Do It Again Curtis Lemay Shit Wehraboos Say

• For information on humanitarian relief/support efforts for Ukraine, and how you can help, please visit this thread.

On the 75th Anniversary of Hiroshima's bombing, do you think the force was justified and saved more lives without it?

• Thread starter entremet
• Start date Aug 6, 2020

Yous are using an out of date browser. Information technology may not display this or other websites correctly.
Yous should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

Condition

Non open for farther replies.

• #51

What is the argument for dropping it on a city instead of a unpopulated or less populated area? Could dropping it somewhere else have not demonstrated power plenty to terminate the war too?

It was i part for show, to tangibly demonstrate the immense subversive ability of the weapon on a "existent" target. Had they merely dropped it "somewhere else", whilst it may take triggered a surrender, Japan (or whatsoever other nation, for that matter) may take thought that the The states was not willing to actually use the weapon. Doing information technology this mode showed not only that they had the weapon, but that they would use it. Doing it twice showed that information technology was non a fluke, a one-off or otherwise and could be repeated ad infinitum.

And some other (lesser) function to really target infrastructure.

• #52

Yes, it did. I honestly take a hard time believing that if we'd dropped the bombs on the Nazis that it would be this controversial.

• #53

This is dumb accept from the author. Their statement hinges on insisting that the provisional surrender the IJ forces were willing to accept (go on land holdings, retain the crown, immunity from war crimes) are equal to the unconditional surrender the allies wanted. By every logical bespeak Imperial Nippon was defeated; their navy rested on the ocean floor, their air forces were nonexistent and all the remained of their ground forces were scattered expeditionary forces in mainland Asia and civil defense of the mainland.

Despite resounding defeat and no promise of any kind of victory the IJ forces were notwithstanding enervating concessions. They weren't a logical actor like the author tries to paint the Japanese leadership as.Furthermore with the fanatic defense and mass suicides on Okinawa there was lilliputian doubt to the allies that a ground invasion of the mainland wouldn't be met with the same fanaticism by a civil defense force.

I think this is a key bespeak. Not that the Japanese were "casuistic", but that Majestic Japan (and indeed, Nazi Germany) were essentially self-sabotaging and highly dysfunctional and cost all sides a lot more than lives.

The argument confronting the bomb dropping because "the war was won" ignores the fact that the war was won basically for months and years before we got to that bespeak; if non right at the point of the failure of Pearl Harbor, so certainly by Midway. The goals of Nihon were utterly incompatible with the reality of the war, notwithstanding they kept fighting.

• #54

I'd recommend listening to the iii episodes of Revisionist History by Malcolm Gladwell about Gen. Curtis LeMay, and why the US abandoned information technology's programme for precision bombing in Japan. They're new releases, good episodes, and while at that place's plenty of books throughout history that discuss this topic, this was a fresh perspective that I didn't know well-nigh.
Episode 4 - six of this season. Information technology'south skilful.

In full general I think that the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuclear bombs prevented a protracted, drawn out land invasion of Japan between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that the results playing out the way they were is a reason why Nippon wasn't divided into Soviet North Japan and Democratic Due south Japan, throughout the rest of the 20th century. Nevertheless, the loss of life simply may not be worth information technology. Lemay, himself, recognizes this. He's a decorated general, one of the nigh decorated in American history, though he recognizes that if the allies lost the war he wouldn't have been decorated, he would accept been executed as a war criminal.

Also the war was certainly not won, at all. Without the immediate surrender of Purple Japan, a protracted invasion would have resulted, the US from the South E and the Soviets from the North West.

• #55

Yes, it did. I honestly have a hard fourth dimension assertive that if we'd dropped the bombs on the Nazis that it would be this controversial.

it would. look upwardly the bombing of Dresden and that was not even a tenth of the damage.

• #56

i hateful could information technology exist possible that having dropped the bombs in Nihon meant years later the USSR and the Usa showed more restrained in using them than they would have otherwise done?
I hateful dropping those bombs in 45 could've saved us from ii countries who have them using them on each other and killing much more

This is something I wonder myself. In that location is no way to show it one mode or another, every bit it'south such a what-if scenario, only I have a gut feeling that the horror of the bombings gave a sobering upshot to the two superpowers, who otherwise might have been too eager to endeavor out their new wonder-weapon against their rival, and then faced retaliation in kind.

• #57

People should look at the tactics both the Americans and Japanese were prepared to apply. Preteen girls with spears charging motorcar guns. Tactical nuclear warfare.

There probably wouldn't exist Japanese people today if there had been a mainland invasion.

• #58

it would. expect upward the bombing of Dresden and that was not even a tenth of the damage.

