Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   75 years ago today a second dawn broke over Hiroshima and the world would never be the same   (bbc.com) divider line
    More: Vintage, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nuclear weapon, World War II, Nuclear warfare, first atomic bomb, quick surrender, Little Boy, mayor of Hiroshima  
•       •       •

1709 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 06 Aug 2020 at 10:44 AM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



223 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-08-06 9:31:06 AM  
An enormous human tragedy without a doubt, but unfortunately a necessary evil.  May we never see its like again and may we do everything in our power to keep it from happening again.
 
2020-08-06 10:11:05 AM  
Big bang took and shook the world.

Rush - Manhattan Project ( Music Video ) HQ
Youtube _zE4MKIXxL0
 
2020-08-06 10:27:20 AM  
History aside, there are still people who think actually using these is a good idea.

Vote
 
2020-08-06 10:30:23 AM  

edmo: History aside, there are still people who think actually using these is a good idea.


For peaceful purposes, yeah. Project Orion for the win.

4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


Hard to think of a better use for 'em.
 
2020-08-06 10:47:51 AM  

Polish Hussar: An enormous human tragedy without a doubt, but unfortunately a necessary evil.  May we never see its like again and may we do everything in our power to keep it from happening again.


Not exactly.

It was more like a live subject weapons test.

Hiroshima was chosen because it had been undamaged by most of the conventional allied bombing and would therefore make a good test subject.
 
2020-08-06 10:51:33 AM  

Polish Hussar: An enormous human tragedy without a doubt, but unfortunately a necessary evil.  May we never see its like again and may we do everything in our power to keep it from happening again.


Why was dropping it on civilians necessary?
 
2020-08-06 10:51:35 AM  
Only waiting 3 days and then hitting Nagasaki was a war crime
 
2020-08-06 10:52:07 AM  

dothemath: Polish Hussar: An enormous human tragedy without a doubt, but unfortunately a necessary evil.  May we never see its like again and may we do everything in our power to keep it from happening again.

Not exactly.

It was more like a live subject weapons test.

Hiroshima was chosen because it had been undamaged by most of the conventional allied bombing and would therefore make a good test subject.


And?

It still ended the war.
 
2020-08-06 10:52:41 AM  

Destructor: edmo: History aside, there are still people who think actually using these is a good idea.

For peaceful purposes, yeah. Project Orion for the win.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 600x338]

Hard to think of a better use for 'em.


We could toss them into the sun, but then we would get a superman 4 reboot. Nobody wants that.
 
2020-08-06 10:53:21 AM  
One year later, The New Yorker published an article (Outline link) with first hand accounts of people that were living in Hiroshima that day. It's a long read, but I found that the challenges faced by the doctors in the article echo today's challenges with the pandemic. The difference is, we were warned. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were victims of war as well as an experiment.
 
2020-08-06 10:54:28 AM  

edmo: History aside, there are still people who think actually using these is a good idea.

Vote


If you have a better way to stop a hurricane, we're all ears pal.
 
2020-08-06 10:54:56 AM  
Moral of the story?

Don't cook breakfast on the hibachi.

https://glasstone.blogspot.com/2013/0​7​/the-effects-of-atomic-bomb-on-hiroshi​ma.html

8.  Evidence relative to ignition of combustible
structures and materials by directly radiated heat
from the atomic bomb and other ignition sources
was obtained by interrogation and visual inspec-
tion of the entire city.  Six persons who had been
in reinforced-concrete buildings within 3,600 feet
of air zero stated that black cotton black-out
curtains were ignited by flash heat.  A few persons
stated that thin rice paper, cedarbark roofs,
thatched roofs, and tops of wooden poles were
afire immediately after the explosion.  Dark
clothing was scorched and, in some cases, was
reported to have burst into flame from flash heat.
A large portion of over 1,000 persons ques-
tioned was, however, in agreement that a great
majority of the original fires were started by debris
falling on kitchen charcoal fires.
Other sources of
secondary fire were industrial-process fires and
electric short circuits.



