re: Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?

Ok so???????? Question... not sure how old you are but do you remember the Reagan years??????

quote:

---

What about the theory that FDR was trying to gain public opinion to enter the way, so he cut off the oil supply

---

this is ONE of the reason we should ban cripples for running for office


cause thy cant run

quote:

---

Well i did mention Dresden earlier but for the purposes of this thread it’s easier just to look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

---

So, you don't care about the firebombs in Tokyo in March? I mean, that killed roughly as many as Hiroshima. Just napalm, but a shite ton of it.

Correct.... so are you keeping on here?????

Also, the nation.com article you linked says

quote:

---

Furthermore, contrary to the popular myths around the atomic bomb’s nearly magical power to end the war, the Navy Museum’s explication of the history clearly indicates that “the vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military.”

---

So what’s the talking point you are going with?

1. It had no effect

2. It was overkill

We were doing everything we could to end the war without invading and losing a million soldiers. Should we have just stopped fighting and hope that Russia invades Japan?

This dude is terrible at arguing. He just keeps saying “see my links”.

You can say that all you want but it doesn’t make your links any better. The links suck

quote:

---

it was necessary

---

it was not "necessary" in the traditional sense. we could have ended the war without them.

it was potentially more efficient, quicker, and sent Russia a message. It also potentially saved more Japanese lives.

but at the end of the day, we didnt care about any of that. by this time, we knew about Bataan, we knew about POWs being gunned down in trenches, we knew about rape houses in the Philippines. we'd seen pictures of marines heads chopped off by smirking jap soldiers. we had seen nanking and the brutality and savagery of the average japanese soldier.

by the time we reached the mainland, the nukes made our victory that much easier, and thats all we gave a shite about.

you reap what you sow, and in 1945, the japs reaped hell fire.

After Kursk, the Germans were defeated - at least in the sense you're attaching to the Japanese. There was no way that Nazi Germany was winning the war after that. How many Soviet soldiers did they kill after Kursk? Would Uncle Joe have been justified in nuking Berlin if he had the bomb?
These links to statements by Ike mean nothing. One was a recounting of him of him expressing his feelings in 1945 to Secretary of State Stimson. Was Ike as SHAEF privy to Japanese diplomatic messages that we were intercepting? Or any other intel revealing the behind the scenes activities in the Japanese military government? Doubtful. The other statement in 1948 is even more dubious. By this time, Ike was already contemplating a run at the White House and had seen some of the blowback from the press about the bomb.
All the other statements by generals and admirals hold even less weight. As unit commanders, they were even less aware than Ike about any code-breaking intel. A lot of that is also service-related jealousy and rivalry. Of course Navy admirals would discount the bomb's impact. The Navy didn't have the bomb! LeMay was in charge of the conventional bombing campaign. To agree the bomb ended the war would be a tacit admission that his tactics wouldn't. Plus, they had seen the public handwringing that Ike had. They all wanted to distance themselves from the controversy.

quote:

---

Well Germany never bombed us but that didn't stop us from reducing Dresden to ash in what should rightfully be considered a war crime.

---

Us? Allied Forces Bomber Command, yes. USAAF, no.

Firebombing Dresden was a Bomber Harris idea, at the prompting of Winston Churchill, to show "support" for the Red Army drive from the east. It was the largest (relatively) unbombed city in Germany. There was a large railroad marshaling yard and some factories, but the main idea was to destroy housing.

The British sent close to 1,000 Lancasters in two waves the first night. The USAAF bombed the next day and also used incendiaries, but the British are the ones who set Dresden on fire. "We" just helped.

As far as the atomic bombing of Japan goes, the didn't surrender after Hiroshima. They didn't even immediately surrender after Nagasaki. I think it took 5 or 6 days for them to throw in the towel.

We, Curtis LeMay and the USAAF, had been fire bombing the shite out of Japanese cities for about 5 months by early August. We were slaughtering the civilian population for months and the Japanese wouldn't give up. So, yeah, they needed to experience the atomic bombs.

After the atomic bombing, LeMay was asked how he felt about killing 50,000 in Hiroshima (an early death toll estimate). LeMay being LeMay said something like, "I feel fine. It's not a big deal. I've been killing two hundred thousand a night since March."