your personal opinion is they would have surrendered anyway....your opinion yes it may be, but, in the history of japan, and their trend in the entire war, they wouldn't have surrendered like you think. ask any and all historians, professionals, yadda yadda yadda, they will tell you otherwise. they can be wrong, but i think the chances of you being wrong are a little bit greater than theirs. statistics dont lie, just like the japanese dont surrender. its been brought up before. they still wanted to fight even after the emperor surrendered. there is proof of this, officers under the emperor were doing all they could to stop it. what makes you think it would be different that time?
Poll
Were the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Necessary?
| Yes | 70% | 70% - 134 | ||||
| No | 29% | 29% - 57 | ||||
| Total: 191 | ||||||
Wow, almost 100 people who voted yes know more about the WWII than General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe: "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-02-02 04:02:14)
So, according to your definition General Dwight Eisenhower was not a good General. He also adviced not to use the bombs.Turquoise wrote:
Albert Einstein was a brilliant mathematician and scientist, but I don't think he'd make a good general.
It's all about how you word the question.sergeriver wrote:
Wow, almost 100 people who voted yes know more about the WWII than General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe: "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
Statistics don't lie? depends on where you get them entirely statistics presented in certain ways can deceive. My only point in this whole argument is that we bombed a bunch of civilians so that we didn't have bother with an invasion on the basis that we thought that they may all fight back military and civilians together is not good enough reason for me.mcjagdflieger wrote:
your personal opinion is they would have surrendered anyway....your opinion yes it may be, but, in the history of japan, and their trend in the entire war, they wouldn't have surrendered like you think. ask any and all historians, professionals, yadda yadda yadda, they will tell you otherwise. they can be wrong, but i think the chances of you being wrong are a little bit greater than theirs. statistics dont lie, just like the japanese dont surrender. its been brought up before. they still wanted to fight even after the emperor surrendered. there is proof of this, officers under the emperor were doing all they could to stop it. what makes you think it would be different that time?
On top of that my opinion is backed up by important figures around at the time stated in the original post the guy that actually was around to see the aftermath.
Another thing is that if they didn't know about the effects of radiation and the fact the bomb would work in such a way, they tested it before they dropped it on japan and even if they didn't find out the radioactive effect then they shouldn't have used such an experimental weapon in the first place.
Last edited by Recoil555 (2007-02-02 04:14:15)
Anyone in a Commanding role surely would do what they could to end the war swiftly with minimal troop loss. That is what a good "General" does. Eisenhower might have been attempting to be a good "Person". Not really a requirement to be a strong military leader. Eisenhower was after all a politician as well.sergeriver wrote:
So, according to your definition General Dwight Eisenhower was not a good General. He also adviced not to use the bombs.Turquoise wrote:
Albert Einstein was a brilliant mathematician and scientist, but I don't think he'd make a good general.
From http://www.anesi.com/bomb.htm
The Survey's pet scheme was to interdict transportation. It believed this would have "reduced Japan to a series of isolated communities, incapable of any sustained industrial production, incapable of moving food from the agricultural areas to the cities, and incapable of rapid large-scale movements of troops and munitions." (Summary Report, p. 19).
In addition, the Survey said, "In order to bring maximum pressure on the civilian population and to complicate further the Japanese economic problems, night and bad weather attacks on urban areas could have been carried out simultaneously with the transportation attack." (Summary Report, p. 20)
Given that 185,000 casualties were sustained during the first Tokyo attack on 9 March 1945 (Summary Report, p. 20), it seems likely that direct casualties from continued conventional bombardment would have exceeded those caused by the atomic bombs.
The savage mistreatment of civilians in Japanese-occupied China (e.g. germ warfare experiments and promiscuous slaughter of civilians) and French Indo-China (more slaughter, including the use of mustard gas) is well known. These areas were still in Japanese possession at the time of the Japanese surrender. Prolonging the war would have prolonged the agony of these civilian populations.