Froot Loops and milk would be a better option.
 
2020-08-06 10:55:29 AM  

croesius: Why was dropping it on civilians necessary?


Japan refused to surrender, and the best estimates for defeating them in conventional warfare predicted multiple millions dead, almost all Japanese citizens.  Using nuclear weapons probably reduced the total death toll.
 
2020-08-06 10:56:27 AM  

JimmyFartpants: dothemath: Polish Hussar: An enormous human tragedy without a doubt, but unfortunately a necessary evil.  May we never see its like again and may we do everything in our power to keep it from happening again.

Not exactly.

It was more like a live subject weapons test.

Hiroshima was chosen because it had been undamaged by most of the conventional allied bombing and would therefore make a good test subject.

And?

It still ended the war.


The war was basically over anyway.

I mean I dont have any major qualms about it. The Japanese were just as fanatical about their own racial superiority as the Nazis. Maybe more. And they called the tune.

But they were still pretty much done.
 
2020-08-06 10:57:45 AM  
 
2020-08-06 10:58:13 AM  

JimmyFartpants: dothemath: Polish Hussar: An enormous human tragedy without a doubt, but unfortunately a necessary evil.  May we never see its like again and may we do everything in our power to keep it from happening again.

Not exactly.

It was more like a live subject weapons test.

Hiroshima was chosen because it had been undamaged by most of the conventional allied bombing and would therefore make a good test subject.

And?

It still ended the war.


An impending Russian invasion into Japan ended the war.
 
2020-08-06 10:58:14 AM  

jimpapa: Only waiting 3 days and then hitting Nagasaki was a war crime


Absolutely. Hirohito should have stood trial for refusing to unconditionally surrender before Hiroshima and then not immediately surrendering after the first atomic bombing.
 
2020-08-06 10:59:37 AM  

Destructor: edmo: History aside, there are still people who think actually using these is a good idea.

For peaceful purposes, yeah. Project Orion for the win.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 600x338]

Hard to think of a better use for 'em.


Pretty useful when invaded by tiny space elephants
 
2020-08-06 10:59:41 AM  

dittybopper: Don't cook breakfast on the hibachi.


At the time Tokyo was a city of mostly wooden structures.

Lemays fire bombing killed more civilians than Hiroshima.
 
2020-08-06 11:00:49 AM  

Marcos P: Imagine being this guy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutom​u_Yamaguchi


"That morning, whilst he was being berated by his supervisor as "crazy" after describing how one bomb had destroyed the city, the Nagasaki bomb detonated."

That's one hell of an 'I told you so'.
 
2020-08-06 11:02:17 AM  

edmo: History aside, there are still people who think actually using these is a good idea.

Vote


a)  It looks like using these IS a good idea.  Japan went from one of the most insular and warring nations to one of the most peaceful and strongest allies of the US.  Nuking people has a 100% rate of turning them into long-term friends.

b)  You KNOW you want to see a hurricane get nuked.
 
2020-08-06 11:02:28 AM  
Never start a war, you can't afforded to lose.
 
2020-08-06 11:03:08 AM  

croesius: Polish Hussar: An enormous human tragedy without a doubt, but unfortunately a necessary evil.  May we never see its like again and may we do everything in our power to keep it from happening again.

Why was dropping it on civilians necessary?


Because it would have happened anyway.

There really wasn't a significant military facility in Japan that wasn't co-located with a city.  For example, Hiroshima had a very significant military presence.  Roughly 20,000 Japanese military personnel died in the attack.  That's 1 to 2 divisions worth.
 
2020-08-06 11:03:20 AM  
Did Nuclear Weapons Cause Japan to Surrender? - Carnegie Council

"Nuclear weapons shocked Japan into surrendering at the end of World War II-except they didn't. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union entered the war. Japanese leaders said the bomb forced them to surrender because it was less embarrassing to say they had been defeated by a miracle weapon. Americans wanted to believe it, and the myth of nuclear weapons was born.

