It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Now is anyone here seriously trying to suggest that 50 years can qualify as a "long standing view"?
Originally posted by Netchicken
Am I the only person annoyed at the anti bomb stance at the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima day?
Reading the articles in the media you are left with the feeling that the nasty American forces killed all those innocent Japanese out of spite, or to test their weapon, or scare the russians.
The actual historical antecedents around the event are lost in the outpouring of "oh poor people look what you suffered" articles.
Originally posted by twitchyYou guys are pretty twisted. At least if we had invaded Japan we would have been killing Japanese Soldiers, hundreds of thousands of civilians died horrificly, and genetic mutations persist to this day. Japan offered a conditional surrender weeks before we dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on CITIES. Cities where Kids, Families, and Old People live, like this kid...
I fully Understand the meaning of the Atom Bomb being dropped on Imperial Japan during the WWII - it quickly ended the Final Agony of defeat and saved countless of lives, Japanese and American. I have no problem with that.
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand tall in the History books as a Bitter Reminder what an atom bomb actually does and the effect it leaves on the buildings, land and most important: the People.
The real problem is the Radiation Sickness which probably killed more people then the bomb blast itself. And according to these two reporters and their stories from the places of impact - the ARMY ofcourse denied everything and tried to keep the lid on it for a long, long time. Truth is that they wanted to see what the effect would be on the Urban Area and the Population. Why didn't they drop the bomb on a Military target? Like a Military Port full of Ships? That's the Question that was always in my head, since I have heard for Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-Bombs.
Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
Well conventional explosives weren't very accurate in 1945 when dropped from above on specific targets. Many innocent civilians were being bombed because the bombs' accuracy just weren't that good. Add to that all the imbeded anti-aircraft flack being thrown at the bombers! An invasion would have been needed and costly.
The women, children, and old folks that died, well thats too bad but it was required to keep my country free and independent.
My only regret is a bomb wasn't dropped on the Emperors head first instead. The bastard deserved it more because of what he did to us on December 7th 1941. But I think they ALL got what they deserved for what they did to us and every citizen was involved.
Originally posted by masterp
How about threating them first? you could have said: "look, Japs, if you don't surrender,we are gonna wipe you from the face of this Earth with atomic bombs". From what I know, the Hiroshima bomb was thrown with no warning whatsoever.
as posted by masterp
How about threating them first? you could have said: "look, Japs, if you don't surrender,we are gonna wipe you from the face of this Earth with atomic bombs". From what I know, the Hiroshima bomb was thrown with no warning whatsoever.
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Also as Twitchy pointed out, the Japanese offered a conditional surrender before we bombed them twice. Americas involvment in WWII was shady at best, and our decision to use Nukes was even worse. I think it is good that people are questioning our decision, maybe then it will never happen again.
Let me ask you then, should we also continue teaching that Columbus "discovered" America? Should we also keep teaching that the revolutionary war was faught for slavery? Should we keep teaching that the birthplace of philosophy is Greece? The birthplace of civilization, Egypt?
The fact of the matter remains, there are plenty of things that you and I were taught as children that do actually classify as "revisionist", yet you choose to focus on the one aspect that might tarnish the American image. You are more transparent than you realize, and to attempt to logically sway others in your behalf is beyond reproach.
This very issue of Hiroshima, as you would have it told would claim that; the Japanese were a terrible force, able to sway the most virulent of American opposition due to their "lack of huamanity", "so much more would of died of course". Conveniently though you disregard the fact that we had prior knowledge to the bombing of Pearl Harbour, yet still choose to do nothing. Silent on the fact that MANY industrialist' actually financed the third reich, thereby financing, and profiting from both sides of the conflict. Silent you will be on the fact that America itsef was not responsible for winning the war, as many would have it believed, but was rather, another force just trying to make a buck like everyone else.
Silent you are on the fact that the greek, and hebrew translation for the word"holocaust" means "burnt offerïng".
Silent the world is on the fact that if it was not for the "holocaust" or Shoa, the modern state of Israel would not be possible.
Not trying to knock you, just trying to give my opinion, it is strong, and it is IMO of course justified. I do appreciate your response, and correspondence. All I am saying is this: If you want to start throwing around the term "revisionist", then sit back, because I got a few thousand years of FACTS that are going to toss your world view on its head.
Originally posted by masterpWhat happened to tactics like nautical blockade?
even if you did not do anything but waited at your coast for Japs to invade, you would have easily won the war.
I don't agree with the opinion that many more would have died if the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were not dropped.
Forthly, just like the Enola Gay, a plane could have bombed Japan's military infrastructure with conventional bombs so they could not built other ships like the Yamato.
Finally, after the destruction of Germany, almost all of Earth's forces would have helped USA fight against Imperialist Japan...The USSR especially with its huge army and fleet.
I believe that it would take one more year for the final and total defeat of the Japanese. In the meantime, few Americans would have died as the result of naval and air battles. Remember that during the whole WWII, very few Americans died in the Pacific, especially compared with those that died in European battlefronts.
If America would not have dropped the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, then they would have a few thousand more casualties, but they would not have had the stigma of being the only country to having used nukes so far.
Another point of discussion is: why drop two bombs? wasn't one atomic bomb enough?
Yet another point is: wouldn't dropping a nuclear bomb in a deserted island near Japan accomplish the same targets? wouldn't Japanese be scared and surrender?