Although those who criticize the use of the atomic bombs seem not to care at all about U.S. military casualties, the result of continuing the war for several additional months would have been substantial casualties -- from combat, tropical diseases, accidents and losses at sea.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-02 04:31:30)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well, luckily for the folks standing under the Enola Gay, they were wrong about that.ATG wrote:
They told their people the the Americans ate the POW's.
BTW does anyone spare a thought for the poor woman the plane was named after? It's kinda like having a disease named after you...
This guy is one of the smartest on this forum. I suggest you all read what he and I said again, and stop being such anti-American media sheep.Turquoise wrote:
...as would the Soviets, Nazis, or Japanese...usmarine2007 wrote:
I may be wrong, and I am sure you guys will tell me if I am. But, if the UK would have had this weapon at the beginning of the war, I feel they would have used it.
We did what was necessary.
Guys please!!!!!!
It was NOT necessary, it will never be necessary to use nuclear weapons on each other.
HOW FUCKING HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND!!!!
AND WHO THE FUCK THINKS HE IS SO BIG THAT HE CAN DECIDE SHOULD THE BOMB BE DROPPED OR NOT??
THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE: NO FUCKING ONE!!!!
Japs wore assholes, we were assholes and the Martians where probably assholes as well!!!
But it still doesn´t give anyone the rights to put a mark on someones country where generations will suffer for it..
IT IS NOT FAIR THAT CHILDREN TODAY SUFFERS FROM WHAT THEIR GREAT ANCESTORS DID WAY BACK!!!
And no one can disagree here who has even a little clue of what a nuclear bomb is/does/the time after wards..
TO ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE WRITTEN COMMENTS LIKE THIS:
"YEAH, SUPER"
"THEY SO DESERVED IT"
"WE SHOULD LAUNCH SOME IN THE MIDDLE EAST TOO!!!"
Fuck you!!! Honestly, fuck you!!!!
You under aged tards have no idea what the Big A is all about and what it has done to humans, HUMANS JUST LIKE YOU...
SHAME ON YOU!!!!
This is a sad day for a small man on a big rock with so many dick heads!!!!!
If you people are our future then we are fucked!!!!
Would also like to thank many of you mature writers for good reading, I´m printing this one out and taking it with me to work so that my buddies can read some interesting stuff about the whole thing.
I got lots of new knowledge while taking part in this thread so I thank you all for the INFO, it has been one of the most interesting debates around here I guess... Shame though that so many dick heads had to spoil it with stupid comments....
C ya guys around!!!!
It was NOT necessary, it will never be necessary to use nuclear weapons on each other.
HOW FUCKING HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND!!!!
AND WHO THE FUCK THINKS HE IS SO BIG THAT HE CAN DECIDE SHOULD THE BOMB BE DROPPED OR NOT??
THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE: NO FUCKING ONE!!!!
Japs wore assholes, we were assholes and the Martians where probably assholes as well!!!
But it still doesn´t give anyone the rights to put a mark on someones country where generations will suffer for it..
IT IS NOT FAIR THAT CHILDREN TODAY SUFFERS FROM WHAT THEIR GREAT ANCESTORS DID WAY BACK!!!
And no one can disagree here who has even a little clue of what a nuclear bomb is/does/the time after wards..
TO ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE WRITTEN COMMENTS LIKE THIS:
"YEAH, SUPER"
"THEY SO DESERVED IT"
"WE SHOULD LAUNCH SOME IN THE MIDDLE EAST TOO!!!"
Fuck you!!! Honestly, fuck you!!!!
You under aged tards have no idea what the Big A is all about and what it has done to humans, HUMANS JUST LIKE YOU...
SHAME ON YOU!!!!
This is a sad day for a small man on a big rock with so many dick heads!!!!!
If you people are our future then we are fucked!!!!
Would also like to thank many of you mature writers for good reading, I´m printing this one out and taking it with me to work so that my buddies can read some interesting stuff about the whole thing.