But weird wehraboos still complain about Dresden.

They also commonly consume extremely inflated propaganda numbers that suggest the Dresden bombings killed more than the nukes (individually) did.

• #59

My take is... those bombs would have never been dropped on European countries.

• #60

I'd recommend listening to the 3 episodes of Revisionist History past Malcolm Gladwell about Gen. Curtis LeMay, and why the United states abandoned it's plan for precision bombing in Japan. They're new releases, good episodes, and while there's plenty of books throughout history that talk over this topic, this was a fresh perspective that I didn't know virtually.
Episode 4 - half dozen of this season. It'due south good.

In full general I think that the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuclear bombs prevented a protracted, drawn out land invasion of Japan betwixt the The states and the Soviet Wedlock, and that the results playing out the way they were is a reason why Nihon wasn't divided into Soviet Due north Japan and Democratic S Japan, throughout the residuum of the 20th century. Still, the loss of life merely may not be worth it. Lemay, himself, recognizes this. He'south a decorated general, one of the most decorated in American history, though he recognizes that if the allies lost the state of war he wouldn't accept been decorated, he would have been executed as a war criminal.

Also the war was certainly not won, at all. Without the firsthand give up of Regal Japan, a protracted invasion would have resulted, the US from the South East and the Soviets from the Due north West.

Also keep in heed that the people of Japan were instructed not to give up, and to engage in suicide tactics to take as many American troops as possible with them.
The bombings were horrific, just they were necessary at the time because Japan would not accept surrendered without them.

• #61

The intentional mass killing of civilians is never justifiable.

• #62

This is something I wonder myself. In that location is no way to testify it one way or some other, as information technology'southward such a what-if scenario, only I accept a gut feeling that the horror of the bombings gave a sobering consequence to the ii superpowers, who otherwise might have been too eager to endeavour out their new wonder-weapon against their rival.

If anything information technology showed the horrors or radiation poisoning. The plans for downfall (the invasion of the mainland) chosen to use atomic bombs to clear embankment heads and create staging areas for allied troops. Without the full understanding of radiation the toll of the invasion would exist incalculable.

• #63

My take is... those bombs would have never been dropped on European countries.

They were designed explicitly to exist dropped on Germany. Germany just had the good fortune of surrendering before they were finished.

• #64

User Banned (3 Months): Explicitly justifying the targeting of civilians in warfare

The intentional mass killing of civilians is never justifiable.

it was a state of war, do yous retrieve these civilians weren't willingly supporting the war effort by their country?

• #65

I thought that was less of a theory and more than mutual knowledge.

I visited Hiroshima a few years ago. It was an odd experience. To stand in (beneath) the spot where the bomb detonated gave me a lot to call up almost. I don't know whether information technology was "necessary", just I sure as hell promise it never happens again.

I'd recommend everyone brand a trip to Hiroshima at to the lowest degree one time in their life. I think it's of import that nosotros brand a clear distinction in our ain minds between the fantasized, almost "cartoonish" idea of nuclear weapons that we get from games, film and media, and the actual horrific reality of what they are.

I went there in October, nosotros stayed at a hotel just a few blocks from there. It was quite a surreal experience. Did yous do the museum? I was devastated simply visiting the peace park so I bailed.

Hiroshima is now 1 of my favourite cities in the world. I used to think the bomb was justified, only I can't anymore.

Standing at ground zero looking upwards.

• #66

My take is... those bombs would accept never been dropped on European countries.

Pretty sure they were planning on dropping them in Germany. Federal republic of germany just surrendered first earlier they could utilise it.

• #67

Only weird wehraboos nonetheless complain nigh Dresden.

lol no.. yes the Nazi's call it their Holocaust and they are fucking idiots. Simply there is a legitimate argument to be made that it was unnecessary and or excessive.

• #68

information technology was a war, do you think these civilians weren't willingly supporting the war endeavor past their country?

Information technology'southward insane to remember that children are even capable of this.

• #69

They were designed explicitly to be dropped on Federal republic of germany. Federal republic of germany just had the good fortune of surrendering before they were finished.

At that place was as well, past that point, nothing left to bomb.

• #70

That's surprising. I would've figured in 1945, in the firsthand aftermath of the state of war, that the average American would simply exist jubilant virtually the war being over.

At that place were a lot of people horrified by the death toll and the fact that and so many were civilians, even and then. Post-War propaganda did a lot of piece of work to get people on lath with the bombings being necessary, justified, and positive.

