+- (wL) Forums (https://war-lords.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Discussions (https://war-lords.net/forum/forum-23.html)
+--- Forum: Media Mania (https://war-lords.net/forum/forum-25.html)
+--- Thread: Something about World War II :p (/thread-9979.html)
Something about World War II :p - Sibrox - Feb 27 2013
![[Image: 543.jpg]](http://kopero.com/img/2012/12/543.jpg)
RE: Something about World War II :p - Manky™ - Feb 27 2013
what US did with japan in naga and hiro was cruel
The first bomb was a uranium-type and the second bomb was a plutonium-type. Truman wanted to test both types of bombs on real cities to compare and contrast the effects of uranium v plutonium for scientific purposes.
And no, neither of the atomic bombs were necessary, in terms of ending WW2. Many historians state that the Soviet Union's declaration of war on Japan and invasion of Manchuria was what caused Japan's surrender because the opening of another front against the USSR had a much more profound effect on the Japanese people than nukes had, since nobody, not even the average American person, knew what a nuke was. To the Japanese victims nuking cities is akin to the conventional bombing or firebombing of cities, which was simply killing innocent people - and this had been going on for years. If Truman was serious about saving lives he would've waited for the Soviets to declare war, and see Japan's response, before using nukes on civilians.
A US invasion of Japan was also unnecessary to end WW2. The US Navy was firmly against it because it contradicted the efforts of the naval blockade which was working to encourage Japan to end the war. The US Army Air Force was also firmly against it, in particular General Carl Spaatz who argued that Japan would only surrender if the US did not invade Japan because it would deprive the Japanese military of what it wanted - a final showdown against the enemy. The only military branch that wanted to invade Japan was the US Army - allegedly accused by the US Navy and Admiral Chester Nimitz of glory hunting. Therefore, the lives of American servicemen were not necessarily saved by dropping two nukes on 200,000 civilians, because a US invasion of Japan was unnecessary in the first place to end the Pacific War. General Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral Chester Nimitz, Admiral William Leahy and General Douglas MacArthur expressed regret in their memoirs of using the atomic bombs - you can find their full quotations on the net.
RE: Something about World War II :p - George Of The Jungle - Feb 28 2013
Was the atomic bombing of Japan absolutely necessary to end WWII? Probably not. But for the US it was the most logical thing to do.
What caused the Japanese surrender was a combination of things.
It's untrue that the atombic bombing didn't have a different impact than regular bombings. When the Japanese flew over the bombed areas, they saw a huge area almost turned to dust. The psychological impact was much bigger. They thought about what 10 or 20 of those bombs could do.
On the other hand you had the Soviets indeed invading Manchuria, and possibly the north of the Japanese mainland. So Japan chose what they assumed was the better deal: surrendering to the US. They assumed that Stalin wouldn't go as easy on them as the Americans. Imagine Mr. psychopath, basically having control over your country.
The US had a few options:
They could have done nothing, and just let the SU invade Japan. A world where that whole region was in Soviet hands was obviously unacceptable for them.
They could have invaded Japan. That would have led to a lot of casualties, on both sides. Japan literally drafted the entire population by the end of WWII, so it would have been impossible for the US military to distinguish 'civilians' (who would surrender) from enemy combatants.
Not only that, but more importantly: the Soviets did invade Manchuria (after the bomb on Hiroshima was dropped). And they would have invaded the Japanese mainland as well, from the North. In that case you would have had the US and the SU fighting for influence in Japan, possibly a case like Korea.
Nuking Japan was the best option for the US: maximizing influence, minimizing casualties, on both sides (although the possible casualties on the Japanese side was probably not their biggest worry).
And for Japan, as a whole, it was probably the better outcome too (except for the people turned to ashes).
Was it morally right? Well, of course not, it's war. And that bridge was crossed a long time before they dropped those nukes. The hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians that were burned to death in the strategic bombings could tell you that if they were still alive.
RE: Something about World War II :p - cucubelu - Feb 28 2013
Love the FB comic relief idea of a breezing through in World War II history! Hahaha!
RE: Something about World War II :p - Moriarty - Feb 28 2013
Quote:Hitler-Hehe. uranus. you're going to lose uranus.
Stalin-you underestimate how many people live there and how little I care about their lives
Germany-Oh shit.
800 000 Germans have closed their accounts.
1 130 000 Russians have closed their accounts.