| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 15 2007, 08:27 AM (1,544 Views) | |
| Kira | Aug 15 2007, 11:58 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Hate me, do it and do it again.
|
Word. |
![]() The human whose name is written in this notebook shall die. | |
![]() |
|
| working_class_hero | Aug 15 2007, 12:31 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Captain ASR
|
I agree, it was a stupid decision..it did end the war, but it could have done better, in a more efficient manner |
|
someday monkey won't play piano song, play piano song --- Last.fm | |
![]() |
|
| Fraser | Aug 15 2007, 12:51 PM Post #18 |
![]()
There be no shelter here
|
The bombings at Hiroshima and Nagaski saved several times more people than it killed. The Allies were planning to invade Japan, an attack that would lead to the deaths of 5 million+ Japanese and 1 million+ Allied troops. |
| |
![]() |
|
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 01:11 PM Post #19 |
![]()
v_v
|
I think it was Einstein who argued this point: Do you think that if Germany had had the bombs before we did and dropped them on two American cities, killing that many people, yet still lost the war, that we would let them off, those in control of this decision, because they were trying to save lives? No. They would be charged with war crimes and hanged. And also, those people killed would have been troops. You said it yourself. They would have been troops. That is, men with guns. Not women walking their children to or from school. Not grandmothers and babies. And that's not to mention, there's evidence to suggest that Japan was already ready to surrender, and were all ready for the war to be over! Let me take a direct quote from The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report, which can be found here. <!--QuoteBegin-United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.[/QUOTE] And I'll draw one more quote, this time from William Leahy. This quote and others can be found here.
|
![]() |
|
| Fraser | Aug 15 2007, 01:17 PM Post #20 |
![]()
There be no shelter here
|
Japan would've never surrended without some kind of massive, crushing blow against them. They considered surrener to be the worst thing they could do... |
| |
![]() |
|
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 01:21 PM Post #21 |
![]()
v_v
|
<!--QuoteBegin-United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.[/QUOTE] Guess you didn't read my post. |
![]() |
|
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 01:26 PM Post #22 |
![]()
v_v
|
I don't think I'd ever support the instant death of 300,000 people or the making of 9,000,000 people homeless. |
![]() |
|
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 01:27 PM Post #23 |
![]()
v_v
|
But, hey, I'm no expert. |
![]() |
|
| Fraser | Aug 15 2007, 01:28 PM Post #24 |
![]()
There be no shelter here
|
Ah, so you'd rather support the destruction of the whole country via invasion? |
| |
![]() |
|
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 01:30 PM Post #25 |
![]()
v_v
|
You've not read my post! They were ready to surrender! Weren't they already suing for peace? Yes they were. Let's take another quote:
EDIT: Directed at Linkteen v_v |
![]() |
|
| Fraser | Aug 15 2007, 01:31 PM Post #26 |
![]()
There be no shelter here
|
Oh, and Sean, the fact that the Japanese would've surrended without an invasion is irrelavant. The Allies would've invaded anyway (to make sure that Japan could never be a serious military power ever again), it was either the atomic bombs or a full fledged invasion. |
| |
![]() |
|
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 01:32 PM Post #27 |
![]()
v_v
|
Why would we have invaded them after they surrendered?
|
![]() |
|
| Fraser | Aug 15 2007, 01:35 PM Post #28 |
![]()
There be no shelter here
|
No, I'm saying that EVEN THOUGH the Japanes would've surrendered without an invasion, while the Japanese were making up their minds, the Allies would've invaded anyway. |
| |
![]() |
|
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 01:41 PM Post #29 |
![]()
v_v
|
Right, and we invade a country leaning towards surrender anyway, so...why would it take five million Japanese soldiers dead before they surrendered if they were leaning that way anyway? Wouldn't they surrender shortly after the invasion if they were contemplating it anyway? |
![]() |
|
| Fraser | Aug 15 2007, 01:45 PM Post #30 |
![]()
There be no shelter here
|
Yes, they would have. My point is that in the short time from the start of the non-existant invasion to the Japanese surrender, many, many lives would be lost. Probably about double what happened at Hiroshima and Nagaski. They wouldn't be killing soliders. Sure, lots of troops on both sides would die, but the vast majority of those 5 million casualties would've been civilians. They would be firebombing Japan and smashing the country with artillery, armor and troops. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The News Room · Next Topic » |











6:12 AM Jul 11