'Disease X'...scary.

  Nagasaki for the longest time was considered "the forgotten bomb" and in recent thinking may have been needless.  Some historians now believe that the Japanese hierarchy feared more the entry of the Russians into the war againt them than the use of "The Bomb".  It was only after the Russians declared war against Japan that the Japanese sought to sue for peace.

Quote:



Interestingly, after the Nohoman <sp?> incident of 1939 was the first major clash between Russia/Soviet Union and Japan since the 1905 War.  However, once WW2 started - in earnest - the fact that these two belligerents sharing a common border did NOT go after each other  allowed each to fight a one-front war.

Would the declaration of war by the Soviets have caused Japan to surrender, without having had to drop the atomic bombs?  If so, why did the Soviets wait until AFTER the bombs were dropped to make the declaration (I suspect they wanted a seat at the table to participate in the spoils of the Pacific)?  WHy did not the Soviets, flush with victory in the West, since May, wait three months to declare war?  (possible tactical considerations, they may not have considered their Eastern forces suitable for "battle" in terms of men and equipment

Chilling and sad - war always is. I always maintain though that without that millions of soldiers would have been lost and it was a question of either US soldiers or the enemy. Sadly, but not surprisingly, the US chose what the Japs would have done had they had the technology and went ahead. There are three good reasons in the US defence.

1) They never could have imagined that a nuclear bomb was so dangerous. They knew little on radiation. There are pictures of US soldiers experimeting with the test ones fully exposed. This shows how they didn't appreciate what the aftermath of the bombs capabilities were.
2) The Japs did not surrender under Little Boy. They were that determined that it took Fat man to ensure surrender. This shows that when they understood the results they did not give in. Therefore the US were fair to use them.
3) WWII was not soldiers v soldiers. It was all about bombing civilians too (who were just as much part of the war really) and that was the way war was fought. The US did not break the rules and just because the atom bomb obliterated in one big sweep does not mean that it is unjustifed and that a million small incidiary bombs would have been better!

First, the "new" article is nothing new.  If you want to read the definitive work on the atomic bombings read John Hershey's "Hiroshima".

Second, the politics.  I am sick of revisionist historians second guessing the orders of the president of the United States.  All reliable sources estimated American casualties in an invasion of Japan at 1,000,000.  I don't know about you but if I had a choice of a million Americans dead or a half million Japanese dead I would damn sure go with the Japanese dead.

Third, the intentional bombing of civilian targets.  That's touchy and I think all sides were in some degree gulty of it.  I would like to point out, though, that "Bomber Harris" of the RAF made no bones about giving back as good as we got while the Americans, theoretically at least, insisted on bombing only military targets.  It's not our fault if you put a  bomb factory in a residential neighborhood.

Fourth, the Soviet Union.  Between Stalin and Hitler they lost 10 million people.  I appreciate their efforts but I don't agree with giving them half of Europe as a reward.  The Soviet Union declared war on Japan after Japan was reduced to a smoking hulk, hoping to regain some God forsaken islands that they lost 50 years previously.

We can condemn things as acts of vengeance (something we can't control in a peacetime setting -- elsewise we'd have had fewer wars)  which, sadly, only too often victimizes those not even involved with its cause. Nevertheless, the longer any war continues the more damage and loss of life. As a number of these posts indicate, if WW2 continued its course, Japan would still have lost at least as many lives (though the ratio of civilian/military would have been quite different) and the U.S. would have lost many, many more.
I don't care much for 1st person "shooter" games (and don't comprehend those who lose the distinction between fantasy/reality) but try Combat Flight Simulator -- with the hope that "as real as it gets" is "as real as it will ever be" -- and keep your wars to yourself.

I do not see the use of the atomic bomb in WW2 as involving any sense of vengance.

It was a military decision designed to shorten (end) the war.  I doubt that President Wilson leaped with joy about the opportunity to kill a million Japanese.

Would we have used it in Europe if it had been available?  I have no doubt that we would have dropped one on Berlin and I would have no qualms defending President Wilson's decision to do so.

I would, however, have problems with General Ripper's (Dr. Strangelove) advice to bomb Moscow.

(Yeah, um, Truman.)