Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings

agreed

In regards to the Soviet Union, the nation had at least three divisions on Hokkaido which they used to liberate Sakhalin and the Kurils. More were being constructed.

Operation Downfall would have likely taken several years to complete. As soldiers stationed in the Pacific said themselves, "Golden Gate in 48!" I've seen much less optimistic reports that believe that the operation would have dragged on for longer. In that time, the Soviets would have become almost assuredly involved in an invasion of the main island. With the Soviets pushing from the north and the US pushing from the south, what you get is analogous to the situation in Korea. You get an American occupation zone in the south and a Soviet occupation zone in the north. Given how 'Soviet occupation zones' traditionally turned out, this means the later formation of the Glorious People's Republic of North Japan.

The lack of atomic bombings also mean that there is much less stigma against their use. They probably end up getting employed in later conflicts by the US and Soviets. Assuming a lack of butterflies, that means US forces end up using the tactical nukes against China in the Korean War. Things get very messy from there.

edited 21st Sep '11 7:16:20 PM by Pentadragon

On top of that, the Soviet Union was counting on an American invasion, not atomic weapons. Say what you like about Stalin; he was very good at making plans. The only thing that was preventing a Soviet takeover of Western Europe was the fact that Stalin wasn't willing to risk getting nuked to achieve that.

edited 21st Sep '11 7:22:16 PM by tropetown

Any and all moral outrage must go to what Japan was doing to the rest of Asia if you ask me.

Some Japaneses are still on about the nukes, Tokyo Bombing, and other attacks in which their citizens die.

....Well, that's kind of what happens when you start a war on one of the strongest nation on earth with an unprovoked attack.

What, what did the Imperial Japan think would happen anyway?

edited 27th Sep '16 7:46:47 AM by dRoy

Oh look, a thread necromancer at work.

Even after 5+ years, I stand by my earlier conclusions in this thread (which I'll just repost instead of sending you off to hunt down my prior posts). Hiroshima was, to borrow a common phrase, "regrettable but necessary" - the possible alternate outcomes that presented themselves would probably have been worse. Nagasaki, on the other hand, is indefensible both morally and strategically - primarily because giving the Japanese leadership only three days to understand the nature and consequences of Hiroshima defeats the whole point of the bombings in the first place.

Why. Did. This. Get. Brought. Up. Again.

...well, at least it wasn't for Wehraboo (Imperialboo?) antics.

Seconding . We only get to make seemingly enlightened comments now due to 71 years of hindsight.

In my defense, I didn't necro the thread.