I got lots of new knowledge while taking part in this thread so I thank you all for the INFO, it has been one of the most interesting debates around here I guess... Shame though that so many dick heads had to spoil it with stupid comments....
C ya guys around!!!!
Load of shite, most nations at the beinging of the war would have done anything to stay out of it.usmarine2007 wrote:
This guy is one of the smartest on this forum. I suggest you all read what he and I said again, and stop being such anti-American media sheep.Turquoise wrote:
...as would the Soviets, Nazis, or Japanese...usmarine2007 wrote:
I may be wrong, and I am sure you guys will tell me if I am. But, if the UK would have had this weapon at the beginning of the war, I feel they would have used it.
We did what was necessary.
They sure did...short of laying down red carpet for Hitler.cospengle wrote:
Load of shite, most nations at the beinging of the war would have done anything to stay out of it.
And which was worse? Holocaust or Holocaust?
Yeah, he is smart. I don't know why you suggest us to read what he and you wrote putting his name next to yours. Besides, stop with the anti-American BS. Do you approve the Holocaust? Are you anti-German? While I don't approve the Holocaust I have nothing against Germany. And the same applies here, while I don't approve the bombings I have nothing against America. But talking to you is like talking to a wall.usmarine2007 wrote:
This guy is one of the smartest on this forum. I suggest you all read what he and I said again, and stop being such anti-American media sheep.Turquoise wrote:
...as would the Soviets, Nazis, or Japanese...usmarine2007 wrote:
I may be wrong, and I am sure you guys will tell me if I am. But, if the UK would have had this weapon at the beginning of the war, I feel they would have used it.
We did what was necessary.
Screw that. Don't compare the Holocaust to this.sergeriver wrote:
Yeah, he is smart. I don't know why you suggest us to read what he and you wrote putting his name next to yours. Besides, stop with the anti-American BS. Do you approve the Holocaust? Are you anti-German? While I don't approve the Holocaust I have nothing against Germany. And the same applies here, while I don't approve the bombings I have nothing against America. But talking to you is like talking to a wall.usmarine2007 wrote:
This guy is one of the smartest on this forum. I suggest you all read what he and I said again, and stop being such anti-American media sheep.Turquoise wrote:
...as would the Soviets, Nazis, or Japanese...
We did what was necessary.
Are you saying that General Dwight Eisenhower was not a good Commander and a strong military leader? Who put him in such important position then? You say "Eisenhower was after all a politician". Wasn't Truman a politician too? Eisenhower was in a Commanding role and he surely didn't want to drop the bombs as he stated, because he knew better than any of us that the Japs were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to drop them given these facts.Kmarion wrote:
Anyone in a Commanding role surely would do what they could to end the war swiftly with minimal troop loss. That is what a good "General" does. Eisenhower might have been attempting to be a good "Person". Not really a requirement to be a strong military leader. Eisenhower was after all a politician as well.sergeriver wrote:
So, according to your definition General Dwight Eisenhower was not a good General. He also adviced not to use the bombs.Turquoise wrote:
Albert Einstein was a brilliant mathematician and scientist, but I don't think he'd make a good general.
I did not compare them. I want you to answer, do you approve the Holocaust? Are you anti-German?usmarine2007 wrote:
Screw that. Don't compare the Holocaust to this.sergeriver wrote:
Yeah, he is smart. I don't know why you suggest us to read what he and you wrote putting his name next to yours. Besides, stop with the anti-American BS. Do you approve the Holocaust? Are you anti-German? While I don't approve the Holocaust I have nothing against Germany. And the same applies here, while I don't approve the bombings I have nothing against America. But talking to you is like talking to a wall.usmarine2007 wrote:
This guy is one of the smartest on this forum. I suggest you all read what he and I said again, and stop being such anti-American media sheep.
I thought the Nazis perpetrated the Holocaust? So no, I am not anti German, but anti Nazi......even though they are gone.sergeriver wrote:
I did not compare them. I want you to answer, do you approve the Holocaust? Are you anti-German?
