We Were Right to Drop the Bomb

[JoeB131]

you people just scratch the surface with your knowledge of WW2
10 times is in QUOTES

Nearly twice the population of Japan.

Seventeen time's Japan's national income.

Five times more steel production.

Seven times more coal production.

Eighty (80) times the automobile production.

Which, again, had nothing to do with military parity... Had the Japanese won the battles of Midway and Coral Sea, they'd have dominated the Pacific.

again, I have a degree in 20th century history.... what do you have?

 

[JoeB131]

Outrage didn't count for much. Output outdid the enemy.

Not really...

If output alone won wars, we wouldn't have given up in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq....

People weren't keen on the idea of another war prior to Pearl Harbor.

 

[harmonica]

you people just scratch the surface with your knowledge of WW2
10 times is in QUOTES

Nearly twice the population of Japan.

Seventeen time's Japan's national income.

Five times more steel production.

Seven times more coal production.

Eighty (80) times the automobile production.

Which, again, had nothing to do with military parity... Had the Japanese won the battles of Midway and Coral Sea, they'd have dominated the Pacific.

again, I have a degree in 20th century history.... what do you have?

so you have not zeroed in on WW2 in your studies
I have been reading/studying WW2 for over 40 years!!!
hahahahahha
another one that thinks the enemy is a snowman that just sits there
and if the US didn't go to war in Europe, all the power would've went to the Pacific
IF the US subs sank the IJN at Pearl, the IJN would NOT dominate
IF I win the lottery, I'll send you some $$$

now--you have to define win
it's like Russia and Germany--Germany was NEVER going to win
Vietnam--the US COULD NOT win
Japan did not have the logistics/industry to dominate --for long, if at all but the US did

 

[JoeB131]

so you have not zeroed in on WW2 in your studies
I have been reading/studying WW2 for over 40 years!!!

now--you have to define win
it's like Russia and Germany--Germany was NEVER going to win
Vietnam--the US COULD NOT win

Germany? Vietnam?

 

[harmonica]

so you have not zeroed in on WW2 in your studies
I have been reading/studying WW2 for over 40 years!!!

now--you have to define win
it's like Russia and Germany--Germany was NEVER going to win
Vietnam--the US COULD NOT win

Germany? Vietnam?

and YOU have a degree???
Japan was not going to dominate anything
they were not going to win anything

 

[harmonica]

Outrage didn't count for much. Output outdid the enemy.

Not really...

If output alone won wars, we wouldn't have given up in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq....

People weren't keen on the idea of another war prior to Pearl Harbor.

we won PG1 !!
we were not attacking N Vietnam--we were not attacked by a sneak attack in Vietnam
Afghan war is not a Total War like WW2 was,... if it was, we would've won loooong ago
wrong analogies

 

[JoeB131]

and YOU have a degree???
Japan was not going to dominate anything
they were not going to win anything

I'm still trying to get over your claim the Germans were invading Vietnam....

 

[harmonica]

and YOU have a degree???
Japan was not going to dominate anything
they were not going to win anything

I'm still trying to get over your claim the Germans were invading Vietnam....

you sure did not get a degree in reading comprehension
where does it say that ?

now--you have to define win
it's like Russia and Germany--Germany was NEVER going to win
Vietnam--the US COULD NOT win

Russia-Germany in same sentence
Vietnam -US same sentence

 

[JoeB131]

Germany was NEVER going to win Vietnam

That's what you said. Learn to use punctuation.

 

[harmonica]

Germany was NEVER going to win Vietnam

That's what you said. Learn to use punctuation.

your quote is wrong
I copied and pasted it below
here it is:

now--you have to define win
it's like Russia and Germany--Germany was NEVER going to win
Vietnam--the US COULD NOT win

are you freakin blind?? drinking?
please---you are just trying being a jackass and doing a good job--
you are looking more stupid

 

[harmonica]

Your assumption that the Japanese would fall easily reminds me of Hitler's confidence with the RUssians.

No my confidence was based on what the tactical situation was like at the time.

in Manchuria, the Kwantung Army was rolled up by the soviets in less than a week. They met stiff resistance on the southern half of Sakhalin (the Island that was to the North of Japan, the USSR owned half of it, and Japan the other half). but they overran it within two weeks.

The northern Island of Hokkaido was only guarded by 2 divisions. They were deployed along the eastern coast to repel an American invasion, and would have been caught completely off guard had the Soviets landed in the North or West.

In short, Japans leaders didn't care about the Bomb, the the thought of facing a rape-happy Red Army of a hundred divisions really did scare the pants off of them.

''in''--not capitalized
''North'' --capitalized when it shouldn't be
etc etc
many more grammar mistakes in the first ''sentence''/paragraph--[ hahahahah ]
Japans ????? should be Japan's
so many mistakes
you should learn writing skills--your post is very confusing

 

[JoeB131]

your quote is wrong
I copied and pasted it below
here it is:

They did explain punctuation to you in the home school you went to, right, Cleetus?

 

[Unkotare]

I tend to agree. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives, including many Americans.

