Atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Wikipedia
Brian McGlinchey: Hiroshima, Nagasaki Bombings Were Needless, Said World War II's Top US Military Leaders
The anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki present an opportunity to demolish a cornerstone myth of American history — that those twin acts of mass civilian slaughter were necessary to bring about Japan’s surrender, and spare a half-million US soldiers who’d have otherwise died in a military conquest of the empire’s home islands.
Those who attack this mythology are often reflexively dismissed as unpatriotic, ill-informed or both. However, the most compelling witnesses against the conventional wisdom were patriots with a unique grasp on the state of affairs in August 1945 — America’s senior military leaders of World War II.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Over the years I have changed my opinion on this subject. Growing up my father, who was in the Red Army at this time, told me that that a month before the bombings he was told that he was going to be deployed to the Far East to join in the war effort against Japan. He told me that he was filled with dread with the coming battle. The fanaticism of the Japanese soldier was known by everyone, and he felt that there was a very good chance that he was going to be killed in this deployment. So when the bombings happened he told me he was completely relieved and thankful for what the Americans did.
So were the bombings necessary?
Because of my father I believed that it was necessary. After-all, the war did quickly end after Nagasaki. But with time more details have emerged, and we now know that many US Generals did not feel the bombing was necessary. They felt that the war was coming to an end, and there was no need to unleash such a weapon.
So was the death of 200,000 Japanese necessary to push the Japanese to capitulate sooner rather than later?
I now have some doubts and a hunger for more information. Maybe it was rushed. Maybe a delay of a week or two before unleashing the bombs should have been the decision. But I do know that if there was no surrender, the invasion of the Japanese islands would have been a bloodbath.
10 comments:
Unit 731.
The decision was made by President Truman and his advisors that the lives of American soldiers were more valuable than the lives of Japanese civilians and non-combatants. The use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese population was in truth a dastardly act, no matter how the bombings were spun to the American people.
And now the Japanese are strong allies of the Americans. Go figure.
How many would have died in those ensuing two weeks (including POWs)? Should we have withheld the atomic bombs and relied on the fire-bombings, which killed far more people? Should we have invaded, which would have killed millions on both sides? How about a blockade on the Japanese islands, trying to starve them out -- how many would have died then?
Were the Japanese leaders (those who counted) ready to surrender? No, they were moving some 60 divisions from Manchuria to reinforce the homeland, while instigating an attempted coup against the emperor (!) in order to continue the war.
Humanitarian considerations were non-existent against a country that would perpetuate atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking or the destruction of Manila after declaring it an open city (for just two examples).
Like your father, I have never spoken to a veteran of the War in the Pacific who wasn't absolutely delighted about the bombs' part in ending the war.
I believe the Japanese reply was "ignore with disdain" or something of that nature. Better than a landing on southern Japan. Japan should've capitulated after Okinawa but the generals had no concern for their people.
if the Allies had to invade Imperial Japan, far more Japanese civilians would have died. Look at the battle for Okinawa for an idea of what would have happened. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced an ending that was less bloody.
YES YES and YES! Remember, it took two Bombs and the Japanese still had sizable forces in mainland China. Ugh. No debate here.
Oh and we wanted the end the war before Russia got its hands into Asia.
NO. At least the first bomb should be dropped on inhabited area for demonstration. Japan has not capitulate because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but because Red Army offensive in Manchuria (Operation August Storm), who has leaved Japan with nothing outside his mainland. Soviets are determined to occupy Hokkaido, and maybe more, before planned invasion of Kyushu by US. The invasion may have cost to US more deaths than the rest of the WW II, but also a more great devastation for Japan, already on the verge of collapse, with many cities burned. The peace party inside Rising Sun country can be strengthened by "Shock and Awe" terroristic atomic bombing, but the rapid advances of Red Army also made clear to emperor Hirohito that Japan will be split like Germany, so better stop the madness of his generals.
Should Russia nuke west Ukraine to immediately end this war? Why not?
A lot of knowledge here
Post a Comment