Look at the facts. The United States bombed 68 cities in the summer of 1945. If you graph the number of people killed in all 68 of those attacks, you imagine that Hiroshima is off the charts, because that's the way it's usually presented. In fact, Hiroshima is second. Tokyo, a conventional attack, is first in the number killed. If you graph the number of square miles destroyed, Hiroshima is sixth. If you graph the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima is 17th.

Clearly, in terms of the end result-I'm not talking about the means, but in terms of the outcome of the attack-Hiroshima was not exceptional. It was not outside the parameters of attacks that had been going on all summer long. Hiroshima was not militarily decisive.

The Soviet Union's declaration of war, on the other hand, fundamentally altered the strategic situation. Adding another great power to the war created insoluble military problems for Japan's leaders. It might be possible to fight against one great power attacking from one direction, but anyone could see that Japan couldn't defend against two great powers attacking from two different directions at once.

The Soviet declaration of war was decisive; Hiroshima was not.

After Hiroshima, soldiers were still dug in in the beaches. They were still ready to fight. They wanted to fight. There was one fewer city behind them, but they had been losing cities all summer long, at the rate of one every other day, on average. Hiroshima was not a decisive military event. The Soviet entry into the war was.

And they said this. Japan's leaders identified the Soviet Union as the strategically decisive factor. In a meeting of the Supreme Council in June to discuss the war in general, policy, they said Soviet entry would determine the fate of the empire. Kawabe Toroshiro said, "The absolute maintenance of peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is one of the fundamental conditions for continuing the war."

Japan's leaders said Hiroshima forced them to surrender because it made a terrific explanation for losing the war. But the facts show that Hiroshima did not force Japan to surrender.

If nuclear weapons are a religion, Hiroshima is the first miracle. What do we make of a religion when its miracles turn out to be false? Nuclear weapons shocked Japan into surrendering in World War II-except they didn't."
 
2020-08-06 11:03:37 AM  

edmo: History aside, there are still people who think actually using these is a good idea.

Vote


I think the more annoying stance are the people who think Pearl Harbor came out of absolutely nowhere and the Japanese just attacked to be meanies to the totally innocent United States.
 
2020-08-06 11:03:42 AM  

Dork Gently: croesius: Why was dropping it on civilians necessary?

Japan refused to surrender, and the best estimates for defeating them in conventional warfare predicted multiple millions dead, almost all Japanese citizens.  Using nuclear weapons probably reduced the total death toll.


Agree

The challenge is revisionist history.  After the Okinowa invasion the US was an eye opener.  Operation Downfall (the invasion of Japan) would be a meat grinder

Given a troop list of 766,700 men and a 90-day campaign, the US Sixth Army could be expected to suffer between 149,046 casualties (including 28,981 dead and missing)

That was just one group

People sort of forget the time and circumstances
 
2020-08-06 11:03:48 AM  
It's nice to see a thread bring liberals and conservatives together.

Shame that it's about justifying nuking a population, but that's that bipartisan spirit that drives America!
 
2020-08-06 11:04:00 AM  

jimpapa: Only waiting 3 days and then hitting Nagasaki was a war crime


No.  WAITING is a war crime.  Waiting led to WW1.  Waiting led to one of the most pointless wars and loss of life ever.  In war you do not wait.  You must be swift.  And when you see a path to victory you must take it.

Waiting just leads to the enemy digging in and prolonging the conflict and suffering.
 
2020-08-06 11:04:14 AM  

dittybopper: Moral of the story?

Don't cook breakfast on the hibachi.

https://glasstone.blogspot.com/2013/07​/the-effects-of-atomic-bomb-on-hiroshi​ma.html

8.  Evidence relative to ignition of combustible
structures and materials by directly radiated heat
from the atomic bomb and other ignition sources
was obtained by interrogation and visual inspec-
tion of the entire city.  Six persons who had been
in reinforced-concrete buildings within 3,600 feet
of air zero stated that black cotton black-out
curtains were ignited by flash heat.  A few persons
stated that thin rice paper, cedarbark roofs,
thatched roofs, and tops of wooden poles were
afire immediately after the explosion.  Dark
clothing was scorched and, in some cases, was
reported to have burst into flame from flash heat.
A large portion of over 1,000 persons ques-
tioned was, however, in agreement that a great
majority of the original fires were started by debris
falling on kitchen charcoal fires.Other sources of
secondary fire were industrial-process fires and
electric short circuits.


