocean.
You mean disinformation about the Atomic bomb attacks. Funny how the younger generations of today always know everything
Whatever the case, weight it against the estimated body count of the proposed invasion of Japan - civilian and military.
Erich, I am not sure I am following what you are trying to say. Could you expound on your remark?
Well, it seems that in the 'West' history is no longer being written by the victors but by empty headed idiots in academia.......
Erich, I am not sure I am following what you are trying to say. Could you expound on your remark? </font>[/QUOTE]bigiceman, I'd like to point out that several academics mistakenly think there was NO reason to drop the atomic bombs. This dissappoints me. Many younger people genuinely wonder why in the world such a horrific thing could happen. The sad truth is, many are simply not students of history. The following exerpt is an interesting & informative article by James Martin Davis from b-29.org:
......Had these bombs not been dropped and had the invasion (of Japan) been launched as scheduled, it is hard not to speculate as to the cost. Thousands of Japanese suicide sailors and airmen would have died in fiery deaths in the defense of their homeland. Thousands of American sailors and airmen defending against these attacks would also have been killed and many more wounded.
On the Japanese home islands, the combat casualties would have been at a minimum in the tens of thousands. Every foot of Japanese soil would have been paid for, twice over, by both Japanese and American lives.
One can only guess at how many civilians would have committed suicide in their homes or in futile mass attacks.
In retrospect, the one million American men who were to be casualties of the invasion, were instead lucky enough to survive the war, safe and unharmed.
Intelligence studies and realistic military estimates made over forty years ago, and not latter day speculation, show quite clearly that the battle for Japan might have well resulted in the biggest bloodbath in the history of modern warfare.
At best, the invasion of Japan would have resulted in a long and bloody siege. At worst, it could have been a battle of extermination between two different civilizations.
Far worse would be what might have happened to Japan as a nation and as a culture. When the invasion came, it would have been after several additional months of the continued firebombings on all of the remaining Japanese cities and population centers. The cost in human life that resulted from the two atomic bombs would be small in comparison to the total number of Japanese lives that would have been lost by this continued aerial devastation.....
So yes, Japanese civilian casualties would have been far worse had the bombs not been dropped. This is a fundamental concept for most WW2 historians, but mysteriously is confused by younger generations.
I do understand what you mean now. I have said the same thing myself here and elsewhere.
Somehow the use of a NUCLEAR weapon is so much more horrible than a conventional one. Those who died are just as dead though. Balance the cost of lives without them and they seem a weapon of mercy. That sounds funny, but the millions who survived owe their lives to the quick end of the war.