You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Hiroshima
November 30 2022 3.30am

Hiroshima

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 6 of 11 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Play our World Cup 2022 Prediction League!

World Cup Prediction League 2022

Sponsor a forum or Advertise on the HOL!


 

legaleagle Flag 06 Aug 15 10.14pm

Quote TheJudge at 06 Aug 2015 10.10pm

Well certainly Fascism wasn't frowned upon, pre war, by everyone for sure and certainly Hitler had many admirers over here. But the the truth is that ideology came a distant second to national and personal security when the war started and the Right soon realised that Hitler was a megalomaniac.

Unfortunately, the left, the unions and all the usual suspects were not so keen to roll their sleeves up. Same old same old.

Of course I'm speaking in generalities but I'm happy to engage you on detail if you really want to.


No need.But thank goodness people like Ernie Bevin and Attlee "rolled their sleeves" up as opposed to appeasers on the right like Lord Halifax who,had he taken over from Chamberlain in May 1940 (and it was a close thing) 8 months after the outbreak of war, would no doubt have done the deal with Adolf even quicker than you might take an historically biased and inaccurate potshot at "the left".

Edited by legaleagle (06 Aug 2015 10.23pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Kermit8's Profile Kermit8 Flag Hevon 06 Aug 15 10.16pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Quote matt_himself at 06 Aug 2015 8.19pm

Quote Kermit8 at 06 Aug 2015 8.31am

It was a real life medical experiment without anaesthetic by the US.

They could have quite easily have dropped the bombs 40 miles from Tokyo in a non-populated area and warned that the city would be next on the list if they didn't surrender.

The population of Hiroshima at the time was mostly kids, women and old people as the men were away soldiering. Something the US would also have obviously known.

A heinous act.

The Japanese, due to their belief that their Emperor was a God, we're not going to surrender.

Bear in mind that up until 1974 there were Japanese soldiers in places like Micronesia still fighting the war and when they were found by locals, they persisted in killing them as they had not had instruction to down weapons.

Plus the Japanese human rights record in the war was barbaric. They tortured and raped at will. Chinese, Koreans, Malay, Singaporean, etc., they didn't care. POW's were treated as sub human scum.

Additionally, the Japanese weren't afraid to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their own.

The use of nuclear weapons was the last resort but in a situation like that, where you have an enemy who is so intractable, what do you do?

Talk and provide humanitarian aid in the hope they bow down?


Edited by matt_himself (06 Aug 2015 8.20pm)


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]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Kermit8's Profile Kermit8 Flag Hevon 06 Aug 15 10.17pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Quote Jamesrichards8 at 06 Aug 2015 8.13pm

Quote Kermit8 at 06 Aug 2015 7.05pm

Quote Jamesrichards8 at 06 Aug 2015 5.56pm

Quote Kermit8 at 06 Aug 2015 8.31am

It was a real life medical experiment without anaesthetic by the US.

They could have quite easily have dropped the bombs 40 miles from Tokyo in a non-populated area and warned that the city would be next on the list if they didn't surrender.

The population of Hiroshima at the time was mostly kids, women and old people as the men were away soldiering. Something the US would also have obviously known.

A heinous act.


It's called war, kermie. Did Japan warn the US before they hit them below the belt and torpedoed pearl harbour? If you are going to wage war, you have to understand the penalty. Japan gambled, played stupidly, and lost big time.

Edited by Jamesrichards8 (06 Aug 2015 5.58pm)


Yer right. We should have nuked Buenos Aires in '82 and saved 256 British lives.


I don't really think the falklands were on the same scale as the second world war. Also we don't have any nukes

Edited by Jamesrichards8 (06 Aug 2015 8.13pm)


 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
legaleagle Flag 06 Aug 15 10.19pm

Quote suicideatselhurst at 06 Aug 2015 10.13pm

[
The potsdam conference was Atlee not churchill, and no doubt Truman was niave in his dealings with stalin and any form of brinkmanship... he may have seen having an atomic bomb as a upper hand, however they only had two and it woild have taken another year to build more... so im leaning towards ending the war quickly...however feel free to disagree

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.


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
suicideatselhurst Flag crawley 06 Aug 15 10.23pm

Quote legaleagle at 06 Aug 2015 10.19pm

Quote suicideatselhurst at 06 Aug 2015 10.13pm

[
The potsdam conference was Atlee not churchill, and no doubt Truman was niave in his dealings with stalin and any form of brinkmanship... he may have seen having an atomic bomb as a upper hand, however they only had two and it woild have taken another year to build more... so im leaning towards ending the war quickly...however feel free to disagree

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.



the last conference of the war was Atlee not churchill, so either the potsdam one or yalta

 


Theres someone in my head ... But its not me

X/Box game Tag bazcpfc1961, clan (HMS)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
TheJudge Flag 06 Aug 15 10.28pm

Quote legaleagle at 06 Aug 2015 10.14pm

Quote TheJudge at 06 Aug 2015 10.10pm

Well certainly Fascism wasn't frowned upon, pre war, by everyone for sure and certainly Hitler had many admirers over here. But the the truth is that ideology came a distant second to national and personal security when the war started and the Right soon realised that Hitler was a megalomaniac.

