Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, I read on Quora that a lot of British people are angry with America for nuking Japan during WW2. They consider it a war crime and a crime against humanity but how come the British didn't stop America from nuking it? Why didn't the British threaten to declared war on America, raided the compound the nukes were being made and then saved Japan?
This is the same with Vietnam and Iraq.....
Were you angry with those? Yes.
Were you opposed to those? Yes, definitely.
Then why didn't you stop it? ....
The UK and US were and are staunch allies. The UK couldn’t have stopped the US by UK military action.
The UK annihilated Dresden, which many view as a war crime as well, so there is remorse about numerous things, none of which would have caused war between the US and the UK.
Some 3-post wonder who is no longer a member tossed a little piece of unimaginative hit-and-run chum into the water, and everyone falls all over themselves to give him the feeding frenzy that he obviously had in mind.
Some 3-post wonder who is no longer a member tossed a little piece of unimaginative hit-and-run chum into the water, and everyone falls all over themselves to give him the feeding frenzy that he obviously had in mind.
Strange that they nuked the poster but left the thread open. That strikes me as an invitation for a free for all, talk about anything.
I suspect that most of us knew from the OP that this was some new incarnation of an unstable poster who keeps returning with new board names. He or she trails something preposterous across our wake and we just cannot help taking target practice on it. Perhaps some cathartic purpose is served, a collective vanquishing of the dim bulb.
This may help understand the dynamics at that particular time.
While history cannot dispute the final and irrepairable damage done to the health of its japanese citizens....Its a lesson in how short sighted leaders were at that time.
The UK and US were and are staunch allies. The UK couldn’t have stopped the US by UK military action.
The UK annihilated Dresden, which many view as a war crime as well, so there is remorse about numerous things, none of which would have caused war between the US and the UK.
Not a crime simply because if ze Germans hadn't bombed / flattened Coventry (among others) then this wouldn't have happened, simples!
in August of 1945, my father was a draftee, undergoing advanced infantry training; he might well have been deployed for the invasion of the Japanese home islands, and the heavy casualties sustained t Okinawa were a clear indication of what lay ahead.
No one who had an ancestor in this situation, let alone ancestors who actually served in combat, should sit in judgement on this issue.
My memory is a bit foggy so if I jumble some of the facts please excuse them for the overall message.
The British whose backs were against the wall didn't necessarily have the privilege to worry about Asia. Churchill certainly had more important things to worry about, like Big Ben getting potentially bombed to smithereens. He literally had to do a campaign just to get America interested.
As far as the Japanese are concerned it was an important lesson. Both from a military and karmic perspective the Japanese directly caused the usage of Nuclear weapons. Although half the blame can be attributed to Soviet incompetence. The rape of Nanking is often mentioned but understated. Let's just say at least 1 million Chinese died due to Japanese imperialism where as only a total of 250k died from the nuclear warheads. I think it is common knowledge today that Japanese imperialism and brainwashing is to blame today as opposed to American ruthlessness. Initially before knowing the facts, one might interpret us to be heartless but as always we read the headlines and not the details.
The domino effect was as follows:
- No one was prepared for the massive amount of Soviet incompetence and had grossly under-estimated the amount of Soviet troops that would die from stupid reasons thanks to Stalin like malnutrition and freezing to death. The Soviet answer to the Blitzkrieg was to retreat into the Forest where a Blitzkrieg was logistically impossible. However, in true Red Army form - For every 1 German soldier that died due to the elements more than double the amount of Soviets died due to being poorly trained for survival in the woods. Soviet equipment as can be expected is typically outdated broke down leaving many soldiers stranded without rations and of course they were disorganized rag tag mess.
- As a result more Americans were needed to apply pressure on a strong German front in Vichy France. Hitler was overconfident against the Russians - The Russian incompetence at the time only reinforced his decision to allocate far more to the Western front. The tide could have turned easily the other way if Hitler did not decide to do a Napoleonic repeat. The UK was able to provide air support with the Royal Air Force but ground support was more limited. We had to do a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of infantry, munitions, strategy etc.
- American industry still hadn't quite caught up so we were strained to keep up with demand. Women and children got to work in unprecedented amounts. Remember, we came in late to the game. The War had already been going on a few years and we were supplying large rations, munitions etc. particularly in Europe. The Pacific theater was not necessarily the priority as Asia was considered 2nd in priority.
