Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Topic Started: Aug 15 2007, 08:27 AM (1,542 Views)
Fraser
Member Avatar
There be no shelter here
It would've, but the Allies wanted to remove Japan as a military power. If you wanted to do that, a crushing defeat is necessary.


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OnlyMe
Member Avatar
!
Linkteen
Aug 15 2007, 11:31 PM
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.

Maybe, but if there was an invasion, they surely wouldn't remove two cities from the face of the earth, would they?



The A bomb was just "more economical" and another US showoff directed to the Soviets. It's a war crime.
http://www.last.fm/user/OnlyMe123lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fraser
Member Avatar
There be no shelter here
It would've (the invasion) probably destroyed most of Tokyo and several other major Japanese cities.

An invasion would've been FAR worse for everyone, and it was the only option other than bombing Hiroshima/Nagaski, because the Allies only wanted unconditional surrender.

I don't SUPPORT the bombings, I just think that things would've been worse all around if an invasion of Japan had happened instead.


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robosteve
Member Avatar
My Sweet Lord
Roger Waters said it best.

Fuck all that, we've gotta get on with these
Gotta compete with the wily Japanese
No need to worry about the Vietnamese
Gotta bring the Russian bear to his knees
Well, maybe not the Russian bear, maybe the Swedes
We showed Argentina, now let's go and show these
Make us feel tough and wouldn't Maggie be pleased
Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na
One two free four!
Scusi dove il bar!
Se para collo pou eine toe bar!
S'il vous plait ou est le bar!
Oi! Where's the fucking bar John?!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kira
Member Avatar
Hate me, do it and do it again.
Way to kill the topic.
Posted Image
The human whose name is written in this notebook shall die.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheSmashedGuitar
Member Avatar
Love Will Tear Us Apart, Again
White Collar Boy
Aug 16 2007, 07:12 AM
Way to kill the topic.

:whathesaid:

Way to spin what people said, olset. They didn't say we had to negociate completely to end the war, they were saying that looking back that another less-harmful military straegy could've ended the war. I don't think ANYONE here thinks the campaign against the Axis powers was pointless or in vein.

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
Linkteen
Aug 15 2007, 11:34 PM
It would've (the invasion) probably destroyed most of Tokyo and several other major Japanese cities.

An invasion would've been FAR worse for everyone, and it was the only option other than bombing Hiroshima/Nagaski, because the Allies only wanted unconditional surrender.

I don't SUPPORT the bombings, I just think that things would've been worse all around if an invasion of Japan had happened instead.

Right, an invasion would have (er...could have) been worse. But I still doubt that there was no other way possible to end the war without killing that many people and causing that much destruction and suffering.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
Yes! Bravo otlset, bravo!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fraser
Member Avatar
There be no shelter here
:whathesaid:

Otlset's summed up everything.


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lee
Member Avatar
Elmore James
ihateguitarists
Aug 15 2007, 11:42 PM

First of all, lee, what the fuck?

And secondly, v_v

What exactly were the conditions? I don't see how an unconditional surrender is the only way.

I don't believe there are actually people, who aren't old-timey biggots, who are justifying this.

Here's a list of the conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

It clearly stated it was an unconditional surrender the allies where after. As for the japanese they wanted the emperor to remain in power (as someone has already said). They also wanted to try their own war criminals.

Here's the wikipedia page on the planned Invasion of Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

If you where to only read one thing off that like read the estimated casualties.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

How could one justify all those deaths if the bomb was not dropped? If such a powerful weapon could save all those lives why would one not?

How dare you call me a bigot. I stated my opinion just as you have done. I would like an apology and that statement deleted from your post.



Posted Image
We'll see.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chodus
Member Avatar
Thinkin' one thing and doin' another
lee
Aug 17 2007, 10:51 AM

How dare you call me a bigot. I stated my opinion just as you have done. I would like an apology and that statement deleted from your post.

He didn't, read the post properly.


"I don't believe there are actually people, who aren't old-timey biggots, who are justifying this." - Sean
Posted Image
Running the voodoo down
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
lee
Aug 16 2007, 04:51 PM
ihateguitarists
Aug 15 2007, 11:42 PM

First of all, lee, what the fuck?

And secondly, v_v

What exactly were the conditions? I don't see how an unconditional surrender is the only way.

I don't believe there are actually people, who aren't old-timey biggots, who are justifying this.

Here's a list of the conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

It clearly stated it was an unconditional surrender the allies where after. As for the japanese they wanted the emperor to remain in power (as someone has already said). They also wanted to try their own war criminals.

Here's the wikipedia page on the planned Invasion of Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

If you where to only read one thing off that like read the estimated casualties.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

How could one justify all those deaths if the bomb was not dropped? If such a powerful weapon could save all those lives why would one not?

How dare you call me a bigot. I stated my opinion just as you have done. I would like an apology and that statement deleted from your post.

I've decided that otlset's plan sounds best to me.

No need to be a tight-ass lee. Seriously. It's funny because I was just reading back through the old pages of "Post A Pic Of Yourself" and thinking the same thing because you were freaking out about something or another.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lee
Member Avatar
Elmore James
ihateguitarists
Aug 16 2007, 07:02 PM

I've decided that otlset's plan sounds best to me.

No need to be a tight-ass lee. Seriously. It's funny because I was just reading back through the old pages of "Post A Pic Of Yourself" and thinking the same thing because you were freaking out about something or another.

How does that relate to you calling me a bigot?
Posted Image
We'll see.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
lee
Aug 16 2007, 05:34 PM
ihateguitarists
Aug 16 2007, 07:02 PM

I've decided that otlset's plan sounds best to me.

No need to be a tight-ass lee. Seriously. It's funny because I was just reading back through the old pages of "Post A Pic Of Yourself" and thinking the same thing because you were freaking out about something or another.

How does that relate to you calling me a bigot?

I guess it doesn't. Oh, and I didn't call you a bigot, by the way.

You can't read! D:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kira
Member Avatar
Hate me, do it and do it again.
Bigot is a stupid word!
Posted Image
The human whose name is written in this notebook shall die.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The News Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply