Why the US Dropped Atomic Bombs in 1945

2seaoat wrote:

Where are you getting this chit?   All the contemporary documentation......please do not let me stand in your way.....show us.

Salinsky wrote:Truman didn't even know when the bombs were to be dropped.

The timing and targets were determined by General Groves.

And, it was unnecessary.

Japan had decided to surrender when the Soviets declared war.

They were terrified of an invasion by the Bolsheviks.

Wrong. The leaders of Japan were divided on surrender, and remained divided until after the second atomic attack on Nagasaki. It took the emperor's intervention to put the movement toward surrender into high gear. If you want to read further on this, I recommend this title, which I read in January of this year:



Japan and the Soviets had a neutrality-pact, signed in 1939. The Soviets had planned to eventually dishonor this pact and join the United States in the war against Japan, but did not declare war on Japan until AFTER Hiroshima was bombed (Russia declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945; Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th).

I will say that Hiroshima was also meant to be a statement to Stalin to back-off from his heavy hand in Europe. The bombing also spurred Stalin to put the Soviet nuclear program into high gear. He had 10,000 pages of notes from our own super secret program, which was thoroughly penetrated with pro-Soviet spies. The Soviet Union's first nuclear test in 1949 was almost an exact replica of our first test in New Mexico in July of 1945.

Floridatexan wrote:
"...But our quarrel is not really with the use of the atomic bombs specifically, but with the attitude towards human life—including civilian life—that had grown up during the Second World War. Years before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, British and American strategists had adopted the burning of entire cities as a legitimate means of trying to defeat Germany and Japan. The firebombings of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo and other Japanese cities had resulted in casualties roughly equal to or greater than the atomic bombings of those two cities. No historian, to my knowledge, has ever tried to trace how the idea that targeting whole cities and their populations was a legitimate tactic became orthodoxy in the British and American air forces, but it remains a very sad commentary on the ethos of the twentieth century. In any event, they had crossed that threshold well before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The dropping of the bombs horrifies us today, but at the time, it was viewed as a necessary step to end a terrible war as quickly and with the least loss of life as possible. Careful historical research has validated that view."

**********

According to Dr. Kaiser, the Japanese were preparing for an invasion of Kuyutu and were not showing signs of surrender. They were expecting a ground invasion; they were not expecting atomic bombs to be dropped on their civilian populations. And the Russians only violated their treaty with Japan after the bombs were dropped. With victory declared in Europe, the push was on to finish the job. And the war in Asia had been brutal and bloody, with heavy casualties. I don't think any American, military or civilian, had forgotten the attack on Pearl Harbor.

So, I'm glad that President Obama went to Hiroshima...not to apologize, but to bind old wounds.

I recently watched a movie 'The Good German'. I don't know how historically accurate it is, but there was a revelation...the Russians, our ally during the war, were overrunning Germany...apparently being very heavy handed, even with our side, there was a pivot...and the beginnings of the Cold War.

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
"...But our quarrel is not really with the use of the atomic bombs specifically, but with the attitude towards human life—including civilian life—that had grown up during the Second World War. Years before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, British and American strategists had adopted the burning of entire cities as a legitimate means of trying to defeat Germany and Japan. The firebombings of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo and other Japanese cities had resulted in casualties roughly equal to or greater than the atomic bombings of those two cities. No historian, to my knowledge, has ever tried to trace how the idea that targeting whole cities and their populations was a legitimate tactic became orthodoxy in the British and American air forces, but it remains a very sad commentary on the ethos of the twentieth century. In any event, they had crossed that threshold well before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The dropping of the bombs horrifies us today, but at the time, it was viewed as a necessary step to end a terrible war as quickly and with the least loss of life as possible. Careful historical research has validated that view."

