Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I guess all of you have ever had history lessons and all of you have learned that on the 6th of August in Hiroshima and on the 9th of August on 1945 in Nagaskaki two American bomber (forgot their names) threw two Atomic bombs on both Nagaskaki and Hiroshima. 100 thousands of people have did in an instant in both cities.

Though both Nagaskaki and Hiroshima were crowded with citizens and almost no soldiers. And nobody has EVER taken any responsibily for the cause of that massacre.

My question is: Who should (have) take(n) responsibility for what happened in those 2 cities.

Discuss!

 

Well the two aircrafts that dropped the a-bombs were the Enola Gay and the Bockscar. The Enola Gay dropped the "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, and the Bockscar dropped the "Fat Man" on Nagasaki. I believe President Harry Truman should have taken responsibility for what happened, as he was the one who gave the military permission to drop the bomb.

 

America took responsibility for the attacks straight after they happened...

I think you meant to ask a different question. Perhaps whether it was ethically justified.

 

100 thousands of innocent citizens died. Was the man who ordered such an assault even punished!?

 

History is written by the victor. I can assure you that Hitler would be a hero today if Germany had won WW2.

 

Why would he need to be punished?

Those 100 thousand deaths potentially saved millions of lives.

 

Would you say the same if the Germans had won the race and nuked London, crushing the western alliance into submission?

 

I just hate how hypocritical the United States is. If somebody did that to us they would freak out like something never seen before. The whole world would be destroyed by a war so epic that no previous wars would even measure close to it. I hate to say it, but the U.S. deserves some of there own medicine. I'm not wishing for it (that would suck badly), but I want the U.S. to stop being so hypocritical about nearly everything.

 

100% agreed. Now can anybody explain me why this truth has been put out off our hystory books?

 

I just did, a couple of posts ago.

 

They don't want to admit mistakes or ignorant decisions. Why do you think northern U.S. history books are different than southern U.S. history books? They have different views, are stubborn, and don't want to admit things. That's just an example (Civil War).

 

I wouldn't be using the same argument, because it doesn't apply.

A land invasion of Britain would have been much easier for Germany than Japan was for America. Millions of lives would not have been lost as a result of invading Britain by land.

Germany never attempted it though because even as late as 1942 Hitler still wanted an alliance with Britain.

 

Actually, no. Germany didn't have the naval forces to invade Britain on foot. They did however, bomb the shit out of England in general and London in particular. How is a land invasion much easier than bombing under these conditions?

I don't know very much about the battle in the Pacific, as history lessons I've had focused more on Europe (naturally), so I can't say for sure whether or not the US could have invaded Japan or if it would even come to that if the Americans had complete naval supremacy on their shores.

 

The point I was trying to make it the original post was that America would have lost a lot more lives invading Japan rather than using nuclear weapons.

America *had* to defeat Japan by some means because the war with Japan only had 2 combatants, USA and Japan. So there were 2 options, invade by land or use nuclear weapons.

I wouldn't use the same argument if Germany had chosen to use nuclear weapons against Britain, because Germany didn't *need* to defeat Britain to win its war.

So i wouldn't be using the same argument, even if it obviously would have been simpler to bomb than invade.

 

Australia almost got dragged in to it - US forces intercepted a Japanese fleet bound to invade Australia I believe.

 

The reason the atomic bombs were dropped was to end one of the most brutal wars in human history, and approve of Truman's decision or not, this is what occurred. If America had been forced to invade Japan by land, hundreds of thousands more people would of died.

On the question of the Nazis using an atomic bomb on London, I believe that if Germany had developed nuclear weapons during the war capable of destroying a city, they would have been used against the British and on the Eastern front.

 

That's true, several Japanese midget submarines were captured or destroyed inside Sydney harbour.

 

Don't you think that the US would use them on both fronts too if they had them sooner?

 

The war in Europe was over by the time the Americans had a usable weapon.

 

U.S. history books are different in the south than the are in the north? Thats news to me. I live in the south and all the books clearly express that the south were "wrong" on the whole slavery issues.

Where is your proof for this anyways? Have you personaly read textbooks from both regions and compared them?