I don't disagree with the use of the bomb at that particular time but strongly disagree with the actual geographical targets. Mass murder, basically. Those 140,000 civilians young and old weren't the ones trying to kill US soldiers so don't really get the narrative that it was done in order to save lives.

My old library master had been tortured by the Japs and couldn't speak save for a desperate rasp. They had been brutalized into savagery akin to the Hitler Youth being brainwashed with 'strength through joy' and other zeitgeist phrases.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Not so. Attlee only took over in the latter stages following the general election.When Truman told Stalin about the new weapon,Churchill was there.

But the point dear legal is that they were onside when the war began. The might have had ideological sympathies but that was secondary.

You might be interested in this proud assertion.

[Link]

It was a very close thing until the last moment(whatever Halifax might have said later).I am talking about May 1940,after Hitler had already smashed through the French army.You are entitled to your opinion,but in my view there was a not uninfluential lobby on "the right"for peace in 1940. Not anything like a majority.But not uninfluential. Churchill did not really establish any overwhelming dominance in such quarters until later in 1940.

Below,only wikipedia (sorry no time to dig up something more authoritative),but reflects my reading on the topic:

"The May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis was a confrontation between Winston Churchill, newly appointed as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Viscount Halifax, the Foreign Secretary...Halifax believed that in view of the successful German invasion of France and the encirclement of British forces at Dunkirk the United Kingdom should try to negotiate a peace settlement with Adolf Hitler.... Churchill disagreed."

Edited by legaleagle (06 Aug 2015 11.19pm)

You are wrong to dismiss the very words of Halifax himself.....I mean?...

Neville Chamberlain's position became untenable on 10 May 1940 because May the tenth was the day Hitler's forces attacked via pushing through the Ardennes......Chamberlain only resigned because it had become evident that appeasement had failed.

Chamberlain couldn't realistically have successfully continued appeasement at that point.....Like Halifax says himself....It just wasn't going to work.

If Halifax had been selected PM....A post he had declined from Chamberlain who didn't favour Churchill, then what is obvious is that Halifax would have continued fighting.

The danger of a deal with Hitler didn't require Halifax being PM...Which wasn't going to happen anyway......No the danger of that was once Hitler had successfully beaten France and had effective control over the European continent.

At that point during cabinet Halifax pushed for a deal. He ultimately lost the argument though once Churchill had appealed to cabinet with words like, 'If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.' Churchill's cabinet backed him and that was that.

However if we hadn't managed the evacuation at Dunkirk....Then maybe Churchill's words wouldn't have carried the day.

Dunkirk was the close run thing....Without those 330 thousand men...Halifax would have probably won the argument.

Still, ultimately a hawkish nationalist with a small 'n' saved this nation from German hegemony at least and full scale direct German rule at most.

Hell, by not having to fight on two fronts Hitler would have been able to invade the USSR earlier and ultimately have won the war and.....Well, you legal would probably not have been born into the same kind of world.....You probably wouldn't have been raised in a liberalised environment.....legal the right winger perhaps.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Aug 2015 2.32am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The Japanese were trying to surrender before war was declared by Russia on Japan. They had hoped that Russia would mediate and that Japan could at least get more favourable terms.

There was a window of opportunity for peace that started nearly two months before the bombs were dropped.

As too the Japanese goverment being split down the middle, there are always those in every country that would rather die than be defeated and Japanese culture at the time was dominated by those who thought that surrender was always the most shameful outcome of war. However The Supreme War council of Japan, which was made up of The Emperor of Japan, The Prime Minister, The Minister of Foreign Affairs, The Minister of the Navy, The Chief of the Navy General Staff, The Chief of the Army General Staff and The Minister of War, were, none the less, asking for Russia to mediate peace, before Russia declared war on them.

The documents and communications regarding Japans attempts at surrender were supressed until long after the war but many have now been released and without too much research, you can read many of them, if you wish.

Japan was all but finished, their war was not sustainable and they knew it. The real threat was then seen as Russia. No point in having an Atomic Bomb, without demonstrating what it could do.

It could be argued that Japan deserved what they got after the way they conducted themselves in the war from the start. Attitudes towards the Japanese were even worst than those towards the Nazis in this country towards the end of the war. They were seen as a wicked and cruel people, mainly on account of how allied POW's were treated but the truth is that there was an opportunity for peace without dropping the bombs.

Whether it was a good or bad idea to drop the bombs in spite of this opportunity is another matter. I think that it was a war that had to be won and any war needs to be concluded at the first favourable opportunity.

The problem now is that if the Japanese were trying to surrender and an agreement for peace could have been reached before dropping the bombs, how would that make the Allies look. Hence the documents were supressed for decades.

The entire policy of Nuclear deterant in affect for decades after the bombs were dropped was based on the example of what happened to Japan, so it could also be argued that by dropping the bombs on Japan, war with The Soviet Union was avoided and who can say how many would have died had war broken out between The Soviet Union and the Allies. The Soviet Union and NATO both knew the devasting effect of the bomb.

Personally, I agree with Kermit, in that the choice of target was wrong but IMO, there were many that wanted to see the effects of the bomb on a city. The rest is history.

Who can say how the world would be today if the bombs had not been dropped, better or worst?

I for one do not believe it was the right thing to do. Killing 120,000 people and mutilating tens of thousands of others, mainly women and children, in one deadly attack is, IMO, not what we were fighting for but war, tragedy and injustice are always happy bed fellows for all sides involved, whether you be the aggressor or the aggrieved.

"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Stan Laurel