**********

According to Dr. Kaiser, the Japanese were preparing for an invasion of Kuyutu and were not showing signs of surrender.  They were expecting a ground invasion; they were not expecting atomic bombs to be dropped on their civilian populations.  And the Russians only violated their treaty with Japan after the bombs were dropped.  With victory declared in Europe, the push was on to finish the job.  And the war in Asia had been brutal and bloody, with heavy casualties.  I don't think any American, military or civilian, had forgotten the attack on Pearl Harbor.  

So, I'm glad that President Obama went to Hiroshima...not to apologize, but to bind old wounds.  

I recently watched a movie 'The Good German'.  I don't know how historically accurate it is, but there was a revelation...the Russians, our ally during the war, were overrunning Germany...apparently being very heavy handed, even with our side, there was a pivot...and the beginnings of the Cold War.

Gawd... lol. The russian atrocities are well documented. Y'all would crack me up if it didn't have an actual effect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
"...But our quarrel is not really with the use of the atomic bombs specifically, but with the attitude towards human life—including civilian life—that had grown up during the Second World War. Years before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, British and American strategists had adopted the burning of entire cities as a legitimate means of trying to defeat Germany and Japan. The firebombings of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo and other Japanese cities had resulted in casualties roughly equal to or greater than the atomic bombings of those two cities. No historian, to my knowledge, has ever tried to trace how the idea that targeting whole cities and their populations was a legitimate tactic became orthodoxy in the British and American air forces, but it remains a very sad commentary on the ethos of the twentieth century. In any event, they had crossed that threshold well before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The dropping of the bombs horrifies us today, but at the time, it was viewed as a necessary step to end a terrible war as quickly and with the least loss of life as possible. Careful historical research has validated that view."

**********

According to Dr. Kaiser, the Japanese were preparing for an invasion of Kuyutu and were not showing signs of surrender.  They were expecting a ground invasion; they were not expecting atomic bombs to be dropped on their civilian populations.  And the Russians only violated their treaty with Japan after the bombs were dropped.  With victory declared in Europe, the push was on to finish the job.  And the war in Asia had been brutal and bloody, with heavy casualties.  I don't think any American, military or civilian, had forgotten the attack on Pearl Harbor.  

So, I'm glad that President Obama went to Hiroshima...not to apologize, but to bind old wounds.  

I recently watched a movie 'The Good German'.  I don't know how historically accurate it is, but there was a revelation...the Russians, our ally during the war, were overrunning Germany...apparently being very heavy handed, even with our side, there was a pivot...and the beginnings of the Cold War.

Gawd... lol. The russian atrocities are well documented. Y'all would crack me up if it didn't have an actual effect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany

Are you capable of having ANY discussion without acting like a jerk?

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
"...But our quarrel is not really with the use of the atomic bombs specifically, but with the attitude towards human life—including civilian life—that had grown up during the Second World War. Years before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, British and American strategists had adopted the burning of entire cities as a legitimate means of trying to defeat Germany and Japan. The firebombings of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo and other Japanese cities had resulted in casualties roughly equal to or greater than the atomic bombings of those two cities. No historian, to my knowledge, has ever tried to trace how the idea that targeting whole cities and their populations was a legitimate tactic became orthodoxy in the British and American air forces, but it remains a very sad commentary on the ethos of the twentieth century. In any event, they had crossed that threshold well before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The dropping of the bombs horrifies us today, but at the time, it was viewed as a necessary step to end a terrible war as quickly and with the least loss of life as possible. Careful historical research has validated that view."

**********

According to Dr. Kaiser, the Japanese were preparing for an invasion of Kuyutu and were not showing signs of surrender.  They were expecting a ground invasion; they were not expecting atomic bombs to be dropped on their civilian populations.  And the Russians only violated their treaty with Japan after the bombs were dropped.  With victory declared in Europe, the push was on to finish the job.  And the war in Asia had been brutal and bloody, with heavy casualties.  I don't think any American, military or civilian, had forgotten the attack on Pearl Harbor.  

So, I'm glad that President Obama went to Hiroshima...not to apologize, but to bind old wounds.  