• #71

No, yous could've nuked a non populated surface area. Japan was already on it's way to surrendering, there was no rush to end the war rapidly from the Allies perceptive. They had Nihon isolated on their domicile islands. The US government simply didn't care about Japanese lives, in the same way every bit they didn't intendance about Japanese Americans during war.

• #72

information technology was a war, do you lot retrieve these civilians weren't willingly supporting the war effort by their country?

and so at that place are no civilians in war because people tend to back up their own land?

• #73

My take is... those bombs would have never been dropped on European countries.

You lot would exist incorrect. The bombs were being made for the European campaign.

• #74

I can never agree with the bombings.

• #75

If they never did show the horror that the bombs could do, how long until a more advanced bomb was used somewhere?

Tokyo a twelvemonth later, or eventually Moscow.

How would the Cuban Missile Crunch have been resolved if the world had never seen a flop used in war?

• #76

lol no.. yes the Nazi's call information technology their Holocaust and they are fucking idiots. Merely there is a legitimate argument to exist made that information technology was unnecessary and or excessive.

Maybe, possibly non, simply I don't retrieve you can seriously fence that in 2020 the Dresden bombings garner as much hand-wringing as the nukes. The just reason anybody cared about Dresden in the get-go identify was because Slaughterhouse 5 takes place during the bombings and gives Goebbel'due south ludicrously exaggerated death toll (which the writer afterwards apologized for).

• #77

so at that place are no civilians in war because people tend to back up their own land?

In a state of full war, like WW2 there is almost zero that doesn't commit to the war effort. Is a civilian who works in a munitions factory not part of the war endeavor? Or what well-nigh someone rationing metal and food for the war effort? The lines are extremely blurry during these times.

• #78

I don't know, it seems like round logic to say that Japanese citizens couldn't be compelled to surrender and so we had to use the nukes, but gave up this sentiment after being nuked. There clearly *was* a breaking betoken, so the insinuation that they would have all rushed to their suicide if we stuck to conventional warfare seems...idk, empty? I call back its easier to say "they were and so crazy loyal we had to use the nukes" rather than "achieving the political outcomes we desired would take been harder than wiping a urban center or two off the map, then we went with the easier pick"

• #79

An invasion of Japan would have likely been fifty-fifty more than horrific for both sides. State of war is a terrible thing.

• #eighty

No. Didn't have to nuke two damn cities to force the Japanese to capitulate.

These acts of barbarity were war crimes plainly and simple.

• #81

Hiroshima, maaaybe.

Nagasaki, no. Absolutely not.

So again, the firebombing had been going on for a while and that did more civilian kills, IIRC.

Still, i will never understand why the starting time bomb wasn't dropped on a war machine target, or heck, even a smaller one near the purple palace

All i know is that if the United states had lost that war, it would've gone down in history equally one of humanity's everyman points

• #82

This is something I wonder myself. There is no way to prove it one way or another, as it's such a what-if scenario, but I have a gut feeling that the horror of the bombings gave a sobering effect to the 2 superpowers, who otherwise might accept been besides eager to try out their new wonder-weapon against their rival, and then faced retaliation in kind.

We do know that Stalin, at least, didn't think atomic weapons were that impressive (and they had moles in the Manhattan project virtually from the beginning.) I've not read enough to say anything about other leaders in the party, though.

Leaving bated Nippon, I recall the other thing that gets left out is Russia was gunning for Mongolia, Korea, parts of China if they declared war on the Japanese. We definitely came very close to extending the Fe curtain even further.

• #83

No, y'all could've nuked a non populated area. Japan was already on it'southward style to surrendering, there was no blitz to finish the war chop-chop from the Allies perceptive. They had Japan isolated on their home islands. The United states of america government only didn't care near Japanese lives, in the same way every bit they didn't care about Japanese Americans during state of war.

Yeah man, just a few more than months of literally starving them to death and they would have surrendered.

Meanwhile the Japanese are still off genociding undesireables but who gives a fuck about them.

• #84

I don't know, it seems like circular logic to say that Japanese citizens couldn't be compelled to surrender and so we had to use the nukes, but gave up this sentiment after beingness nuked. There clearly *was* a breaking signal, so the insinuation that they would have all rushed to their suicide if we stuck to conventional warfare seems...idk, empty? I think its easier to say "they were so crazy loyal nosotros had to utilise the nukes" rather than "achieving the political outcomes we desired would have been harder than wiping a urban center or ii off the map, then we went with the easier pick"

Americans bluffed nosotros had hundreds of bombs ready to go when we didn't. That much destruction with simply two bombs gave Imperial Japan enough reason to surrender on the Allies terms. Call up they nonetheless tried to impale the emperor to keep the war going when he wanted to surrender.

