Was dropping the Bomb on Japan racist?

Was dropping the A-bomb on Japan racist?

  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .
Phantasmal said:
It debatable whether the war would have drug on, I guess that is the debate that will continue on this issue.
Click to expand...

Truth Detector said:
If you had read your history, the Japanese refused unconditional surrender. You don't negotiate with terrorist rogue nations. You defeat them.

tenor.gif
Click to expand...

Lol, is the USA that?

Actually thevUSA since WW2 has killed a similar amount as Japan did in WW2.

Are we the good guys, really?
 
RomanDmowski said:
The USA had no issue with most of Central Europe going Soviet.
Click to expand...
The U.S. Army was never going to beat the Red Army to Poland and Hungary.

We made a trade. The USSR would occupy eastern Europe, and Stalin promised to help us defeat Japan by attacking them within 3 months of defeating Germany.

That is one promise Stalin kept, to the day. He declared war on Japan and annihilated the million man Kwangtung Army in Manchuria.

At Yalta, Roosevelt got Stalin to promise to hold democratic elections in Poland, but Stalin broke that promise. At that point, the American people were never going to accept using the United States Army to invade Eastern Europe.
 
Cypress said:
The U.S. Army was never going to beat the Red Army to Poland and Hungary.

We made a trade. The USSR would occupy eastern Europe, and Stalin promised to help us defeat Japan by attacking them within 3 months of defeating Germany.

That is one promise Stalin kept, to the day. He declared war on Japan and annihilated the million man Kwangtung Army in Manchuria.

Roosevelt got Stalin to promise to hold democratic elections in Poland, but Stalin broke that promise. At that point, the American people were never going to accept using the United States Army to invade Eastern Europe.
Click to expand...

A debatable point since the US had supplied the USSR against the Nazis. OTOH, there should be no doubt the price in American lives would only be slightly less than invading Japan. Nuking the Soviets was the only sure way to defeat them...which bombs we didn't have until a year later.
 
Phantasmal said:
It debatable whether the war would have drug on, I guess that is the debate that will continue on this issue.
Click to expand...

Dutch Uncle said:
Why don't you impress everyone with your math skills and add the total civilian deaths by the US and UK. Please link your source.
Click to expand...

The Anglos killed about 200,000 civilians in the A- bombs over Japan, 25,000 in the Dresden firebombing , 2,000,000 civilians Bengai famine & 150,000 civilians in the Italian campaign.

Italy killed about 380,000 civilians in Ethiopia.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
A debatable point since the US had supplied the USSR against the Nazis. OTOH, there should be no doubt the price in American lives would only be slightly less than invading Japan. Nuking the Soviets was the only sure way to defeat them...which bombs we didn't have until a year later.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Anglos helped Soviets reach Central Europe first through supplying them through lend lease & d\cking around with Italy.
 
Cypress said:
The U.S. Army was never going to beat the Red Army to Poland and Hungary.

We made a trade. The USSR would occupy eastern Europe, and Stalin promised to help us defeat Japan by attacking them within 3 months of defeating Germany.

That is one promise Stalin kept, to the day. He declared war on Japan and annihilated the million man Kwangtung Army in Manchuria.

At Yalta, Roosevelt got Stalin to promise to hold democratic elections in Poland, but Stalin broke that promise. At that point, the American people were never going to accept using the United States Army to invade Eastern Europe.
Click to expand...

The first A bomb was tested just before Potsdam Conference.
 
Cypress said:
The U.S. Army was never going to beat the Red Army to Poland and Hungary.

We made a trade. The USSR would occupy eastern Europe, and Stalin promised to help us defeat Japan by attacking them within 3 months of defeating Germany.

That is one promise Stalin kept, to the day. He declared war on Japan and annihilated the million man Kwangtung Army in Manchuria.

At Yalta, Roosevelt got Stalin to promise to hold democratic elections in Poland, but Stalin broke that promise. At that point, the American people were never going to accept using the United States Army to invade Eastern Europe.
Click to expand...

Stalin / Soviets were partners in crime with Hitler's Nazis in starting WW2.

The Molotov Ribbentrop Pact, Germany Soviet credit agreement & German Soviet Commercial Agreement.
Yet, the West never declared war on also Soviets.

