Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:05:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
525 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > Everything I have ever read about WWII Japanese suggests that there was
> > pretty strong belief that they would likely have fought bitterly to the
> > end had something overwhelming happened to make the entire populace
> > recognize that further fighting was futile.
Just some minor picking while I try to think about that hole.
> Well-- two things. First off, you may be quite right-- I don't really know
> what our mentality was at the time. Perhaps that was the best information we
> had available, which would mean that an A-bomb hit MAY have been the only
> way to show that to the populace. However, after the 1st one didn't work, I
> certainly don't think a 2nd attempt was doing much to change things.
Dan's referenced site makes the case that it wasn't a "drop one, then decide
to drop the other" plan. Both were dropped as part of the same plan, so you
should take issue with the plan itself.
> But
> either way, I still don't think *both* bombs were necessary. I'm more of the
> mind to say that we should have waited longer to see what would happen.
> After all, Stalin had just joined in the picture, and with the world focused
> on it, I would have held out before attacking major civilian areas.
Dan's referenced site (accidentally) makes the case that having Stalin enter
the war was actually a bad thing for the world as the Soviets wanted to
prolong the conventional war so they could gobble more of Manchuria,
Sakhalin, Korea, etc. etc, as well as further consolidating their hold on
the countries they later enslaved in the Warsaw Pact.
It further argues that had the war been concluded even sooner that perhaps
they would not have been in N Korea at all. So if anything maybe we should
have dropped sooner!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Isn't that what I said? (...) Now you're the one who's going for the complicated explanation ;) I could draw it out further and say isn't one of Osama's major "justifications" with the US the fact that we dropped the Bomb on the Japanese as an (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) I still hold that one bomb would have been enough. And maybe, since the US weren't ready to drop the bombs sooner, dropping them became unnecessary by the time it became possible. There is some indication for that, to say the least. :wq Horst (23 years ago, 21-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Well-- two things. First off, you may be quite right-- I don't really know what our mentality was at the time. Perhaps that was the best information we had available, which would mean that an A-bomb hit MAY have been the only way to show that (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
