Okay, I'll do this piecemeal, with perhaps a more all-encompassing, coherent post on the weekend, if I have the time.
I'm not a big history buff, so forgive my ignorance. Does anyone know why the US chose to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically? Were there big military bases in those cities?
From memory: Hiroshima was a major military supply depot, and the location of an army headquarters. Don't remember about Nagasaki, however. Both were on a list of a number of Japanese cities spared from firebombing as possible targets for the nukes.
First bomb - efficient way to end the war, in retrospect it was horrible and questionable, but it probably would have served its purpose on its own. BUT...
Second bomb - the result of one of the bigger miscommunications in history. Happened because the press all over the world took the Emperor's silence on the matter as a claim that Japan wouldn't surrender and there may or may not have been intelligence to corroborate that. Nobody knew because they were still trying to figure out what the hell happened in Hiroshima. It probably wasn't necessary.
I usually take the position that the second nuke was necessary given the after-the-fact information revealed about the Japanese War Council's "deliberations" after Hiroshima. But it is a debatable point.
fun fact: The fire bombing of Tokyo claimed more lives than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki (though not combined...I don't think.) While the a-bombs are debatable, people cite the Tokyo fire bombing as a true war crime the U.S. never had to respond to.
Yes, and firebombing/strategic bombing is where the
real moral dilemma/debate for the Allies lies.
One of Japan's surrendering terms was a demand for no occupation, which the US obviously would have refused. Japan refused to respond to the Potsdam Declaration, hence the second bomb. When you look at Japanese/Imperial history it becomes clear that surrender wasn't likely
Indeed,
especially when looking at the intercepted communications between the Japanese ambassador in Moscow and the Japanese foreign minister.
There was no outright refusal, just silence. Was it unrelenting silence? or was Japan scrambling to figure out what the hell happened in Hiroshima so they could make an informed decision? Nobody knows.
Actually, we do know quite a lot about what happened in the aftermath of the first nuke. In fact, the hawks were saying that there was no way that the US could have more than one nuke. Nagasaki quickly disabused them of that notion.
Well besides you calling me an idiot, I have to agree. I also see the reasons behind it. But the Germans also saw reasons for the Holocaust, how crazy it may be. In fact one of the first mass murders of Jews by Einstatsgruppen in the east was marked by the commanding officer who burst out in tears while giving a speech that's it's a dirty job...but someone's got to do it.
Fuck that implied equivalency. "The Germans also saw reasons for the Holocaust"?! Fuck that noise. The overriding reason for the dropping of the atomic bombs was to end the war in the Pacific
as quickly as possible. . The overriding reason for the Holocaust was that
Hitler was a racist, psychopathic, megalomaniac piece of SHIT. There's no equivalency in the two. Period.
I will say this to the fuck morans on this board- The A-Bomb was the best move in a bad situation for Americans. Invading Japan would have been a bloodbath. I will add, however, that a population does not 'deserve' the devastation and suffering delivered by the A-Bomb. Not appreciating the true severity of its use just leads to the improper use of nuclear weapons in the future.
Agreed.
Honestly, is there ANY credible American historians who would say the bombings of Japan weren't necessary? I'd be shocked if there is even a single one.
Gar Alperovitz, off the top of my head.
