Nagasaki remembered

Discussion in 'Military History and Militaria' started by FunkyNewBlood, Jun 23, 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. Some good photos and quotes from survivors. Well put together.

  2. it wasn't nice but it was neccessary to do so, if the Japs had surrendered then none of the A Bombs was needed, the casualities of the Allied armies would have been horrendous otherwise.
  3. Maybe you are right about Hirishima but bombing of Nagasaki was senseless massacre. Or maybe you think that without second bombing Japan would not surrender?

    9 september Soviet Union enterd in war with Japan (exactly at the day of Nagasaki bombing). After this Japan was doomed.
  4. KGB,
    Japan was doomed whether the Soviet Union had've entered or not. The only difference would have been that the Allies didn't have to go and defeat the Japanese on the mainland in China/Korea etc. And let's assume that the nuclear strikes hadn't occurred and the Russians had engaged the Japanese for an extended period. I really couldn't have seen them being willing to get invloved in the invasion of mainland Japan (other than to secure a strategic foothold).

    The harsh fact is that the nuclear attacks saved HUNDREDS of thousands of Allied lives and probably MILLIONS of Japanese lives by avoiding an opposed invasion of the Japanese mainland.

    I'm not one of these guys who seeks to demean the unparralleled sacrifices made by the Soviets in the European War; indeed, I think their contribution has been largely written out of history by the West until recently (albeit so was the significance of the Arctic convoys etc by the Soviets). However, I firmly believe that the declaration of war on Japan by the USSR made virtually no difference to the outcome which was almost purely predicated by the nuclear strikes and the Allied strategic threat against the Japanese Islands.

    There is arguably one other little acknowledged advantage of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in that the horrific nature of nuclear weapons was exposed and arguably contributed to deterrance during the Cold War. Perhaps without having seen what such weapons could do to civilian populations, some hothead would have been more willing to use them in Korea, Cuba or in the 1956 Hungarian uprising.


    PS The USSR actually declared war on Japan on 9 August 1945.
  5. Absolutely agree. I meant that after entrance of Soviet Union into war it was moreover true (nothing above it).

    In this case (I hope you agree) it would be not so easy task for American forces. At least tens thousands lives would be lost. A-boms were very effective against big cities but would be not not so effective against field troops.

    Ask yourself, had A-bombings played singnificant role in fast (within few days) defeat of Kwantung army by Red army in Nothern China? Japanese soldiers were not aware about them (or heard about 'new type of bomb'). Kwantung army hadn't chances against experiensed and well armed Red army. During few days 80000 Japanese troops were killed, about 600000 were captured as POWs (including 140 generals). Soviet loses were about 8000. Capitulation of Japan was declared just after (not before) defeat of Kwantung army.

    If you mean Soviet Union then you are not right. Russia was defeated by Japan in war 1904-1905. Half of Sakhlin island was annexed. This war was long awaited revenge.

    It is a very hard task to prove it but propably you are right. Anyway my point remains valid: second bombing in Nagasaki was senseless. Power of A-bombing was demonstrated in Hirishima pretty clear.

    I remember from my childhood that on Victory day (9 May) the Convoys were specially mentioned in all official statements. These sailors were real heroes and helped greatly Soviet Union to defeat Hitler.

    You are right. Though Roosevelt and Churchil asked Stalin to declare war on Japan 3 months after victory in Europe. Stalin agreed.

    Really is was main cause of the bombings.

    You are damn right about Cuba. Hungary? You joke. And A-bomb was not used in Suez war, in Falkland war. Have Egyptians or Argies thanks Japs for this?

    Best wishes!
  6. korea ,cuba,hungery were all wars 0r crisises where nuclear armed states went head
    to head .If the uk had used nukes on the argies the argies would not have been able to retaliate .Though why the yanks whined about nukes in cuba when they had stationed nukes in turkey or the ukI forget .
  7. Can someone tell me why we have Hiroshima day, but no Changi day, no Nanking day etc. I do not see the sense of starting a war, treating civvies and POWs with unimaginable cruelty, and then whining when you cop a flogging.
  8. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Blimey, KGB, you just can't help yourself, can you? Or, more likely, you are just doing exactly what you are being paid to do.

    Let me put it simply. The atomic bombs shortened the war, and saved innumerable lives. The Russian invasion of Manchuria saved no lives, cost thousands, and was a pure empire-expansion move by Stalin, who by the way comes second in the mass murder table only to Mao Tse Tung (and way, way ahead of Hitler).

    Keep your progaganda for people who will swalow it :)

    <Rant off>
  9. Not too bothered about Hiroshima or Nagasaki, I think they reaped what they sowed in their POW camps and in such places as Nanking or any other areas under Japanese occupation. I also think it took them down a peg or two what with Hirohito claiming to be a god


  10. Frankly, if the bombings (plural) saved a single Allied serviceman's life, they were worth the cost tenfold.

    I notice that there are few contporary Japanese sources which don't cite the bombings as the factor which enabled the Japanese to surrender.

    A route which I freely admit, all but the military had been tempted to take for some time.
  11. actually the (former) mayor of Nagasaki was very outspoken when he critizised the brainwashing done by Japanese schoolbooks about Japan´s guilt in starting WW2 and the attrocities committed e.g. in China. This was very dangerous for him, as was shown some ten years ago, when he got shot by a ultranationalist member of the Yakuza mafia and almost died of his injuries (Thi is why I don´t know if he returend to office after he recovered from the wounds).

  12. Hi OldSnowy!

    Excellent idea! There is only one little problem: to find idiot who would pay.

    By contrast Suez war was about liberation of Egyptians.

    I see you don't like my proposition about next war with Russia. It would be a good test for British military. Sons of generals, ministers, prominent MPs, busunessmen would be happy to die somewhere in Siberia.
  13. This is BS.
    In Teheran it was agreed that the Soviets would concentrate on Germany first, while the Americans would concentrate on the Pacific, especially since it was clear by secret informationfrom Tokyo (Richard Sorge anyone?) that the Japanese didn´t plan to attack the Russians in Siberia again after they got blodied there several times by Chukov in the 1930s. This allowed Stalin to withdraw troops from Siberia in 1941 to defend Moscow.

    In Teheran it was also agreed that, once the war in Europe was won, the Soviets would engage in Eastern Asia within three months, the time required to move the troops to Siberia.
    Up to June 1945 nobody took the nuclear bombs seriously. Only after Trinity it was know that they worked. There were plenty of contingency plans (E.g. Operation Olympic) ready for an attack on Japan both on the home islands as well as in China by conventional means. The 6th British Airborne division was supposed e.g. to attack Singapore, but was then deployed in Norway (the only operation in Europe, where jungle carbines and P44 webbing were used in WW2) to mop up leftover Germans.

    With their attack on Manchuria, the Soviets did exactly what was expected from them by the Western Allies.

  14. This is an interesting thread. Of all the postings, the above statement is the hardest to prove...and yet it rings absolutely true.

    Regardless of what one thinks about Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the memories of such devastation have probably prevented some fruitloop with far less justification from using nuclear weapons. The impact on the global perception of said fruitloop's cause would be irreversible and retribution, I imagine, swift.

    (edited becuz I kan't spel)
  15. some have even said that they should have dropped another 10 more on Japan to pay for the prisoner killed by the Japos.

    im sure that could have happened if the Japs didn't surrender when they did otherwise there wouldn't be many Japs left alive.