This IS a holocaust.usmarine2007 wrote:
Screw that. Don't compare the Holocaust to this.sergeriver wrote:
Yeah, he is smart. I don't know why you suggest us to read what he and you wrote putting his name next to yours. Besides, stop with the anti-American BS. Do you approve the Holocaust? Are you anti-German? While I don't approve the Holocaust I have nothing against Germany. And the same applies here, while I don't approve the bombings I have nothing against America. But talking to you is like talking to a wall.usmarine2007 wrote:
This guy is one of the smartest on this forum. I suggest you all read what he and I said again, and stop being such anti-American media sheep.
Sadly they ain't gone. There are still some of them around. But, you can disapprove what some Germans did and yet you aren't anti-German. Why can't I disapprove what Truman did (one American) without being labeled as anti-American?usmarine2007 wrote:
I thought the Nazis perpetrated the Holocaust? So no, I am not anti German, but anti Nazi......even though they are gone.sergeriver wrote:
I did not compare them. I want you to answer, do you approve the Holocaust? Are you anti-German?
Seriously, this is a fascinating topic...one that is constantly debated and probably will be debated until the end of time. Is there a definitive right or wrong side to this debate? I'm not sure, I have done a lot of research on this topic as well as everything to do with WW2. I have hundreds of books about the war and about the dropping of the atomic bomb but I still don't know, if I read every single one of them, that I would have a definate answer to this debate. That said, I urge all of you to read as much as possible about this subject and form your own conclusions because I'm willing to bet that many (not all) who have posted here have very little "real" knowledge about the subject and are solely reacting on gut feelings. Remember, there are always two sides to an issue...make sure to research both before making up your mind.
Why can't I talk about Argentina without you jumping down my throat?sergeriver wrote:
Why can't I disapprove what Truman did (one American) without being labeled as anti-American?
Errr those Generals don't know shit about Japanese culture... The Japanese culture is based on honour, and pretty much for them there's no such thing a surrender. If one surrenders in Japan, they suicide. The Japanese would not surrender, they die for their emperor. Even though The Japanese would most defitnantly lose the war, they will die to the last person just to save their emperor, man, women and child.
I'm saying quite simply there is a difference. There is the role of a Politician who cares about public opinion and there is the role of a general that does everything in his power to win and protect his troops. The Generals role is to defeat the enemy with overwhelming force. The Politicians role is to play on the moral issues the voters care about. The Japanese treated the Emperor as a living deity and would not surrender lightly. 4000 dead kamikazes gave their lives to illustrate this point.sergeriver wrote:
Are you saying that General Dwight Eisenhower was not a good Commander and a strong military leader? Who put him in such important position then? You say "Eisenhower was after all a politician". Wasn't Truman a politician too? Eisenhower was in a Commanding role and he surely didn't want to drop the bombs as he stated, because he knew better than any of us that the Japs were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to drop them given these facts.Kmarion wrote:
Anyone in a Commanding role surely would do what they could to end the war swiftly with minimal troop loss. That is what a good "General" does. Eisenhower might have been attempting to be a good "Person". Not really a requirement to be a strong military leader. Eisenhower was after all a politician as well.sergeriver wrote:
So, according to your definition General Dwight Eisenhower was not a good General. He also adviced not to use the bombs.
Politicians should make Policy, Generals should win the battles.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-02 06:14:07)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
If you'd do it with the same respect I have for America, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Do you think that Dwight Eisenhower, President of US for two terms, is anti-American?usmarine2007 wrote:
Why can't I talk about Argentina without you jumping down my throat?sergeriver wrote:
Why can't I disapprove what Truman did (one American) without being labeled as anti-American?
I am not going to play this game serge. Sorry.sergeriver wrote:
If you'd do it with the same respect I have for America, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Do you think that Dwight Eisenhower, President of US for two terms, is anti-American?