Froot Loops and milk would be a better option.


i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-08-06 11:04:41 AM  
CSB: Last year my best friend's grandpa passed away at the age of 100.  He never told us about the time he spent in the Navy as a mechanic in WWII.  We learned at his funeral that he worked on a plane named Enola Gay in late July of 1945.  Being it was a top secret mission at the time, he was just working on another plane at the time.  When he later learned the name of the plane that dropped the first bomb he was quite surprised.  He never told us about that when we were kids.  Probably because we would've laughed at the name of the llane and not cared about what it did.  End CSB.
 
2020-08-06 11:05:37 AM  

JimmyFartpants: dothemath: Polish Hussar: An enormous human tragedy without a doubt, but unfortunately a necessary evil.  May we never see its like again and may we do everything in our power to keep it from happening again.

Not exactly.

It was more like a live subject weapons test.

Hiroshima was chosen because it had been undamaged by most of the conventional allied bombing and would therefore make a good test subject.

And?

It still ended the war.


That is still being debated.
Some people think that the Japanese were near surrender as their resources were running out and it more or less accelerated the process.
 
2020-08-06 11:05:50 AM  

BafflerMeal: Did Nuclear Weapons Cause Japan to Surrender? - Carnegie Council

"Nuclear weapons shocked Japan into surrendering at the end of World War II-except they didn't. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union entered the war. Japanese leaders said the bomb forced them to surrender because it was less embarrassing to say they had been defeated by a miracle weapon. Americans wanted to believe it, and the myth of nuclear weapons was born.

Look at the facts. The United States bombed 68 cities in the summer of 1945. If you graph the number of people killed in all 68 of those attacks, you imagine that Hiroshima is off the charts, because that's the way it's usually presented. In fact, Hiroshima is second. Tokyo, a conventional attack, is first in the number killed. If you graph the number of square miles destroyed, Hiroshima is sixth. If you graph the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima is 17th.

Clearly, in terms of the end result-I'm not talking about the means, but in terms of the outcome of the attack-Hiroshima was not exceptional. It was not outside the parameters of attacks that had been going on all summer long. Hiroshima was not militarily decisive.

The Soviet Union's declaration of war, on the other hand, fundamentally altered the strategic situation. Adding another great power to the war created insoluble military problems for Japan's leaders. It might be possible to fight against one great power attacking from one direction, but anyone could see that Japan couldn't defend against two great powers attacking from two different directions at once.

The Soviet declaration of war was decisive; Hiroshima was not.

After Hiroshima, soldiers were still dug in in the beaches. They were still ready to fight. They wanted to fight. There was one fewer city behind them, but they had been losing cities all summer long, at the rate of one every other day, on average. Hiroshima was not a decisive military event. The Soviet entry into the war was.

And they said this. Jap ...


lol, commie russians trying to take credit for all of America's work in the Pacific.

"durrrrrrrrrrr, it wasn't the hundreds of thousands of troops, casualties, the hundreds of battles, the squeezing off of resources, the fire bombing campaigns, and the two freaking nukes of america that caused Japan to surrender, it was a single piece of paper from russia."
 
2020-08-06 11:06:15 AM  
I'm reading this thread while sucking on an Atomic Fireball. This is awkward.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-06 11:06:15 AM  

LaBlueSkuld: edmo: History aside, there are still people who think actually using these is a good idea.

Vote

I think the more annoying stance are the people who think Pearl Harbor came out of absolutely nowhere and the Japanese just attacked to be meanies to the totally innocent United States.


Hey, hey. We all read the official US history textbooks. We know the score.

