Should the Atomic Bomb have been dropped on Japan?

**Kyt** · 03-18-2009, 04:34 AM

Firstly, to all members, the use of terms like "The Jap", "The Nip" etc are NOT acceptable terms on this forum. This forum is a place to discuss issues and events in a calm and polite manner, and terms with a racist undertone will be removed. The only time when such terms maybe acceptable would if they occur in a direct quote from the period.

Secondly, the same applies for terms such as "commie dog". There is no need for that term, as it is both derogatory and detracts from what would, otherwise, be an interesting post.

I will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who continues to use terms that are borderlne racist, sexist etc.

As to your post, Cobber, I agree that the Soviet Union did not fight the Japanese for most of the war, but one can well understand their position. Fighting on two fronts would have been very difficult for them. But apart from Stalin's pragmatic attitude towards the Allies, the actual change in the Soviet Union's position in relation to Japan was partly at the instigation of Churchill and Roosevelt, who were desperate for Russian action against the Japanese. When Soviet involvement was agreed between the three, the war was still hanging in the balance, the possibility of an invasion on the Japanese mainland was high, and there was no guarantee that the A-bomb would have worked, or that its use would have forced the Japanese to surrender. It had been agreed that the Soviet's would take action three months after the surrender of Germany, so as to give them time to transfer their units to the east. The fact that they then did so just before the war's end was coincidence. If the A-bombs had failed then the fighting between the Japanese and Soviets would have gone on much longer.

**Cobber** · 03-18-2009, 04:47 AM

My old dad was based in Japan after the war and part of the Aussie AOR included Hiroshima, he never forgot what he saw and hated Nukes of all sorts, however he believed strongly that the bombs had to be dropped or the war would of carried on for years more and cost hundreds of thousands of casualtie's.

We allways wondered if this had anyhting to do with his cancer that took him from us at the age of 56, he smoked ciggie's and liked a drink, and no other extended family member to the best of my knowledge has ever had cancer,

**Kyt** · 03-18-2009, 04:50 AM

Sorry to hear about your father Cobber. The issue of radiation after the bombs were dropped really took the Americans by surprise and I believe they were not expecting the issues of radiation-related deaths to be so high. So they made plans for the occupation of the two cities in the same way as the other cities.

**Cobber** · 03-18-2009, 05:33 AM

Thanks Kyt. he has been gone 27 years and I still miss the old soldier.
Vale dad

Sorry Kyt, I will refrain from referring to Communists current and from the past as a animal or any thing else, I have very, very strong personal reasons to dislike communists and racism has absolutly nothing to do with it, i do recognise the good that has finally happened in China due to Communisim opening up a little bit.
As for calling Japanese "the Jap" I agree and you raised the right points and i agree with in your post. Maybe we should just refer to all WW2 Japanese as Imperial Japanese.

Still believe that General Blamey (Aust) should of been in front of the USSR Gentleman when signing the peace papers.

Cheers
Cbr

**Heidi** · 03-18-2009, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by spidge

I have put a link at the end of this. This is where the saying of "read it and weep" must have come from.

Where would be without hindsight. What many modern day "pacifists" and sympathises don't key into their logic is that the Japanese had no intention of surrendering without honour. This was not considered and could never have been allowed.

Hiroshima & Nagasaki was a small price the Japanese paid for their atrocities and dreams of Asian domination.

Aerial bombardment of the home island would have "raised" most Japanese cities and killed millions of civilians. Soldiers on both sides would have died in their 100's of thousands.

The dropping of the bombs actually had mercy on those who did not have mercy on others.

The anti-bomb enthusiasts speak of the post war injuries and ongoing medical conditions of those who survived in the two cities yet what is conveniently omitted is the scars they left on the soldiers they interned and treated inhumanely to the point of eradication.

What of the civilians they slaughtered, (in Timor alone, they executed some 60-70,000 or 13% of their total population).

What of the families of the POW's who would never be the same again.

What of their ongoing medical conditions?

While 95% of all Japanese prisoners were repatriated to Japan only 51% of all allied prisoners of the Japanese survived the war.

Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls

I never agree on dropping an atomic bomb on any country,too me it's a murder.
Killing bad enemies worth it, while you are risking normal population life?
Why should normal population life always suffer the consequences in every way?
I do agree on using Atomic bomb on the enemy it was intended for, and only if there is no risk to normal population life and pows, or if the emeny is much weaker and had no impact in earlier conflicts.

**urqh** · 05-02-2009, 04:39 PM

Apologies for not reading the whole thread here, and someone may already have remarked on this book.

But my own feelings tie in perfectly with the author of the Flashman novels who died last year if I remember rightly..

His book Quartered safely out here...story of his own trials and tribulations in Burma with a northern regiment.

He tells of a discussion he had with an anti bomb activist a few years after the war, and his explanation is one of the best I have ever heard on the subject and one I totally agree with...When I have time I'll put it up.
The gist of it being...the families of the troops he served with could, could possibly never have been born if the war had carried on as his soldiers were the tip of the sword in that theatre...and for that one reason alone...just that one reason, he would gladly drop them all over again. Hard but in my view true.