Unfortunately, the left, the unions and all the usual suspects were not so keen to roll their sleeves up. Same old same old.

Of course I'm speaking in generalities but I'm happy to engage you on detail if you really want to.


No need.But thank goodness people like Ernie Bevan and Attlee "rolled their sleeves" up as opposed to appeasers on the right like Lord Halifax who,had he taken over from Chamberlain in May 1940 (and it was a close thing), would no doubt have done the deal with Adolf even quicker than you would take another historically biased and inaccurate potshot at "the left".

Edited by legaleagle (06 Aug 2015 10.15pm)

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]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 06 Aug 15 10.40pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote legaleagle at 06 Aug 2015 10.14pm

Quote TheJudge at 06 Aug 2015 10.10pm

Well certainly Fascism wasn't frowned upon, pre war, by everyone for sure and certainly Hitler had many admirers over here. But the the truth is that ideology came a distant second to national and personal security when the war started and the Right soon realised that Hitler was a megalomaniac.

Unfortunately, the left, the unions and all the usual suspects were not so keen to roll their sleeves up. Same old same old.

Of course I'm speaking in generalities but I'm happy to engage you on detail if you really want to.


No need.But thank goodness people like Ernie Bevan and Attlee "rolled their sleeves" up as opposed to appeasers on the right like Lord Halifax who,had he taken over from Chamberlain in May 1940 (and it was a close thing), would no doubt have done the deal with Adolf even quicker than you would take another historically biased and inaccurate potshot at "the left".

Edited by legaleagle (06 Aug 2015 10.15pm)

Halifax becoming PM wasn't really a close thing.

Firstly, Halifax wasn't keen on being PM....His thoughts.

"I had no doubt at all in my own mind that for me to succeed him [Chamberlain] would create a quite impossible situation. Apart altogether from Churchill's qualities as compared with my own at this particular juncture, what would in fact be my position? Churchill would be running Defence, and in this connexion one could not but remember the relationship between Asquith and Lloyd George had broken down in the first war... I should speedily become a more or less honorary Prime Minister, living in a kind of twilight just outside the things that really mattered."

Secondly Parliament's mood was to fight.....Churchill wasn't a favourite within the cabinet....But he was the most warlike leader in the chamber and he'd been warning about Hitler since the early thirties.....Parliament wanted him.

Chamberlain being so heavily damaged really had no real choice.

Let's pretend that these realities on the ground weren't so....And that Halifax became PM......Well, the timing was just as Hitler's forces started through the Ardennes.

To try to make peace then.....remember war had been declared by Chamberlain just shortly before would have been quite mad......France had roughly the same size army as Germany and we had our expeditionary force in France to help them.

There really wasn't much hope of peace.....Especially with the hawks in positions in parliament.

A Halifax trying to sue for peace would have had a 'no confidence' vote on his hands.......Once Germany had France....peace terms were unrealistic and it was purely a fight for survival with a very confident Hitler.

By the time Hitler was likely to have agreed to realistic peace terms the tide had already turned against him.


 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
legaleagle Flag 06 Aug 15 10.51pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 06 Aug 2015 10.40pm

Halifax becoming PM wasn't really a close thing.

Firstly, Halifax wasn't keen on being PM....His thoughts.

"I had no doubt at all in my own mind that for me to succeed him [Chamberlain] would create a quite impossible situation. Apart altogether from Churchill's qualities as compared with my own at this particular juncture, what would in fact be my position? Churchill would be running Defence, and in this connexion one could not but remember the relationship between Asquith and Lloyd George had broken down in the first war... I should speedily become a more or less honorary Prime Minister, living in a kind of twilight just outside the things that really mattered."

Secondly Parliament's mood was to fight.....Churchill wasn't a favourite within the cabinet....But he was the most warlike leader in the chamber and he'd been warning about Hitler since the early thirties.....Parliament wanted him.

Chamberlain being so heavily damaged really had no real choice.

Let's pretend that these realities on the ground weren't so....And that Halifax became PM......Well, the timing was just as Hitler's forces started through the Ardennes.

To try to make peace then.....remember war had been declared by Chamberlain just shortly before would have been quite mad......France had roughly the same size army as Germany and we had our expeditionary force in France to help them.

There really wasn't much hope of peace.....Especially with the hawks in positions in parliament.