Things just happen and bad counties are just like that.
 
2020-08-06 11:06:31 AM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: JimmyFartpants: dothemath: Polish Hussar: An enormous human tragedy without a doubt, but unfortunately a necessary evil.  May we never see its like again and may we do everything in our power to keep it from happening again.

Not exactly.

It was more like a live subject weapons test.

Hiroshima was chosen because it had been undamaged by most of the conventional allied bombing and would therefore make a good test subject.

And?

It still ended the war.

That is still being debated.
Some people think that the Japanese were near surrender as their resources were running out and it more or less accelerated the process.


If that was true why didn't Japan surrender after the FIRST nuke?
 
2020-08-06 11:06:33 AM  
The less you attack the United States, the fewer high energy physics experiments you will be subjected to.
 
2020-08-06 11:06:35 AM  

RussianPotato: a)  It looks like using these IS a good idea.  Japan went from one of the most insular and warring nations to one of the most peaceful and strongest allies of the US.  Nuking people has a 100% rate of turning them into long-term friends.
b)  You KNOW you want to see a hurricane get nuked.


Now there's a man talking for you. If violence isn't the answer, then maximum violence is.
Aren't you dumbasses getting tired of blowing up the world by now? You killed it enough already in your pursuit of more power.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-06 11:07:09 AM  
 
2020-08-06 11:07:32 AM  
75 years from yesterday subby. 8:15 am August 6th in Japan is still August 5th in the US.
 
2020-08-06 11:09:56 AM  

LaBlueSkuld: edmo: History aside, there are still people who think actually using these is a good idea.

Vote

I think the more annoying stance are the people who think Pearl Harbor came out of absolutely nowhere and the Japanese just attacked to be meanies to the totally innocent United States.


THAT shiat is hilarious.  Hawaii is one of the most isolated islands in the world.  It's hundreds of miles from anything.  It had radar and recon planes.  They would've known the Japanese fleet was heading directly towards them for days.

Coincidentally, Pearl Harbor was a stunning failure for Japan because, for SOME reason, America had removed many of its ships and planes from the harbor just days before.  Had Japan actually surprised America, it would've been one of the greatest military successes in history and America probably would've been unable to war against Japan.

/i got a THEME going today.
 
2020-08-06 11:12:23 AM  

JohnCarter: Dork Gently: croesius: Why was dropping it on civilians necessary?

Japan refused to surrender, and the best estimates for defeating them in conventional warfare predicted multiple millions dead, almost all Japanese citizens.  Using nuclear weapons probably reduced the total death toll.

Agree

The challenge is revisionist history.  After the Okinowa invasion the US was an eye opener.  Operation Downfall (the invasion of Japan) would be a meat grinder

Given a troop list of 766,700 men and a 90-day campaign, the US Sixth Army could be expected to suffer between 149,046 casualties (including 28,981 dead and missing)

That was just one group

People sort of forget the time and circumstances


Not to mention Operation Ketsu-Go. Civilians being armed with Type 4 grenades and encouraged to fight the invaders to the death. I have to agree, as horrific as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, they saved lives on both sides.
 
2020-08-06 11:12:38 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-06 11:14:12 AM  

BafflerMeal: Did Nuclear Weapons Cause Japan to Surrender? - Carnegie Council

"Nuclear weapons shocked Japan into surrendering at the end of World War II-except they didn't. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union entered the war. Japanese leaders said the bomb forced them to surrender because it was less embarrassing to say they had been defeated by a miracle weapon. Americans wanted to believe it, and the myth of nuclear weapons was born.

Look at the facts. The United States bombed 68 cities in the summer of 1945. If you graph the number of people killed in all 68 of those attacks, you imagine that Hiroshima is off the charts, because that's the way it's usually presented. In fact, Hiroshima is second. Tokyo, a conventional attack, is first in the number killed. If you graph the number of square miles destroyed, Hiroshima is sixth. If you graph the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima is 17th.

