Hiroshima 60 years on...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Proximo, Aug 6, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From Sky News and everywhere actually:

    It's not my intent to get involved in a long-winded discussion about nuclear diplomancy. I have absolutely no sympathy with the Japanese whatsoever. It was the right thing to do and it ended the war in the Pacific. My grandfathers, along with loads of other ARRSErs' grandfathers and relatives I imagine, fought the Japanese through the jungles and both went to their graves spitting blood and venom over the Japanese and their treatment of prisoners. It's one of the few subjects that will drive me into a fury in seconds.
    • Excellent Topic Excellent Topic x 10
    • Like Like x 3
  2. I'll tell you what angers me - successive post-war governments' sh1tty treatment of ex-soldiers and war widows. The Japanese could learn a thing or two about inhuman treatment (not to mention remembrance day double standards) from our wonderful leaders. Blair's choreographed pained expression and faltering remembrance day addresses are particularly irksome.
  3. I'm glad the bomb was dropped from a purely selfish viewpoint, as my Father was in India in 1945 working up for operations , which we predicted at the time, would be over by 1949!

    A good reason to drop the bomb. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8141/downfall.html

    Which beggars a question. Did we drop the bomb, because we feared that any invasion of Japan would be so incredibly costly, that the Japanese might have successfully sued for peace so leaving it's overseas possesions at that time intact?
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Self, self, self. That's just you all over isn't it?

    I have no problems with the dropping of the bomb whatsoever. Hell of as bang, lots of dead Japs. I accept that they wish to mourn and so be it, but why the f*ck do they try to make us feel guilty? If they hadn't partaken in the war......they wouldn't have got bombed.

    Next time they should get with the winning team.....or at least with the one who owns the biggest bombs.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. The bombs were dropped for a number of reasons...

    - to bring a speedy end to the war.
    - to intimidate the Russians.
    - a second bomb was dropped to prove that the capability was not a one-off.

    It is right to point out the folly of armchair historians who condemn the dropping of the bombs. However, criticism is not limited to the CND era. Truman's chief of staff condemned the bombing as "barbarous" and "of no material assistance" and Eisenhower claimed in 1963 that a Japanese surrender was imminent and the "awful thing" was unnecessary.

    It should also be borne in mind that the death toll and destruction caused by the two atomic bombs was similar to that incurred during the fire bomb raids on Tokyo. The outcome was therefore in accordance with the policy to date, it is the fact that a single aircraft caused such destruction that is significant.

    As one of the aforementioned armchair historians, I doubt the bombs were militarily necessary but I would refrain from criticising those who took the decisions, because they were working in desperate times and because to criticise the atomic bombings would entail criticising the entire bomber offensive in both theatres as carried out by Allies and Axis, seen as a legitimate strategy by all combatants at the time.

    Why weren't the bombs militarily necessary? I agree with the analysis that Japanese capitulation could be obtained speedily without an invasion. When Japan lost the naval war, she lost the war, and a blockade would have brought surrender in due course.

    The one fact that cannot be disputed is that the atomic bombs demonstrated the terrible power of these weapons and has perhaps ensured that far greater destruction did not occur during the Cold War. The names Hiroshima and Nagasaki are now synonymous with the abhorrence towards nuclear weapons and the desire for peace.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. If the awsome power of these wpns had not been demonstrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, perhaps they would have been used in the Korean War just like any other wpn when the Russians were equipped with them too. Thus, their use in 1945 may have prevented a full-scale nuclear conflict in the 1950s.
    • Like Like x 6
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. I feel the same way about the A bombs dropped on Japan as I do about Dresden et al and Bomber Harris. The man has been vilified for far too long and it's about time he was rehabilitated into the pantheon of war time leaders for doing what was required of him.
    • Like Like x 14
  8. I find it difficult to find sympathy for people who were so cruel in Tenko and Bridge over the river Kwai.

    They also brought us the Toyota Corolla and the Nissan Sunny and Sushi is just Wrong!

    60 years have past, maybe we should do em again...... just incase they are planning another Pearl harbour at fleetwood
    • Funny Funny x 5
  9. Mr P, I would have thought given the tenacity that the Japs had shown before, that a blockade would have been a lengthy process? I appreciate it would have saved more lives, but would their leaders have allowed them to surrender, particularly on their own soil?

    Good point made about Bomber H, X1. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Shame that it's not to trendy to be seen to support him.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. They treated our boys very badly, used them for bayonette practice etc, they can't complain.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. They were an exceptionally cruel people and it would appear that some would like to airbrush that fact from history.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Not my Uncle Alf. He was a POW in Burma and a northern version of Alf Garnett and his pet phrase was "Filthy slant eyed bastards"............................which was nice............
    • Like Like x 5
  13. Blockading Japan into surrender would NOT have saved more lives unless they surrendered very promptly - the rice harvest for 1945 was very bad indeed, and even with the massive food imports the US occupiers brought in famine was only just staved off. Had we blockaded Japan instead and continued with the bombing campaign (which would have rapidly eliminated the few remaining land transport links - sea transport had already been stopped almost completely by the US submarines) the result would have been an apocalyptic famine. So even if blockading Japan would have eventually worked, the human cost would have been massively higher for the Japanese.
    • Informative Informative x 5
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Yes - but forget the human cost - it would have saved a lot of whales
    • Like Like x 2
  15. the miltry high command that basiclly ran the country would have rather let the people starve than surrender

    there was even a coup to try and stop the broadcasting of the surrender