OK, was it wrong to bomb Japan?

Had Japan beat us to the A bomb, do you really believe Japan would not use the nuclear bombs?

As to Adolph, do you doubt he would have used them?

What I am trying to understand just this instant is why is the A bomb so feared when we know entire cities were wiped off the map with other weapons?

I think your case is bombing any city is a war crime.

Abe Lincoln destroyed cities. Was he a war criminal too?

- - - Updated - - -

It was too late for them to say that. The bombs had already fallen. But they never told Truman not to use them.

- - - Updated - - -

Japan was well prepared to lose millions of lives. They felt if they fought back harder, we might back off.

 

The problem was Japan's fierce belligerence over UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.
The only way to impress upon them Unconditional Surrender was something so
devasting that it could not be overlooked or sloughed off.
The A-Bomb was such a devastating device.It was Immoral but then so was
WWII and it's devasting toll.

 

Those bunkers weren't in Berlin. The art treasures were found in Bavaria and the Alps, not Berlin.

And it doesn't matter if Hitler and his cronies could survive off rations in the Furher Bunker. The defenders and the people of the city could have been starved into surrender without an assault.

 

You have absolutely no evidence of that. A general that came out against the bomb before the war ended would be shot for treason

 

Considering how many times we asked them to surrender, How terribly they were being beaten, the Japanese people who jumped off cliffs or impaled themselves instead of giving up, and the nose snubbing they provided when "TOLD" we intended to destroy them going forward with the terrible weapon we just used....It is unlikely at best they would have just changed their collective minds without very powerful prompting...carpet bombing Tokyo did not work, now did it?

 

IF, it WOULD be a war crime. That is the point.

IF, it WOULD be a war crime. That is the point.

ABSOLUTELY!

Anyone who bombs a city of civilians off the planet is a war criminal, has committed a crime against humanity and/or state terrorism.

 

Not regarding free elections in Eastern Europe. But the US didn't allow free elections in our occupied territories either.

 

So the generals that said we did not need the bomb were lying? Hilarious

 

Generals and Admirals say a lot of things after War.Usually in the Officer's club
or at the local Pub.
Pat Buchanan insists to this day that the U.S. had no need to enter WWII.
It is one area of thought he is fundamentally lacking common sense.If we never
landed at Normandy Hitler would have taken over France AND Great Britain.
Hitler could have resupplied and instead of fighting the Americans and Allied
forces in France and Italy,he could have went back and held Berlin.

 

not if all of these civilians work in a munitions factory.

that is a legit war target.

 

These were not drunken sailors in a bar. And they all.....separately. ...said we did not need the bomb

 

Trust me,there was No shortage of War Crimes being committed during World War II.
Japan was nearly as guilty as Hitler at war crimes.Like at Bataan and the Death March.

 

Are you intentionally avoiding the question? Does 10 days constitute months of time?

So you agree that Stalin didn't keep his word and had ambitions? Why did he stop then?

 

Since I have lived in Germany for 15 months and also been to Berlin a few times, by the time Berlin was defeated, they had no access to food. They surrendered by April 1945. Germany is a country further north than the USA and winters are cold. Crops are planted later than in the USA.

But back to the use of the A bombs.

What is so unique about the two A bombs that has people lying by claiming the Generals prior to the bombing told Truman not to use them?

The Generals, post the war, said they were never asked about using those bombs. If a General says AFTER the bombing he did not need them, since that assessment was too soon after, I don't put much faith in a General who would tell us the massive loss of US life during an invasion was okay with them.

Japan was not about to quit. They had Ketsu Go as a plan.

 

Real Historian here folks.More like urban myth being pushed by some
members of BLM on their day off.

 

Have you quit telling us that they made those comments to Truman ahead of the bombing?

What they said past the event counts for nothing.

 

We could have one bomb ready in ten days, the next wouldn't be ready for weeks and the Soviets had aircraft that could intercept B-29's.

Stalin stopped because Russia was bled white. They couldn't keep up a war with the amount of casualties they had taken.

 

Dude I posted the quotes. You are hilarious

- - - Updated - - -

It sure counts more than your comments. Lol

 

Was it wrong from a humanitarian standpoint? Sure
Was it necessary to force Japan to surrender? Absolutely.
Remember:They did not surrender after the 1st one.

 

They would have surrendered conditionally. And the condition they demanded was one we gave them anyways.

 

Not according to the generals

 

Okay,What about according to what happened?

 

Were the generals lying?

 

I do believe that not only on the side of the Japanese, but on the American side, far more lives would have been lost by dragging out the war and invading Japan. There was no way Truman would not invade Japan save the use to the A bombs brought it to a halt. Truman is a war criminal per some Democrats. That surprised me. Normally they defend democrats as if they were gods.

The US had the invasion plan. Japan had it's defense plan. I believe that Truman also bombed to thwart off the Soviets from getting a share of Japan as they had of Germany and Berlin.

 

Where do you get this idea that the only options were nukes or invasion?