I recently watched a movie 'The Good German'.  I don't know how historically accurate it is, but there was a revelation...the Russians, our ally during the war, were overrunning Germany...apparently being very heavy handed, even with our side, there was a pivot...and the beginnings of the Cold War.

Gawd... lol. The russian atrocities are well documented. Y'all would crack me up if it didn't have an actual effect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany

Are you capable of having ANY discussion without acting like a jerk?

Yes... when you don't make ridiculous assertions and factually incorrect statements. Which isn't often unfortunately.

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
"...But our quarrel is not really with the use of the atomic bombs specifically, but with the attitude towards human life—including civilian life—that had grown up during the Second World War. Years before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, British and American strategists had adopted the burning of entire cities as a legitimate means of trying to defeat Germany and Japan. The firebombings of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo and other Japanese cities had resulted in casualties roughly equal to or greater than the atomic bombings of those two cities. No historian, to my knowledge, has ever tried to trace how the idea that targeting whole cities and their populations was a legitimate tactic became orthodoxy in the British and American air forces, but it remains a very sad commentary on the ethos of the twentieth century. In any event, they had crossed that threshold well before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The dropping of the bombs horrifies us today, but at the time, it was viewed as a necessary step to end a terrible war as quickly and with the least loss of life as possible. Careful historical research has validated that view."

**********

According to Dr. Kaiser, the Japanese were preparing for an invasion of Kuyutu and were not showing signs of surrender.  They were expecting a ground invasion; they were not expecting atomic bombs to be dropped on their civilian populations.  And the Russians only violated their treaty with Japan after the bombs were dropped.  With victory declared in Europe, the push was on to finish the job.  And the war in Asia had been brutal and bloody, with heavy casualties.  I don't think any American, military or civilian, had forgotten the attack on Pearl Harbor.  

So, I'm glad that President Obama went to Hiroshima...not to apologize, but to bind old wounds.  

I recently watched a movie 'The Good German'.  I don't know how historically accurate it is, but there was a revelation...the Russians, our ally during the war, were overrunning Germany...apparently being very heavy handed, even with our side, there was a pivot...and the beginnings of the Cold War.

Gawd... lol. The russian atrocities are well documented. Y'all would crack me up if it didn't have an actual effect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany

Are you capable of having ANY discussion without acting like a jerk?

Yes... when you don't make ridiculous assertions and factually incorrect statements. Which isn't often unfortunately.

What did I say that wasn't fact? I may be "guilty" of understatement about the Russians. That doesn't mean anything I said is a lie or incorrect. I wasn't there, but neither were you. So we both have to rely on secondhand information. I got mine from someone I know to be a first-rate historian. I wanted perspective and input; you constantly seek to ridicule me and/or anyone who disagrees with you...even when we appear to be agreeing. So, please identify what you perceive as misstatements.

2seaoat wrote:America before the bomb had crushed Imperial Japan, and would have crushed them on firebombings and complete air superiority which rendered the Russian entry moot by the time the first bomb was dropped......

2seaoat wrote:Also this professor from Santa Clara who thinks the fear of the soviets was pervasive among the Japanese, is historically void of what the historical view of the Russians after the 1905 war and prior to the Russian revolution where wars and skirmishes were fought in 1895 and 1905.  The Japanese won and the racial inferiority of what the Czar referred to as "yellow monkey" triggered a growth in Japan's military and Navy which the west tried to curtail in the Washington treaty, but their military grew and it was widespread disrespect of the Russians by the Japanese is counter to the theory that the Soviets first had the logistics for a large scale amphibious landing, and other than some smaller Island stealing.......it was the American capacity to finish the job where the Japanese focused.........and contrary to the absurd proposition there was a unified movement to surrender, the catalyst remains the bombs.......not the reason for the surrender.....that was the inevitable absolute air superiority and invasion of Japan by the Americans.......but the horror of war brought to their homeland with little or no options left.