Clearly, in terms of the end result-I'm not talking about the means, but in terms of the outcome of the attack-Hiroshima was not exceptional. It was not outside the parameters of attacks that had been going on all summer long. Hiroshima was not militarily decisive.

The Soviet Union's declaration of war, on the other hand, fundamentally altered the strategic situation. Adding another great power to the war created insoluble military problems for Japan's leaders. It might be possible to fight against one great power attacking from one direction, but anyone could see that Japan couldn't defend against two great powers attacking from two different directions at once.

The Soviet declaration of war was decisive; Hiroshima was not.

After Hiroshima, soldiers were still dug in in the beaches. They were still ready to fight. They wanted to fight. There was one fewer city behind them, but they had been losing cities all summer long, at the rate of one every other day, on average. Hiroshima was not a decisive military event. The Soviet entry into the war was.

And they said this. Japan's leaders identified the Soviet Union as the strategically decisive factor. In a meeting of the Supreme Council in June to discuss the war in general, policy, they said Soviet entry would determine the fate of the empire. Kawabe Toroshiro said, "The absolute maintenance of peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is one of the fundamental conditions for continuing the war."

Japan's leaders said Hiroshima forced them to surrender because it made a terrific explanation for losing the war. But the facts show that Hiroshima did not force Japan to surrender.

If nuclear weapons are a religion, Hiroshima is the first miracle. What do we make of a religion when its miracles turn out to be false? Nuclear weapons shocked Japan into surrendering in World War II-except they didn't."


You're missing an additional point. The blockade of the Japanese home islands by the US, imposed through a tonnage war against merchant ships by American submarines, was exceedingly successful. Japan was dependent on imported resources, not just for oil and rubber, but for food, too. Japan had faced a crop failure in 1945 and knew they would face famine in 1946. Even without an American invasion, many thousands would have starved. After their surrender, Japan was dependent on international food support to stave off that crisis. It was so bad that occupying American soldiers were ordered not to accept any gifts of food as that was desperately needed by occupied Japan.
 
2020-08-06 11:14:13 AM  

croesius: Polish Hussar: An enormous human tragedy without a doubt, but unfortunately a necessary evil.  May we never see its like again and may we do everything in our power to keep it from happening again.

Why was dropping it on civilians necessary?


There was a lot of war manufacturing that was literally moved into people's homes.  It also followed some insane fire bombing that left huge percentages of cities looking like the moon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rai​d​s_on_Japan#Firebombing_attacks

USAAF planners began assessing the feasibility of a firebombing campaign against Japanese cities in 1943. Japan's main industrial facilities were vulnerable to such attacks as they were concentrated in several large cities and a high proportion of production took place in homes and small factories in urban areas.

Besides, the Japanese had no qualms about raping and killing civilians.  It was SOP for them, and utterly horrifying.  Ask the folks in Nanking or Okinawa.
 
2020-08-06 11:14:26 AM  

cryinoutloud: RussianPotato: a)  It looks like using these IS a good idea.  Japan went from one of the most insular and warring nations to one of the most peaceful and strongest allies of the US.  Nuking people has a 100% rate of turning them into long-term friends.
b)  You KNOW you want to see a hurricane get nuked.

Now there's a man talking for you. If violence isn't the answer, then maximum violence is.
Aren't you dumbasses getting tired of blowing up the world by now? You killed it enough already in your pursuit of more power.

[Fark user image image 445x250]


I don't agree with the poster you are responding to, but this is ironic right?  I mean coming from someone in a Trumper state
 
2020-08-06 11:14:27 AM  
Fun fact. I have a big yellow candle in my house that (I believe) belonged to Paul Tibbets. When my family lived in Switzerland when I was very young the house we lived in was where Tibbets lived before us when he lived in Switzerland, and we found this candle, like two foot long, there and kept it.

/End CSB.
 
2020-08-06 11:15:23 AM  

The Pope of Manwich Village: I'm reading this thread while sucking on an Atomic Fireball. This is awkward.