• #85

People yet believe the nukes forced the Japanese to surrender? Japan at that time was being rug bombed and burn bombed on a routine bases, having whole villages wiped out on a charge per unit of in one case a calendar week.

The nukes didn't even register as a new crawly type of weapon for the Purple Japanese loftier command in their daily briefings the next day, they wrote it off as some other carpet or fire bombing.

Japan went an entire year loosing villages left and right to United states of america carpet bombing with the sole programme of drawing the Americans inland for a protracted guerrilla state of war they bet on so they would get more than agreeable terms of surrender or cease burn.

The nukes didn't end the war, didn't force a surrender and didn't even carp the Royal loftier command who was willing to sacrifice every last Japanese noncombatant. What changed Japan'due south listen was the Soviet proclamation of state of war confronting Japan, their plan was to concentrate their whole army confronting an American invasion in the mainlands, but with the Soviets attacking at the same time every bit the Americans, their whole plan went kaput and agreed to unconditional give up to The states forces.

In brusk, the nukes were completely unnecessary, had Stalin declared war on Nippon before the bombings they would've surrendered besides.

It would besides be contemptuous to just condemn these ii nuclear bombings while forgetting well-nigh the wholesale conventional rug and firebombings that together killed more than the both nuclear strikes.

• #86

In that location were many historians who debate the reverse: that the devastation the two bombs let the global superpowers enter the eventual Cold War well aware of the destruction they could crusade. Some think of it every bit an act unnecessary to victory over Nihon but necessary to other nations developing nuclear weapons of their own, in item: The Soviet Union.

Information technology'due south not my personal take on it per say just at that place are absolutely many qualified historians who have that have.

That's a take I hadn't considered before, I appreciate yous posting it.

• #87

The act itself is evil, the extinguishing of that many lives in an instant boggles the mind.

Only I've besides never experience total war where all sides are targeting civilian populations. Every bit for the Japanese give up happening without the bombs, that's tough. Didn't they really merely accept everything was lost considering the Emperor himself announced it? The fanaticism shown elsewhere (nigh notably Okinawa) would requite any army break, especially if planning an invasion of the mainland where you can just presume the populace will exist as defiant if not more so.

• #88

Americans bluffed nosotros had hundreds of bombs gear up to go when nosotros didn't. That much destruction with just two bombs gave Imperial Japan plenty reason to surrender on the Allies terms. Remember they all the same tried to impale the emperor to keep the war going when he wanted to give up.

I call up what bothers me is how many people want to frame the nukes every bit beingness in the interest of Japanese citizens. Thats how we justify it post-facto, merely I'm not sure that was the reasoning used at the fourth dimension.

• #89

The mass murder of a noncombatant population? No, I wouldn't call that justified.

• #ninety

Hiroshima, maaaybe.

Nagasaki, no. Admittedly non.

And so again, the firebombing had been going on for a while and that did more civilian kills, IIRC.

Notwithstanding, i will never sympathise why the start flop wasn't dropped on a military target, or heck, fifty-fifty a smaller ane well-nigh the regal palace

All i know is that if the Us had lost that war, it would've gone down in history every bit one of humanity'south lowest points

It was a armed services target. The armed forces HQ, containing the entire command staff of the Southern Defense Force (the one that the US soldiers were going to be fighting when they landed on Kyushu) is absolutely 1000% a military machine target, equally are massive armed services factories creating planes and weapons.

Are you asking why they didn't driblet one of their simply two super weapons on some random pillbox in the middle of nowhere?

• #91

I really recollect information technology is incommunicable to come upward with any kind of moral justification for the dropping of atomic weapons on what was primarily a civilian populace. Information technology resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

For the people who say "the burn down bombing was worse", that may be true but that just means both the firebombing and diminutive bombs were unjustifiable. Nosotros also never stopped committing these sorts of war crimes, and arguably doing this created the moral pretext for all resulting US state of war crimes.

• #92

There's no great reply hither. The bombs led to incredible death and devastation. At the same fourth dimension, the Japanese had inflicted many disgusting war crimes of their own, and have no moral high footing to stand on either. The war in the Pacific was ugly all around.

• #93

The act itself is evil, the extinguishing of that many lives in an instant boggles the mind.

But I've likewise never experience total war where all sides are targeting civilian populations. As for the Japanese surrender happening without the bombs, that'due south tough. Didn't they actually simply accept everything was lost because the Emperor himself announced it? The fanaticism shown elsewhere (about notably Okinawa) would give any army pause, especially if planning an invasion of the mainland where you lot can only assume the populace will be as defiant if not more and then.