- Although Pearl Harbor happened, we were warned about it beforehand but did not believe the intelligence was credible. However, we could have easily defeated the Japanese and annexed it without nuclear weapons. The problem was the European front was vastly more resource intensive than we anticipated. We had too many prime age working Men participating in the War, so much so it threatened home defenses. As a result scientists were allowed to continue working on the Manhattan project which was not necessarily initially designated to be purely an offensive weapon. The War came into question in the public. We were still tired and worn out from the Great Depression and WWI that preceded it.
- By the time all the facts came in Truman had a decision to make. The country was weary of War and the Japanese fought savagely in the Pacific. Support was dwindling for our involvement across the board. We had a choice to either fight a war of attrition which would be costly and risky or to use the ace card to bluff Japan into surrendering. We may have been able to spare enough soldiers to annex Japan without the bomb - But would American society remain stable or revolt before then? With any War on such a massive scale the impact to society is great. When too many young prime working age males die there will be a great disruption and destabilization. The problem was the War seemed far away and most people were shocked at Pearl Harbor but did not believe any great power could invade us due to logistics. So because of that tolerance for prolonged War was very low.
Tactics became more brutish in order to end the War quickly before public support reached a critical low. If the British did not allow America to use the atomic bombs they would have endangered themselves. Back then our surveillance ability and understanding of the enemy's status was not as accurate as today. The remaining enemy valor and morale levels were also not entirely understood. We had to deal a decisive blow on both fronts (Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to force a surrender.
Innocent civilians died. However, in War is that the fault of the citizens who do not oppose the War? The enemy combatant, the enemy combatant's government? Whose fault is it?
In the case of the Japanese - The Japanese had the opportunity several times to come to a truce with the U.S. but declined. The Kamikaze pilots, the usage of young boys in combat all showed us that coming to a cease fire was simply impossible. The fights in the jungle islands in the Pacific where they used eerily similar tactics to Vietcong insurgents (a foreboding tale which would warn us of the tactics to be used there as well as in the Korean war) of blowing up Women and children as decoys with IEDs told us that only drastic action could rock Japan to it's core and deal enough civilian damage to get them to stop. Because the reality is that if we did not drop the bomb - It is quite possible MILLIONs more Japanese civilians would have died in resistance against annexation. In a time in which most civilians in WWII were tired of War - The Japanese citizenry still showed compliance. They were psychologically in a trance and had to be snapped out of it no matter the brutality of the means to avoid an even more brutal result down the road.
Also - To my recollection the atomic bombs were:
A) Known about by Japan's military leaders. They knew the destructive power as well as some of the science behind it which means they were aware of the possibility of devastating radioactive fallout. I believe we tested as an unofficial bluff. Sent communications that we would use it if they didn't back off as the 2nd warning. They were defiant and didn't believe we had enough to cause significant damage.
B) The timing (which was not perfect) was made to enact primarily structural damage and not cause significant civilian casualties. If we wanted to kill people we could have attempted to hit the vastly more populated Kyoto.
in August of 1945, my father was a draftee, undergoing advanced infantry training; he might well have been deployed for the invasion of the Japanese home islands, and the heavy casualties sustained at Okinawa were a clear indication of what lay ahead.
No one who had an ancestor in this situation, let alone ancestors who actually served in combat, should sit in judgement on this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevxu
That kills History. What Rightist BS.
No, it provides a quick-and-blunt reply to the over-simplified emotionalism that passes for instruction in history in too many of the teenybopper-mentality-oriented, biased classrooms of the present day. The issue can then be expanded into a more-detailed examination, but not until the peddlers of propaganda show respect for other points of view.
There are two sides to every story, and the ethical questions faced by President Truman and others deserve serious thought -- by adults, not the younger and more impressionable minds sought by a manipulative clique seeking to peddle an agenda.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-21-2018 at 07:25 AM..
Why didn't the British stopped America from nuking Japan?
The simple answer is that they had little knowledge of the bomb and no authority to do so anyway..
Indeed.
Last edited by mensaguy; 12-21-2018 at 07:50 AM..
Reason: fixed quote tag
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