The headline of this column is lifted from a 1981 essay by the late Paul Fussell, the cultural critic and war memoirist. In 1945 Fussell was a 21-year-old second lieutenant in the U.S. Army who had fought his way through Europe only to learn that he would soon be shipped to the Pacific to take part in Operation Downfall, the invasion of the Japanese home islands scheduled to begin in November 1945.​

​

Then the atom bomb intervened. Japan would not surrender after Hiroshima, but it did after Nagasaki.​

​

I brought Fussell’s essay with me on my flight to Hiroshima and was stopped by this: “When we learned to our astonishment that we would not be obliged in a few months to rush up the beaches near Tokyo assault-firing while being machine-gunned, mortared, and shelled, for all the practiced phlegm of our tough facades we broke down and cried with relief and joy. We were going to live.”​

​

In all the cant that will pour forth this week to mark the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the bombs—that the U.S. owes the victims of the bombings an apology; that nuclear weapons ought to be abolished; that Hiroshima is a monument to man’s inhumanity to man; that Japan could have been defeated in a slightly nicer way—I doubt much will be made of Fussell’s fundamental point: Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t just terrible war-ending events. They were also lifesaving. The bomb turned the empire of the sun into a nation of peace activists.​

Thank God for the Atom Bomb - WSJ

What are your thoughts?

Article clipped from Chicago Tribune

Clipping found in Chicago Tribune published in Chicago, Illinois on 8/14/1965.

www.newspapers.com

 

[GMCGeneral]

We should have listened to Patton and take out Moscow and Stalingrad next.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I tend to agree. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives, including many Americans.

The headline of this column is lifted from a 1981 essay by the late Paul Fussell, the cultural critic and war memoirist. In 1945 Fussell was a 21-year-old second lieutenant in the U.S. Army who had fought his way through Europe only to learn that he would soon be shipped to the Pacific to take part in Operation Downfall, the invasion of the Japanese home islands scheduled to begin in November 1945.​

​

Then the atom bomb intervened. Japan would not surrender after Hiroshima, but it did after Nagasaki.​

​

I brought Fussell’s essay with me on my flight to Hiroshima and was stopped by this: “When we learned to our astonishment that we would not be obliged in a few months to rush up the beaches near Tokyo assault-firing while being machine-gunned, mortared, and shelled, for all the practiced phlegm of our tough facades we broke down and cried with relief and joy. We were going to live.”​

​

In all the cant that will pour forth this week to mark the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the bombs—that the U.S. owes the victims of the bombings an apology; that nuclear weapons ought to be abolished; that Hiroshima is a monument to man’s inhumanity to man; that Japan could have been defeated in a slightly nicer way—I doubt much will be made of Fussell’s fundamental point: Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t just terrible war-ending events. They were also lifesaving. The bomb turned the empire of the sun into a nation of peace activists.​

Thank God for the Atom Bomb - WSJ

What are your thoughts?

This post is based on myths that were debunked decades ago. The bomb did not save "hundreds of thousands of lives." Japan was prostrate and virtually defenseless against air and naval attack. So defenseless was Japan against air attack that we stopped sending fighter escorts on our bombing missions. Japan's population was on near-starvation rations. What's more, Japan was already trying to surrender when we nuked Hiroshima, and we knew it from multiple sources.

https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf

 

[mikegriffith1]

The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb

The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb

THE PACIFIC WAR AND THE ATOMIC BOMB Michael T. Griffith

sites.google.com

 

[gipper]

This post is based on myths that were debunked decades ago. The bomb did not save "hundreds of thousands of lives." Japan was prostrate and virtually defenseless against air and naval attack. So defenseless was Japan against air attack that we stopped sending fighter escorts on our bombing missions. Japan's population was on near-starvation rations. What's more, Japan was already trying to surrender when we nuked Hiroshima, and we knew it from multiple sources.

https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf

Of course it was debunked decades ago but Toro like so many Americans still believes the lie promoted by the state, ignoring the tons of evidence proving it’s a lie.

Just goes to prove the old adage if the state promotes a lie repeatedly over many years, many people will accept it.

 

[gipper]

The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb

The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb

THE PACIFIC WAR AND THE ATOMIC BOMB Michael T. Griffith

sites.google.com

Just bought the book.

 

[mikegriffith1]

When you have to tell numerous lies about something you did, that's a pretty good indication that you did something wrong. Few people realize that initially the Truman administration and its allies in the press claimed that Hiroshima was a "military target" and that the bombing mission encountered fierce anti-aircraft fire, and in the ensuing months the government tried to suppress accounts of the horrific nature of the deaths and injuries that were inflicted. The government also withheld vital information about radiation effects from the Japanese and refused to treat victims of the atomic blasts. The Army set up a center in Hiroshima to study the effects of radiation on Hiroshima's residents but refused to provide any treatment for them.

There was a small garrison at Hiroshima of about 10,000 troops, most of them garrison troops, out of a population of about 300,000. The garrison was located on the outskirts of the city, and could have easily been taken out with a conventional bombing mission. Hiroshima's port had long since been closed by the U.S. Navy. Numerous disabled ships sat lifelessly in the harbor.

Why did the Army Air Corps send the Enola Gay to Hiroshima with no fighter escorts? Because we knew that Japan was virtually defenseless against air attack. And the crew later admitted that there was no anti-aircraft fire.

 

[there4eyeM]

Given the evolution of thought during the Second World War, it was logical for them to use the weapon. That only demonstrates how logic can lead to gross error.