The WWII Atomic Bomb Attacks Hiroshima and Nagasaki

yeah, you wouldn't. Americans were not stone cold killers.

LOL

 

There are strong arguments out there that atomic bombs are actually a hoax.

They certainly weren't in the Bible.

 

Kindly note that the detonation of atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a stern warning to the USSR. Many people forget that the USSR had plans to participate in a land invasion of Japan, after they finished off the Wermacht and took Berlin. This ensured that the U.S.A. would not have to split up Japan like Germany.

 

Some aspects were a "surprise", others less so.

Our fault? In some ways, I guess that might be true but I am loathe to judge actions of this caliber from the safety of my computer and a 70yr time delta. More to the point, Japanese aggression was the root cause; casting blame elsewhere is spectacularly wrong.

What my post does say is that there were calculated risks to many of our actions, and other risks were not well understood at all or buried under political maneuvering. Regardless, the combination of these actions forced Japan to act. This was, to a certain extent, an acknowledged inevitability by the powers-that-be at the time.

 

i'd rep this post if i hadn't give you rep elsewhere, cheetah....if that is your REAL name.

 

I've always heard throughout high school that the Japans were never interested in surrender, and thats why the Atomic bombs were dropped. The first one was dropped and they still didn't surrender, so Truman had them drop a second one. Whats funny is that we only had 2 atomic bombs, and after we dropped the second one it had the Japs thinking that maybe we had more, so they surrendered.

A discussion on this topic is never going to be agreed upon. You have some people thinking that the bombs were absolutely necessary, and you're not gonna tell them any differently. Then you have the others that think it wasn't necessary, and that it was a horrible attrocity that was not needed.

It's pretty much a debate that will go down as long as people talk about it.

What gets me is that no one seems to consider how hard of a decision it was for Truman to make on the atomic bombs. No one can imagine that type of pressure and stress that was on him.

 

Here are a few pictures I took last March in Hiroshima, including the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum:

 

They were always open to surrender to their Atomic Overlords.

 

So thats why it took 2 atomic bombs for them to surrender?

 

Wow those are cool.

When I get home I will post some pictures from the Nanjing Massacre Memorial to show some more brutality applied by the Japanese government on people.

 

My theory is that two bombs were used, so that the Soviets would know that the Americans had more than one bomb.

 

Yeah, that could be the case. I think for sure that the Americans definitely wanted all to know or think that we had more than one bomb.. In other words, "don't Fu*k with us"

 

I believe this stems from lessons to be learning in WWI. In WWI, General Pershing felt that an armistice should not have been given to Germany, and instead the Allies should have taken it all the way to Berlin for an unconditional surrender. He stated by giving them an armistice, this was not a defeat to them and we would have to fight this all over again in 20 years.

After the first bombing, Japan was still trying to come to terms of surrender. The Americans wanted an unconditional surrender to ensure Japan did not rise out of the ashes and repeat this all over again in 50 years.

 

"The American People, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory."

The US was clear when they entered WW2. There was not going to be any sort of conditional surrender by the Axis. They were taking the position that Codevilla would argue should be taken in the war on terror many generations later; absolute destruction of the regimes that made war against us.

 

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on war history, WWII history, or history generally - though I am fascinated by and love well-written history books.

But that said, I have a pretty decent grasp of language.

The quickest and easiest way to say "I surrender" is to say "I surrender"

Was there a problem with communication - i.e. the Japanese were saying it but we simply couldn't hear them?

Otherwise, not real sure how its debate-able.

Us: Do you surrender?
Them: Probably, but we're still thinking about how we want to do it.
Us: Ok, bomb time.

^^^ gross simplification and presentation of events in a manner that didn't happen, but on its simplest terms, paints the picture, no?

Would the below have been a better alternative?

Us: Do you surrender?
Them: Probably, but we're still thinking about how we want to do it.
Us: No problem, take your time.

 

The museum really is pretty incredible. One thing I'm sure most Americans don't know is that actually the Japanese are pretty nasty towards the survivors of the bombs. They basically just want to forget it, so are waiting for all of them to go die and wouldn't give them jobs. A real tragedy.

 

After all the crap they pulled in WW2, Japan got off easy with only two nukes.

They even got to keep their emperor on the throne.

What is there to debate about? You should put your energy into solving world hunger.

 

While I think the whole thing is tragic, it's important to note that in war, you can't trust anyone. As JayZ750 said, unless there was a complete surrender, the US was not going to wait for people to have time to plan something. At that specific juncture, I think the decision was not such a bad one.

Regardless, I do think that "let's show the world who is boss" factored into the decision, and that's really very sad.

One thing I've always wondered is how the Japanese don't seem to hold too much animosity towards the US because of it. There is definitely some, but I would expect them to be the most hateful to the US in the world right now. I really commend them on their ability to be rational about the situation and move forward.

 

We rebuilt their nation into the 2nd largest economy.

They'd be worse off if the Russians were allowed to stay and split the island up.

In terms of brutality, the Japanese were equal to or more than brutal than the Soviets.

There's no love lost between them and the rest of Asia.