Japan Should Say, "Thank YOU" for The Bomb!

For the most part, they only said that after the war had ended, not during the war when no one knew what it would take to make Japan surrender.

The only exception was Ike, but that was a minor event that hardly anyone in the government even knew about.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually we had a lot more bombs on the way. Japan twice came within a week of having the third A-bomb dropped on Tokyo.

And had we proceeded with invasion, there would have been about a dozen A-bombs dropped on the invasion zone before our troops went ashore.

- - - Updated - - -

When MacArthur was first told about A-bombs, he said they would help to win the war, but that Japan would still refuse to surrender until we had captured Tokyo with ground forces.

When MacArthur heard about Hiroshima, he gave the room he was in an impromptu lecture on the future of warfare now that A-bombs existed.

His official biography, written well after the war, claims a number of things about Japan's surrender that are factually untrue. It also complains that he was never consulted for his views on the use of the A-bombs (which is true, he was not).


Ike was the sole general who actually did offer wartime opposition to the use of the A-bombs. Shortly before the A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Ike tried to convince Secretary of War Stimson that Japan was about to surrender and we shouldn't use the A-bombs.

Ike was not convincing. Stimson practically called him an idiot. Ike never tried to convince anyone else, and Stimson didn't bother to relay Ike's opinions to anyone else. We only know about the conversation at all because Ike detailed it in the book that he wrote after his presidency.

If Ike had managed to be convincing, it was too late to stop the bombs anyway. The final orders to drop the bombs had already been sent out to the military and Truman had already departed Potsdam for Washington. By the time Truman's ship arrived in Washington, the A-bomb had already been dropped on Hiroshima.

 

I'm still waiting for a request.

I do not recognize any statement of mine in the above quote.

Remember to quote my actual comment so I know which fact you are asking me about.

You have the oddest reactions to seeing facts that you don't like.

 

Still no evidence for anything you have said. Its all conjecture based on your personal opinion. Don't answer my question.....it would just make you look bad

 

Yes, you are right about the first part and I stand corrected but have never seen any plans to drop a dozen more before any invasion. There were preparations for their manufacture but not that they would precede an invasion.

 

If anyone wants to know more about anything I've said, I'll be happy to provide them with more information.

If no one asks for more information, I will presume that people are satisfied with what I've currently provided.

It's all facts based on historical records.

Pointing out facts never makes me look bad.

 

Note the section on nuclear weapons here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Nuclear_weapons


Note also the section immediately following the one on nuclear weapons, where they talk about modifying the invasion plans to come ashore in northern Honshu. Given the huge Japanese military buildup in the south, that modification would almost certainly have happened.

As the article states, northern Honshu would have been out of range of all land-based air support except for B-29s. (I believe the P-51 Mustangs also had enough range.) Using B-29s as primary land-based air support for the invasion would have dovetailed nicely with plans to use A-bombs in support of the invasion.

 

You are afraid of a direct question. Run....the truth is coming. Lol

 

You're right again. Thanks.

 

Again... I sourced:
The purpose of the replicas of Japanese homes, which were repeatedly rebuilt after being intentionally burned down, was to perfect the use of incendiary bombing tactics, the fire bombing of Japanese cities during World War II.

They massively bombed cities with such bombs. That is indisputable.
So, case proven.

Don't need it. I already proved it.

 

Stalin complained more about the US being cowards and doing nothing at all to FDR. It was FDR thing to do nothing to help France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Poland etc and the European Jews by remaining neutral. The US only had 2 years with boots on the ground. That is 4 years after WWII started. Shame on them.

And that truck is only a logistical thing. Stop pretending it was that "special" "untouchable" tank that defeated the nazi's

- - - Updated - - -

Negative. Japanese troops are known to just surrender. Over 500.000 of them did so towards the USSR. That is just a fact of history, while you're ranting unfounded fiction.

 

As you learn more about any important aspect of history you realize you can never know it all.

 

Tyvm for that detailed summary. Apologists for the monstrous WW II Japanese regime never seem to know very much about its history.

 

IOW, you have no evidence that the civilian population was the target. Thanks for that frank admission. Testing incendiary bombs and other weapons is routine. Surely you know that.

 

If you had ever been in the military you would know that there is no such thing as an "untouchable tank". Logistics wins wars - always.

But the US 6 truck permitted the soviet military to move on the ground. It was also a principal offensive weapon system that destroyed far more German Armor and troops than any other element.

Do you how the USSR used mobil artillery? Do a little research.


“According to historian Thomas E. Bonsall,10 “Joseph Stalin was so appreciative of the effectiveness of his Studebaker trucks that he sent the company a letter of thanks.” Bonsall quotes from Nikita Krushchev’s memoirs, in which Krushchev comments on the contributions of the Studebaker US6 trucks: “Just imagine how we would have advanced from Stalingrad to Berlin without them!(*) Our losses would have been colossal because we would have had no maneuverability.”” http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/StudebakerTruckHistory.asp

Russian troops used the nickname "Studer" for the US6 - it became their equivalent for "good" or "OK". Read.

 

They tested their weapons against specific civilian houses, to than apply than against civilian houses on a massive scale.
That is the evidence.

I do recall you not believing they tested these weapons on civilian Japanese houses, and demanded I sourced it. But you're now childishly omitting it was tested against civilian houses specifically. It's either this, or childishly denying these weapons tested on civilian houses were used on a massive scale against cities. The correlation is exceptionally obvious.

- - - Updated - - -

So the US lost the war in Vietnam and in Afghanistan because their opponent had better logistics? LOL. You know nothing.

You are pretending it's some untouchable tank, by claiming a simple truck to be a "principal offensive weapon system". If you knew anything about that war, you would know Hitler had the hardest trouble driver over the tundra of Russia. Everything got sucked in the mud and that is how he lost the battle of Moscow. A battle he never recovered from. And that simple US truck wasn't anything special that helped in that fight or was able to deal with the mud. While it's not as if them Russians couldn't make trucks. So that's what it was... just handy.

 

Your histrionics are comical.

Yep. And I'm bringing it.

- - - Updated - - -

Logistics is everything in war.

Japan had two million troops waiting to fight to the death when we invaded.

Actually the closer we got to Japan, the harder they fought and the more they refused to surrender.

Okinawa and Iwo Jima were particularly instructive.

Nope. I'm posting established historical facts.

- - - Updated - - -

We lost Vietnam because the certain politicians in the US cut off aid to South Vietnam and they collapsed. That loss of supplies could be thought of as a variation of what happens when an army suffers poor logistics.

We haven't lost Afghanistan.

 

You are wrong. Want my evidence? Because I say so. That seems to be the only evidence you need. Lol

 

Your repeated denials of history are pretty silly.

 

Got any evidence? Lol

 

I do recall you not believing they tested these weapons on civilian Japanese houses, and demanded I sourced it. But you're now childishly omitting it was tested against civilian houses specifically. It's either this, or childishly denying these weapons tested on civilian houses were used on a massive scale against cities. The correlation is exceptionally obvious. What is the difference between a house and a 'civilian' house?

 

I see you can't dispute a thing

 

Yes. Your own posts in this thread are testament to how silly you are being.

Most people are trying to discuss the A-bombs, and you are running around spouting nonsense.

 

So you still have nothing? How sad

 

I've provided large amounts of valuable on-topic facts to this thread. You've provided this thread with large amounts of playground taunts.

 

And you can't answer an easy question in order to clarify your silly claims. Answer the question and then we can discuss it.