Hiroshima Nagasaki - Paul Ham Audiobook

This post has 10 comments with rating of 5/510

• 
  caesar963
  May 5th, 2018
  

  In addition, the use of the bombs was probably to signal a warning to the expansionist Soviets. Morally, whatever about the dropping of the first bomb, using the second one, just three days later, was totally unjustifiable. Possibly revenge for the sneak attack in 1941. As usual, thanks a lot.

  Hiroshima Nagasaki - Paul Ham
• 
  jewwangle
  May 14th, 2018
  

  @Caesar963

  We disagree a bit there I fear. To me both bombs were justifiable by the simple fact that even AFTER the second bomb was dropped, the vote to end the war was still tied at 3 for and 3 against, with the emperor needing to split the tie to surrender.

  To me, this shows pretty irrefutably that the notion that they were so-very-close to giving up anyways isn’t super plausible. Not to mention the extensive, daily training that was going on for civilians on a wide scale.

  So, while I of course agree that impressing the Soviets of US power was part of the consideration (and subsequent events show that this proved to have been a very logical need) I also cannot see much to suggest that the Japanese did not fully intend to force an invasion and continued firebombing.

  It is not hard to see, with the data of previous battles and area bombing deaths, how such a course really would have meant more deaths overall

  Hiroshima Nagasaki - Paul Ham
• 
  caesar963
  May 18th, 2018
  

  Good points, and the suicidal nature of Japanese defensive tactics were causing unacceptable levels of casualties, as the fighting proceeded from island to island. However, the three day lead-in time did not allow enough scope for deliberation.
  The threat of impending carnage would have been sufficient, I think.
  The Emperor’s role in the Rape of Nanking and other atrocities (command and control) was at least enough for him to share the fate of Tojo and the others, at least in terms of absolute justice.

  Hiroshima Nagasaki - Paul Ham
• 
  tig3rbait
  October 29th, 2018
  

  

  listening to this now and more than half way through i can say its a great book

  Hiroshima Nagasaki - Paul Ham
• 
  HuygensBase
  July 23rd, 2019
  

  

  We would have lost over one million human lives if we had launched Operation Downfall (The proposed Allied plan for the invasion of Japan).

  Most historians feel that the cost in human life alone would have been 10 to 25 times the casualties inflicted with our bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

  You need to look at the bombs in context. We had killed 250,000 people in the 10-days priors to Hiroshima. We fire bombed Tokyo and many other cities to the point that they and their inhabitants were 75% destroyed.

  The mushroom cloud is sensational, but the casualties are inconsequential to the casualties from high explosive bombs and fire bombs.

  Hiroshima Nagasaki - Paul Ham
• 
  bmac6446
  October 13th, 2019
  

  

  The dropping of both bombs was simply a science experiment. The War Dept. wanted to know which bomb (fission or fusion) it wanted to fund in the future. Japan tried to conditionally surrender earlier in the year and was refused by the US. After the bombing, Stalin finally committed Soviet troops for a Manchurian invasion. Those troop commitments are what tipped the scale for the Japanese hierarchy, as they accepted the US’s unconditional surrender terms. The US govt gave Japan their initial conditional surrender terms anyway. Halsy and others later admitted that the “plan” to invade the Japanese mainland was only a ruse to provide cover for the bombings.

  Hiroshima Nagasaki - Paul Ham
• 
  ProfitPagan
  May 26th, 2020
  

  

  The Japanese had been trying to surrender conditionally for almost a year, through their chosen proponent- Russia. This was a serious mistake. But, the only condition the Japanese requested was that Hirohito should not be tried and executed like the Japanese generals. Oddly, once we dropped our two atomic bombs, that’s exactly the nature of the “unconditional” surrender we accepted. Our undisputed air superiority would have taken Japan out of the war without a ground operation. We could easily have done to every major Japanese city what we had done to Tokyo, and the Japanese military knew it.

  Hiroshima Nagasaki - Paul Ham
• 
  howlafist
  May 29th, 2020
  

  @jewwangle

  My husbands grandfather was in nagasaki and later died of cancer. Nuclear weaponry was a complete unknown back then, and people were very paranoid. He and his wife had to hide that he was there from her parents, or they wouldn’t have been allowed to marry. People were worried that radiation poisoning would be transmissible, or that children would be born with defects. It caused a lot of suffering beyond just the immediate deaths.

  Maybe the firebombings etc hurt more people, but that second bomb I do think was unnecessary. Again, nuclear weaponry was an unknown at the time, and Japan wasn’t sure it could be repeated. Dropping a bomb somewhere uninhabited instead would probably have been sufficient…

  Hiroshima Nagasaki - Paul Ham
• 
  dchant
  July 13th, 2022
  

  

  Thank you kindly

  Hiroshima Nagasaki - Paul Ham
• 
  integspec
  April 26th, 2024
  

  Thank you

  Hiroshima Nagasaki - Paul Ham

Add a comment