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.
After the end of the war in Europe against Hitler the British began moving more of their naval forces into the Pacific and were actively and enthusiastically aiding the United States in the war to defeat Japan by any means.
The atrocities by the Japanese against British forces in the Far East earlier in the war were fresh in the mind of the British. The fall of Singapore and the resulting enslavement and harsh treatment of British POW's and civilians were a rallying call to the Brits to end the war against the Japanese swiftly and with whatever force necessary.
The OP should probably look up the British role in the firebombing of Hamburg and Dresden. What's more, the OP should likely learn about the Rape of Nanking.
Personally, I'm glad they nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki if it hastened the end of the war. Because my dad would have been in the invading forces.
If you don't want your country devastated, it's pretty easy. Don't embark on a lemminglike crusade to conquer Asia and the Pacific, launching surprise attacks on two world powers in one fell swoop. Not too hard.
The OP should probably look up the British role in the firebombing of Hamburg and Dresden. What's more, the OP should likely learn about the Rape of Nanking.
Personally, I'm glad they nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki if it hastened the end of the war. Because my dad would have been in the invading forces.
If you don't want your country devastated, it's pretty easy. Don't embark on a lemminglike crusade to conquer Asia and the Pacific, launching surprise attacks on two world powers in one fell swoop. Not too hard.
And go to China, Korea, or the Philippines and ask that question of any of their War Genners (or their "Boomers"), and see the scowls you get if you suggest the bombings were a bad thing.
The British had already lost one war to the USA and did not want to start another one. It was simply not worth protecting their ally Japan if they had to go lose another war in north America. By the time of the bombing, the British had already left the axis powers and was no longer strongly allied to Japan. In fact they were in the process of breaking off their allegiance to Germany. Just a few months earlier, they had gone as far a issuing a travel ban in all of England against Hitler ant the Japanese emperor Hiroshima. the Brits were pretty well out of airplanes anyway and had to resort to suicide attacks on American shipping. Finally the church had slid down the hill and the British citizens were all tied up building a new Church on the Hill and could not be bothered with protecting Japan from the USA. Plus it was 3 p.m. in England and everyone knows that is teatime.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,184 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19508
Quote:
Originally Posted by solooriginal
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? ....
LOL - you mean some people who write on Quora are angry.
The views on Quora don't always represent the British people.
Britain helped the US develop atomic weapons and the use of atomic weapons on Japan was an American issue not a British one.
In terms of British and British University historical atomic/nuclear research see the likes of John Dalton, Arthur Eddington, J. J. Thomson and James Chadwick as well as Ernest Rutherford and Hans Geiger who carried out reasearch at the University of Manchester, whilst Britain's Tube Alloys research was passed on to the US Manhattan Project, and British Scientists joined the US led team.
In terms of invading and indeed carpet bombing Japan, millions could have been killed, and many have argued that the use of atomic weapons actually shortened the war considerable, stopped a bloody invasion of Jaoan and actually saved a lot more lives than were lost in the long run.
Of course there are differing views on the issue.
Britain chose not to get involve in Vietnam, it was a French Territory, indeed we had previous experience of Vietnam, in 1945/46 during Operation Masterdom, when we helped the French to restore order, after Japan's surrender.
At the time the British found the place to be lawless, with murder and violence ripe and many areas were subject to control from various factions. British and Commonwealth left as soon as they could and warned the French to just leave, however the French ended up in a nasty conflict over many years until they too decided to withdraw under the 1954 Geneva Peace Agreement. The US was not happy with the term of the Agreement and the rest is history. Given the history of Vietnam, and British and Fremch experience the last thing we wanted was to go back to that godforsaken place.
Britain did provide intelligence to the US during the war and any other help we could give other than participating in the war itself, most of the British help came by way of Hong Kong which was British at the time and had listening posts and intelligece bases.
In terms of Iraq, Britain again joined the US in the War on Terror, and those who complain about the conflict usually do from the perspective of being lied to regarding weapons of mass destruction, that our interference onlt destabilised the region and later led to ISIS and that the actual country linked to 9/11 was Saudi Arabia and not Iraq.
British troops also fought in Heland Province in Afghanistan and suffered heavy casualities. Britain still has troops stationed in Afghanistan to this day and is still training forces in Iraq.
Last edited by Brave New World; 12-19-2018 at 03:58 PM..
Atomic bomb or firebombs, it ends the same way... with the U.S. burning Japan to the ground.
Nukes just got it done faster.
Back in the early 80s, the man who had been the senior physician reporting to the Japanese Imperial Army general staff the results of the bombings stated that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings had the effect of ultimately saving Japan.
The Japanese fully intended to force the Allies to kill every single one of them in ground combat, and the Allies had the ability to do so.
In the later 80s, I knew an elderly Japanese woman who had been a young girl in Osaka during the war. She reported that she and other young girls were being taught to make knives from bamboo with instructions to lure an American soldier close, stab him, then kill themselves.
The actual suicide of civilians during the Allied invasion of Okinawa was an indicator of what was to come with an American invasion of Honshu.
The British had already lost one war to the USA and did not want to start another one. It was simply not worth protecting their ally Japan if they had to go lose another war in north America. By the time of the bombing, the British had already left the axis powers and was no longer strongly allied to Japan. In fact they were in the process of breaking off their allegiance to Germany. Just a few months earlier, they had gone as far a issuing a travel ban in all of England against Hitler ant the Japanese emperor Hiroshima. the Brits were pretty well out of airplanes anyway and had to resort to suicide attacks on American shipping. Finally the church had slid down the hill and the British citizens were all tied up building a new Church on the Hill and could not be bothered with protecting Japan from the USA. Plus it was 3 p.m. in England and everyone knows that is teatime.
That is why.
Excellent!
And it also worth noting that Emily Post, (rumored to be Churchill's lovechild) and the final authority on manners and etiquette, wrote that it was "entirely proper to kill your enemies in a 'declared war' if they won't stop killing you as long as you express timely condolences to the relatives and remorse that it was indeed necessary."
Atomic bomb or firebombs, it ends the same way... with the U.S. burning Japan to the ground.
Nah, you forgot option #3: blockade their ports and starve them to death. By 1945 Japan was teetering on the brink of widespread famine. Fewer Allied casualties that way, but slower, and a hell of a lot rougher on the civilian population.
What the OP doesn't grasp is that there was no way the Pacific war was ever going to end that wasn't nasty, brutal, and responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It was an ugly end to an ugly war. At least the nuclear bombs killed fewer people than the other two options (a blockade or a land invasion) would have done.
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.
