Gloomy anniversary

Remove all ads!

No man it is ok. Naturally someone must not forget the whole history and just remember parts of her. I don't agree with the use of the bombs i know there was another more peacefull and less bloody way to bring that war to an end. But the US administration had always a very strange way of dealing with situations. The lesson remain there for anyone who wishes to learn and becomes a better person, but it must be learned by those who have the power not just the simple people. Do we see this happen? Do we see a politician who has the will to learn from the mistakes of the past and try to do something good for a change? I don't see anyone and i feel very sorry and frustrated with this.

 

I don't think that there was a more peaceful way to the war. Japanese would fight to the last man, as they did in previous battles (in Guadalcanal, for example, the Japanese lost 24000 soldiers from the 35000 men who were defending the island). An invasion in the japanese islands would have as a result a number of dead (american and japanese, soldiers and civilians), which would be far more greater than the number of dead in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The sad thing was that the A-bombs costed civilian lives but in WW2 civilians lives were never the main concern of the opponents (almost 20000 civilians died during the siege of Breslau by the Soviets).

Also, it was said in a post above, the a-bomb wanted also to send a message to the soviets. I believe that this is true and I believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented the break of another war in Europe between the soviets and the western allies, which was something that the hawks from both sides wanted to happen (Patton had suggested to release and rearm all the German troops and begin an attack against the Red Army). It may seems unethical but sometimes the end justifies the means and from my point of view the bombing of Dresden, which didn't serve any strategic goal and it was just an action of revenge, was far more unethical than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagashaki. Also, don't forget that nobody this time knew the exact amount of damage that the atomic bomb could cause.

The use of the atomic bombs against Japan is a sad thing, one of the darkest moments of human history, but it was a totally understandable decision under the circumstances of this specific period.

 

Have a look at this figures . I cannot tell how reliable they are, but what I see here is that the total amount of civilian casualties for Japan (which I believe were caused only by the a-bombs) is higher that the number of military casualities for the USA, which were involved on many fronts, for the whole war. Plus, I believe the number here does not take into account the deaths caused by radiation. I do not think an invasion could have been more costly than that. Please remember that at the time Japan had virtually lost the war already. All the conquered lands in the pacific had been taken back, and Japan was exhausted in terms of resources and soldiers available.
Sure this way no american soldiers got hurt (please note that I fully understand the decision taken from this point of view. When in war your priority should be to save the life of your own troops), but to drop something able to annihilate a whole town in a matter of seconds has, IMHO, no possible justification. To then drop a second one in a matter of three days is beyond me.
I despise war in any form, but if really want to have it, keep it on the battlefield. Therefore I also totally condemn all other similar actíons aimed at civilians, including the ones mentioned in your post.

 

Japan had still 2 million men, 800 fighters and bombers plus 2000 suicide attack planes. This force could cause huge american casaulties if an invasion had taken place.

You are right that the majority of the japanese civilian casaulties were caused by the a-bombs, but this is due to the fact that urban fighting didn't take place in japanese cities. If the invasion had happened, the urban fighting would cost much more lives. See the battle of Berlin for example. I don't know the number of civilian casaulties but the soviets lost 300000 soldiers and the germans 480000, so I assume that the number of dead civilians must be around 200000 at least. Don't you think that the "battle of Tokyo" would have the same result?

 

Can't reply on the numbers you give, as I have no information on them, so I'll trust you. Sure the force sounds big, but what about ammunition, gas, food ? And how many men where left working to produce those goods ? Japan is a poor country resource-wise. That is the main reason for their huge push toward conquering other lands when they entered the war. Plus, number of soldiers is often "inflated" when a country is locked for so long in a war. Usually the training time decreases, the age of conscription gets lower and the percentage of casualities at the baptism of fire increases dramatically with time. Still, the numbers you give make me think it could have been a bloody fight.
But, when you mention the battle of Berlin I have to say that in that instance the civilians had at least a chance to leave town before it became a battlefield. A chance the japanese folk did not have.
As a small aside note, the effectivness of the kamikaze tactic had already been practically nullified. After the first suprise attacks the americans quickly learned how to defend them. Suicide planes account for very few sinkings after the first "wave".