A Halifax trying to sue for peace would have had a 'no confidence' vote on his hands.......Once Germany had France....peace terms were unrealistic and it was purely a fight for survival with a very confident Hitler.

By the time Hitler was likely to have agreed to realistic peace terms the tide had already turned against him.



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)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
legaleagle Flag 06 Aug 15 11.12pm

Quote TheJudge at 06 Aug 2015 10.28pm

Quote legaleagle at 06 Aug 2015 10.14pm

Quote TheJudge at 06 Aug 2015 10.10pm

Well certainly Fascism wasn't frowned upon, pre war, by everyone for sure and certainly Hitler had many admirers over here. But the the truth is that ideology came a distant second to national and personal security when the war started and the Right soon realised that Hitler was a megalomaniac.

Unfortunately, the left, the unions and all the usual suspects were not so keen to roll their sleeves up. Same old same old.

Of course I'm speaking in generalities but I'm happy to engage you on detail if you really want to.


No need.But thank goodness people like Ernie Bevan and Attlee "rolled their sleeves" up as opposed to appeasers on the right like Lord Halifax who,had he taken over from Chamberlain in May 1940 (and it was a close thing), would no doubt have done the deal with Adolf even quicker than you would take another historically biased and inaccurate potshot at "the left".

Edited by legaleagle (06 Aug 2015 10.15pm)

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]


In relation to Halifax,dear chap, the point was my point was about him still harbouring appeasement tendencies and being in favour of a deal in May 1940,well after war had been declared.

Of course most of "the right" did their bit after war was declared,just like most on the left.I was focusing on your lack of balance in posting about "the left",and as if "the left" is/was one unified grouping

To illustrate that the right was not free of appeasers etc after war was declared ,note that Mosley, certainly of the wider "right" apropos your references to "the left", and 740 followers were interned in May 1940, war having started 8 months earlier, as a potential fifth column.

The "Establishment" was far from free of appeasers post outbreak of war either.Take the Duke of Buccleuch, Lord ­Steward of the Royal Household.He was opposed to any war with the Nazis and when it did break out in 1939, he joined the Peace Aims Group and urged a truce based on Germany keeping all the lands Hitler had stolen in Europe. Even after the bombing started, he continued to defend Hitler.

The Duke of Westminster,an admirer of Hitler,spent the first year of the war demanding, to whomever would listen, that peace be made with Germany.

Another interned was Admiral Sir Barry Domville.In June 1940 his mistress, Mrs. Olive Baker, was arrested for distributing leaflets promoting Reichssender Hamburg.

Take Archibald Maule Ramsay,Scottish Unionist MP. On 20 March 1940, he asked a question in parliament about a propaganda radio station set up by Germany which gave its precise wavelength, which was suspected by both his allies and opponents as a subtle way of advertising it.

Just saying...

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 07 Aug 15 2.30am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote legaleagle at 06 Aug 2015 10.51pm

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)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Eltel80's Profile Eltel80 Flag Koh Samui 07 Aug 15 3.32am Send a Private Message to Eltel80 Add Eltel80 as a friend

It saved the life of many POW's.....the Japanese, aware of imminent invasion, had scheduled a date - September 21st 1945 - on which ALL POW's were going to be slaughtered. Because of the bombs, this never happened - so that's another x hundred thousand Allies and displaced persons that got to live.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mr Palaceman's Profile Mr Palaceman Flag 07 Aug 15 3.59am Send a Private Message to Mr Palaceman Add Mr Palaceman as a friend

Quote suicideatselhurst at 06 Aug 2015 8.39pm

Quote Mr Palaceman at 06 Aug 2015 8.15pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Aug 2015 10.33pm

70 years ago. Always thought it was a necessary evil but not so sure now.

[Link]

Then again the Japanese still refused to surrender and of course the atrocities they committed were absolutely horrific.

Worryingly there is a significant movement within Japan trying to rewrite history.
[Link]

I was unnecessary but inevitable. Once it had been developed, They had to then use it.

The Japanese tried to surrender before the bomb was dropped after Russia declared war on Japan. The bomb was dropped to show the Russians what the Allies could do.

Secret papers released decades after the war show this. I remember seeing a documentry on the released papers in around 1990. I think it was reported on the BBC at the time.


The Japenese government was split down the middle regarding surrender, the final decision was given to the Emperor, after the second bomb had been dropped, the russians promised they would declare war on japan after Germanys surrender, which they honoured and invaded Manchuria.... it had nothing to do with showing the russians what they had, it was a means to end the war quickly, some U.S. government predictions had the war in Japan not ending until 1946/7.... even with British and Russian forces joining in....even after Okinowa had been overun the Japanese had 6 million men they could send in the field....horrible, but had to be done, no point in judging what people did 70 years ago from the comfort of our keyboards

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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 6 of 11 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Hiroshima