They accustomed the war was lost when the Soviets declared state of war and started invading, the Japanese were prepared for an American invasion just to strength better terms, nukes or no nukes. The Soviet intervention concluded that, they could never hope to reach better terms with the Soviets, and they patently didn't want a divided Nippon similar Germany was divided.

• #94

I call up what bothers me is how many people desire to frame the nukes as being in the involvement of Japanese citizens. Thats how nosotros justify it post-facto, but I'm not certain that was the reasoning used at the time.

Yous're correct that it wasn't some altruistic goal to save Japanese lives. The war was solidly one sided and the use of the bombs to shock Japanese leadership into unconditional surrender was washed considering of the forecasts of the invasion. Allies planned to loose at least a million troops over long, fatigued out fighting confronting fanatic civil defense.

Hell in anticipation of the invasion the Usa printed out Purple Hearts to hand out. Nosotros produced then many that they are still being handed out from that stock today.

• #95

It was a armed forces target. The armed services HQ, containing the entire command staff of the Southern Defence Strength (the one that the US soldiers were going to be fighting when they landed on Kyushu) is absolutely g% a military target, as are massive military factories creating planes and weapons.

Are you asking why they didn't drib one of their merely two super weapons on some random pillbox in the middle of nowhere?

I meant military machine targets without 100k civilians in the blast range, yep.

• #96

Considering Japanese military leaders staged a coup attempt against the emperor when he attempted to surrender later both bombings, I'k rather skeptical of whatever revisionist have that Nihon was going to surrender on their ain before either bombing.

• #97

People still believe the nukes forced the Japanese to surrender? Japan at that time was being carpet bombed and fire bombed on a routine bases, having whole villages wiped out on a rate of once a calendar week.

The nukes didn't even register as a new awesome type of weapon for the Imperial Japanese loftier command in their daily briefings the next day, they wrote it off every bit another carpet or burn down bombing.

Nippon went an unabridged year loosing villages left and right to U.s. rug bombing with the sole plan of drawing the Americans inland for a protracted guerrilla war they bet on so they would get more agreeable terms of surrender or cease burn down.

The nukes didn't finish the war, didn't force a give up and didn't fifty-fifty carp the Majestic high command who was willing to sacrifice every last Japanese civilian. What changed Japan's mind was the Soviet declaration of state of war confronting Japan, their programme was to concentrate their whole army against an American invasion in the mainlands, but with the Soviets attacking at the same time every bit the Americans, their whole plan went kaput and agreed to unconditional surrender to United states of america forces.

In short, the nukes were completely unnecessary, had Stalin declared war on Japan before the bombings they would've surrendered as well.

Information technology would likewise exist contemptuous to just condemn these two nuclear bombings while forgetting about the wholesale conventional carpet and firebombings that together killed more than the both nuclear strikes.

lmao what?

The USSR has no capacity to launch a serious amphibious invasion. The simply affair the Soviets accomplished was killing a bunch of soldiers in Manchuria that the Japanese has already written off.

• #98

In a land of total war, like WW2 there is nigh nothing that doesn't commit to the war effort. Is a civilian who works in a munitions factory non function of the war effort? Or what nigh someone rationing metal and food for the war effort? The lines are extremely blurry during these times.

Why don't you but take it a step further and say "all males historic period 14-45 are enemy combatants"? That is US policy after all.

Information technology's equally disgusting but clearly you are entertaining that viewpoint

• #99

Well I think the argument for Nagasaki was to prove that Hiroshima wasn't a one-off. Unless you mean it wasn't necessary to testify that past destroying another populated city, equally opposed to some empty stretch of land, which is fair

As awful as it is to say information technology, maybe the commencement bomb could take been used in a populated target, and the second in a more vacant spot as opposed to Nagasaki. You lot could prove you had more while showing mercy with the second flop.

Should not have always been used on innocent civilians anyways though. Surely there were options for populated military targets/centers?

• #100

I went there in October, nosotros stayed at a hotel only a few blocks from at that place. It was quite a surreal feel. Did you do the museum? I was devastated only visiting the peace park so I bailed.

Hiroshima is now one of my favourite cities in the globe. I used to think the bomb was justified, simply I tin't anymore.

Standing at ground cipher looking up.

Yea I went to the museum. Whilst the peace park is eerie and unsettling the museum gives a much ameliorate prespective on what actually happened. Truly harrowing stuff. If you ever get to go back I would go and visit.

Status

Not open for farther replies.

maddoxidentradmus.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.resetera.com/threads/on-the-75th-anniversary-of-hiroshimas-bombing-do-you-think-the-force-was-justified-and-saved-more-lives-without-it.263289/page-2

Share this post