[Fark user image image 425x425]


damn i wish i could get my hands on those hot mega warheads they used to make
 
2020-08-06 11:16:31 AM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: JimmyFartpants: dothemath: Polish Hussar: An enormous human tragedy without a doubt, but unfortunately a necessary evil.  May we never see its like again and may we do everything in our power to keep it from happening again.

Not exactly.

It was more like a live subject weapons test.

Hiroshima was chosen because it had been undamaged by most of the conventional allied bombing and would therefore make a good test subject.

And?

It still ended the war.

That is still being debated.
Some people think that the Japanese were near surrender as their resources were running out and it more or less accelerated the process.


More still believe the military in Japan was going against the Emperor's wishes and planning to usurp him in order to continue the war. Him going on national radio and declaring the war over stopped it cold.
Also as mentioned above, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nowhere near as destructive as attacks on other Japanese cities. The fact that a single weapon from a single bomber can do it however was shocking enough to force surrender.
 
2020-08-06 11:17:27 AM  

BafflerMeal: Did Nuclear Weapons Cause Japan to Surrender? - Carnegie Council

"Nuclear weapons shocked Japan into surrendering at the end of World War II-except they didn't. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union entered the war. Japanese leaders said the bomb forced them to surrender because it was less embarrassing to say they had been defeated by a miracle weapon. Americans wanted to believe it, and the myth of nuclear weapons was born.

Look at the facts. The United States bombed 68 cities in the summer of 1945. If you graph the number of people killed in all 68 of those attacks, you imagine that Hiroshima is off the charts, because that's the way it's usually presented. In fact, Hiroshima is second. Tokyo, a conventional attack, is first in the number killed. If you graph the number of square miles destroyed, Hiroshima is sixth. If you graph the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima is 17th.

Clearly, in terms of the end result-I'm not talking about the means, but in terms of the outcome of the attack-Hiroshima was not exceptional. It was not outside the parameters of attacks that had been going on all summer long. Hiroshima was not militarily decisive.

The Soviet Union's declaration of war, on the other hand, fundamentally altered the strategic situation. Adding another great power to the war created insoluble military problems for Japan's leaders. It might be possible to fight against one great power attacking from one direction, but anyone could see that Japan couldn't defend against two great powers attacking from two different directions at once.

The Soviet declaration of war was decisive; Hiroshima was not.

After Hiroshima, soldiers were still dug in in the beaches. They were still ready to fight. They wanted to fight. There was one fewer city behind them, but they had been losing cities all summer long, at the rate of one every other day, on average. Hiroshima was not a decisive military event. The Soviet entry into the war was.

And they said this. Jap ...


Funny how there is no mention of Nagasaki there.

Hiroshima was bombed on the 6th.  The government was obviously having trouble getting information from Hiroshima, and what they were getting wasn't believable.  Nagasaki was bombed on the 9th, the same day the Russians invaded Manchuria.

But so what?

Russia could not have invaded the Japanese home islands in any strength.  They simply didn't have the landing ships or masses of aircraft needed.   It would have been many months before Russia could have invaded.  And Japan knew that (or should have).  Not to mention that Russia had precisely zero experience in large landing operations.   By the time Russia could have any effect, the US would have already invaded Japan.

Meanwhile, the US was dropping atomic bombs on Japan.

Russia is essentially an "also ran" in why Japan surrendered.   It's nowhere *NEAR* as important a factor as killing a hundred thousand people in an instant.

This whole thing about Japan capitulating because the Soviet Union declared war is basically Soviet propaganda.
 
2020-08-06 11:20:09 AM  

RussianPotato: jimpapa: Only waiting 3 days and then hitting Nagasaki was a war crime

No.  WAITING is a war crime.  Waiting led to WW1.  Waiting led to one of the most pointless wars and loss of life ever.  In war you do not wait.  You must be swift.  And when you see a path to victory you must take it.

Waiting just leads to the enemy digging in and prolonging the conflict and suffering.


why do we even have nazis walking around anymore?
 
Displayed 50 of 223 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.