75 years ago today

[Stevicus]

September 2, 1945 was the date WW2 officially ended, with the formal Japanese surrender to the Allies.

Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia

I had an uncle who was a Marine in the Pacific Theater. He would have been part of the invasion force against Japan if the atomic bombs had not ended the war.

 

[pearl]

My uncle was in the Navy and survived Pearl. There remain pros and cons as to whether the 'bomb' ought to have been dripped at all.

 

[BSM1]

My uncle was in the Navy and survived Pearl. There remain pros and cons as to whether the 'bomb' ought to have been dripped at all.

Kind of a moot point now. They were dropped; Japan surrendered; up to a million American and Ally lives were not sacrificed; no other atomic or nuclear weapon has ever been used since then; end of story.

 

[Stevicus]

My uncle was in the Navy and survived Pearl. There remain pros and cons as to whether the 'bomb' ought to have been dripped at all.

Yes, I've seen both the pros and cons discussed about whether the bombs should have been used. I think it would largely depend on how much the Allies wanted unconditional surrender. If unconditional surrender was the only term they would accept, then they were faced with an all-out invasion of Japan or dropping the atomic bombs.

 

[Onoma]

What a brutal war

My grandpa flew 33 missions with the 384th bomb group - 544th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), out of Grafton Underwood, England (Station 106) , 1943-1945

..I just couldn't even imagine what it was like...

 

[pearl]

Yes, I've seen both the pros and cons discussed about whether the bombs should have been used. I think it would largely depend on how much the Allies wanted unconditional surrender. If unconditional surrender was the only term they would accept, then they were faced with an all-out invasion of Japan or dropping the atomic bombs.

I think its agreed that it shortened the war and saved many lives. However, there was a high cost of civilian life, would one bomb have brought the same result? Nothing like hindsight.

Kind of a moot point now. They were dropped; Japan surrendered; up to a million American and Ally lives were not sacrificed; no other atomic or nuclear weapon has ever been used since then; end of story.

Hope its the end of story, with today's proliferation, who knows.

 

[BSM1]

I think its agreed that it shortened the war and saved many lives. However, there was a high cost of civilian life, would one bomb have brought the same result? Nothing like hindsight.



Hope its the end of story, with today's proliferation, who knows.

It's the end of WWII story. Any debate is pure conjecture.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's the end of WWII story. Any debate is pure conjecture.

The good news is that we won the war.
We don't do that much anymore.

 

[Tambourine]

Yes, I've seen both the pros and cons discussed about whether the bombs should have been used. I think it would largely depend on how much the Allies wanted unconditional surrender. If unconditional surrender was the only term they would accept, then they were faced with an all-out invasion of Japan or dropping the atomic bombs.

The bizarre thing that always trips me up is that the demand that had the Japanese refuse to surrender initially (removing the Tenno) wasn't even followed through anyway in the end. Although the latter may well have been MacArthur's doing.