U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 12-19-2018, 04:17 AM
 
3 posts, read 1,273 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

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? ....

 
Old 12-19-2018, 08:52 AM
 
11,694 posts, read 17,758,622 times
Reputation: 17607
New poster so I don't know if I am responding to a serious thread or just a joke, as this shows such utter and complete historical lack of knowledge as to be preposterous. I mean, do you even know that Britian was fighting the war with Japan during WW2, do you seriously think they would declare war on it's ally to protect it's enemy? That defies logic. The entire question is so laughable that I don't even know where to start? I thought the US educational system was bad.

solooriginal lesson number one - please don't take your history lessons from social media (quora). Yes this forum is social media as well but I encourage you to pick up a history book or two and you will find the below is supported. US and UK were allies in WW2 fighting the same enemy - Japan (I can't believe I have to start with this). As such, the U.S. consulted and obtained consent with the UK on the dropping of the Atomic Bomb per agreement. British supported it's usage. This is all documented in state communication. In fact Roosevelt discussed the use of atomic bombs with Churchill back in 1944. Thus, one can consider that "the allies" agreed to use an atomic bomb on Japan. US just delivered the package.

Now in terms of British citizen attitude, are you joking? This is Churchill we are talking about, he would have used this weapon on Japan, Germany, probably it's own ally Russia, and maybe Ireland just for laughs. Seriously - the UK, like the US, suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties fighting both Japan and Germany and were war weary. The UK in particular. British and commonwealth troops were still fighting Japanese, British troops were still starving in Japanese POW camps. The English, like all the allies, were OVERJOYED that the war with Japan over and could care less what weapon was used.

As for the historical justification for the atomic bombing of Japan. There are several excellent threads on it here so I encourage you to do a search and do not start another one. The clear consensus is that it was indeed justified.
In terms of Vietnam and Iraq - New flash: UK and/or commonwealth troops faught in both so you have to first discuss that with your own government.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
11,590 posts, read 6,999,536 times
Reputation: 14886
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.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 09:01 AM
 
11,694 posts, read 17,758,622 times
Reputation: 17607
*sigh*....I have a feeling this thread is not serious. The dude has only one other thread and it was closed by the mods.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Nantahala National Forest, NC
19,958 posts, read 4,207,873 times
Reputation: 25245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
New poster so I don't know if I am responding to a serious thread or just a joke, as this shows such utter and complete historical lack of knowledge as to be preposterous. I mean, do you even know that Britian was fighting the war with Japan during WW2, do you seriously think they would declare war on it's ally to protect it's enemy? That defies logic. The entire question is so laughable that I don't even know where to start? I thought the US educational system was bad.

solooriginal lesson number one - please don't take your history lessons from social media (quora). Yes this forum is social media as well but I encourage you to pick up a history book or two and you will find the below is supported. US and UK were allies in WW2 fighting the same enemy - Japan (I can't believe I have to start with this). As such, the U.S. consulted and obtained consent with the UK on the dropping of the Atomic Bomb per agreement. British supported it's usage. This is all documented in state communication. In fact Roosevelt discussed the use of atomic bombs with Churchill back in 1944. Thus, one can consider that "the allies" agreed to use an atomic bomb on Japan. US just delivered the package.

Now in terms of British citizen attitude, are you joking? This is Churchill we are talking about, he would have used this weapon on Japan, Germany, probably it's own ally Russia, and maybe Ireland just for laughs. Seriously - the UK, like the US, suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties fighting both Japan and Germany and were war weary. The UK in particular. British and commonwealth troops were still fighting Japanese, British troops were still starving in Japanese POW camps. The English, like all the allies, were OVERJOYED that the war with Japan over and could care less what weapon was used.

As for the historical justification for the atomic bombing of Japan. There are several excellent threads on it here so I encourage you to do a search and do not start another one. The clear consensus is that it was indeed justified.
In terms of Vietnam and Iraq - New flash: UK and/or commonwealth troops faught in both so you have to first discuss that with your own government.


 
Old 12-19-2018, 09:16 AM
 
Location: rural south west UK
3,083 posts, read 1,822,029 times
Reputation: 3532
I was always told the bombing happened because the Japanese refused to stop fighting, so maybe you should address your question there mr OP.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 09:18 AM
 
11,475 posts, read 17,017,095 times
Reputation: 5652
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.

More specifically, the British (and a helluva lot of others) would have been right there with us invading Japan. Invading a nation made up of numerous islands populated by a people who had been indoctrinated by fascists and would have been ordered to resist at all costs. Normandy on steroids and then Vietnam.

Call me cynical, but something tells me that the British (and a helluva lot of others) breathed a collective sigh of relief that they did not have to do that.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 09:46 AM
 
11,694 posts, read 17,758,622 times
Reputation: 17607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
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.

More specifically, the British (and a helluva lot of others) would have been right there with us invading Japan. Invading a nation made up of numerous islands populated by a people who had been indoctrinated by fascists and would have been ordered to resist at all costs. Normandy on steroids and then Vietnam.

Call me cynical, but something tells me that the British (and a helluva lot of others) breathed a collective sigh of relief that they did not have to do that.
Indeed British and commonwealth toops would have been by our side bleeding in the home island of Japan during any invasion of the home island.

However I wanted to address what the british knew about the atomic bomb. This is all over the OP's head of course and we can ignore him going forward, as I don't even know if he understands the basics:

That nuclear energy could theoretically create big nasty weapons was known of course by all the major powers - including Russia and Germany who had there own development programs. The manhattan project was super secret, but British scientists did contribute. Churchill and Roosevelt did have discussions on the matter, and back in 1944 it is said that Roosevelt told Churchill they were close and told him of his intention to use it on Japan. No doubt the old warhorse Churchill would be all in favor.

But even in 1943 there were secret agreements with the US, Canada, and UK - the Quebec Agreement - outlining the joint development of nuclear weapons. But also it covered it's usage - basically none would agree to use against another country without consent of the three nations. That agreement was adhered to in July 1945 - the US formally (certainly there were informal agreements) obtained agreement from the UK to use atomic weapons against Japan.

Churchill of course gave his consent to atomic bombing of Japan. Truman wrote it like this in his memoires at Potsdam: “There was unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around our table,” Truman later admitted in his memoirs. “Never did I hear the slightest suggestion that we do otherwise.”
 
Old 12-19-2018, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
5,135 posts, read 3,280,989 times
Reputation: 15374
Dd714 and others have given thoughtful, intelligent answers to the OP's question. So I'll just do the Cliff Notes version:

Why didn't the British stopped America from nuking Japan?

1. They couldn't have, even if they had wanted to.

2. Even if they could have, they wouldn't have wanted to.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 10:32 AM
 
Location: San Diego
4,483 posts, read 1,124,731 times
Reputation: 3151
As Truman said later, "It was a bigger piece of artillery, so we used it."

If the Japanese didn't want their cities destroyed, maybe they should have gone around starting wars and attacking other nations.

The kind of weapon used, is irrelevant. The B-29 raid on Tokyo on March 10, 1945 killed more people than either of the atomic bomb raids. Yet silly people flap their hands and express hysteria over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while not raising a peep over even worse (and equally deserved) acts of war.
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.


Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top