Instead the West kissed Soviet behind through lend lease & at the conferences of Tehran, Yalta & Potsdam.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
A debatable point since the US had supplied the USSR against the Nazis. OTOH, there should be no doubt the price in American lives would only be slightly less than invading Japan. Nuking the Soviets was the only sure way to defeat them...which bombs we didn't have until a year later.
Click to expand...
my two cents

The American public would never have accepted a third world war with the USSR in 1946 especially one we instigated. Pure fantasy to imagine it being realistic.

All kinds of Faustian bargains get made in war, it obviously is not like church Sunday school. We agreed at Yalta that the USSR would occupy Eastern Europe in exchange for Stalin joining us to wage war on Japan.

Roosevelt made Stalin promise democratic elections in eastern Europe, and I am sure he hoped for the best, but it was obvious to everyone we could not enforce elections in Poland by military force
 
Cypress said:
my two cents

The American public would never have accepted a third world war with the USSR in 1946 especially one we instigated. Pure fantasy to imagine it being realistic.

All kinds of Faustian bargains get made in war, it obviously it not like church Sunday school. We agreed that the USSR would occupy Eastern Europe in exchange for Stalin joining us to wage war on Japan.

Roosevelt made Stalin promise democratic elections in eastern Europe, and I am sure he hoped for the best, but it was obvious to everyone we could not enforce elections in Poland by military force
Click to expand...

Poles were slaughtered, became political prisoners & enslaved after WW2 by Commies.

Like Jakub Berman who killed up to 6,000 Poles & imprisoned up to 500,000 Polish political prisoners.

Like Salomon Model who killed & enslaved Poles as a commander of the Zagoda labour camp & camp Jaworzno.
 
RomanDmowski said:
Poles were slaughtered, became political prisoners & enslaved after WW2 by Commies.

Like Jakub Berman who killed up to 6,000 Poles & imprisoned up to 500,000 Polish political prisoners.

Like Salomon Model who killed & enslaved Poles as a commander of the Zagoda labour camp & camp Jaworzno.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to what was being discussed.

Everyone knows there was repressive communist puppet government in Poland.

The question being discussed is what the USA was supposed to do about it. Dropping nukes on Moscow, or invading Eastern Europe with the U.S. Army are fantasies, unrealistic, were never going to happen, and we cannot even be sure those measures would have been successful.

The USA chose the only viable option open to us. Diplomatic and economic isolation of the USSR and a policy of containment in concert with NATO allies and international institutions.
 
Cypress said:
my two cents

The American public would never have accepted a third world war with the USSR in 1946 especially one we instigated. Pure fantasy to imagine it being realistic.

All kinds of Faustian bargains get made in war, it obviously is not like church Sunday school. We agreed at Yalta that the USSR would occupy Eastern Europe in exchange for Stalin joining us to wage war on Japan.

Roosevelt made Stalin promise democratic elections in eastern Europe, and I am sure he hoped for the best, but it was obvious to everyone we could not enforce elections in Poland by military force
Click to expand...

Agreed. The US was weary of war and the US was near broke. However, unlike 4.5 years of war with both the Nazis and Imperial Japan, IF we had a couple nukes and could reasonably convince the Soviets we had even more, a 1945-1946 war would have been very short. Perhaps by the end of 1945 in some alternative timeline. As it was, the US didn't have the bombs yet it did have too many commie sympathizers in government and academia. Ergo, I think everything worked out as best it could have at the time.

War is bad for everyone. Even the conquerors. It's why it should always be a last resort much like using a handgun or AK-47 in self-defense.

Roosevelt, then Truman, knew Stalin was a murderous lying asshole who could not be trusted. They had to balance the Soviet threat against a revolt of their own war-weary citizens.
 
Truth Detector said:
Would you have preferred the allies lose a another million souls defeating a nation that started a global war and engaged in criminal atrocities?

I am always amazed that individuals educated in the west are even remotely stupid enough to question the morality of saving lives and ending a war we didn't start. :palm:
Click to expand...

:legion:
 
Cypress said:
my two cents

The American public would never have accepted a third world war with the USSR in 1946 especially one we instigated. Pure fantasy to imagine it being realistic.

All kinds of Faustian bargains get made in war, it obviously is not like church Sunday school. We agreed at Yalta that the USSR would occupy Eastern Europe in exchange for Stalin joining us to wage war on Japan.

Roosevelt made Stalin promise democratic elections in eastern Europe, and I am sure he hoped for the best, but it was obvious to everyone we could not enforce elections in Poland by military force
Click to expand...

Americans were already racist towards Asians. See internment camps. As to the dropping the bomb? I don't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top