Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[Serenity]

6. August 1945, 8:16 … USA Bomber “B-29” Enola Gay (group commander Paul Tibbets named the bomber after his mothers) dropped the first atomic bomb (nicknamed Little Boy) on Hiroshima. The citizens spelt. 100.000 people died.

9. August 1945 … the second atomic bomb destroyed 40.000 lives.

Today is the 59. Anniversary when the humanity realised the deadly power of the nuclear weapon. It’s a very sad and painful day, but we have to remember once more no war pays off.


“Historia – vitae magistra.” (-> Translation: “History is a teacher for life.”)

History doesn’t teach us, it only reminds what mankind has done. (But it’s sad and frightening that such anniversaries are increasing.) People don’t learn from their mistakes, because if they would, there wouldn’t be so much sorrow, pain and dead in this word.

“Once Trinity proved that the atomic bomb worked, men discovered reasons to use it.” Richard Rhodes, (The Making of Atomic Bomb)

Serenity

[D'Artagnan]

6. August 1945, 8:16 … USA Bomber “B-29” Enola Gay (group commander Paul Tibbets named the bomber after his mothers) dropped the first atomic bomb (nicknamed Little Boy) on Hiroshima. The citizens spelt. 100.000 people died.

9. August 1945 … the second atomic bomb destroyed 40.000 lives.

Today is the 59. Anniversary when the humanity realised the deadly power of the nuclear weapon. It’s a very sad and painful day, but we have to remember once more no war pays off.


“Historia – vitae magistra.” (-> Translation: “History is a teacher for life.”)

History doesn’t teach us, it only reminds what mankind has done. (But it’s sad and frightening that such anniversaries are increasing.) People don’t learn from their mistakes, because if they would, there wouldn’t be so much sorrow, pain and dead in this word.

“Once Trinity proved that the atomic bomb worked, men discovered reasons to use it.” Richard Rhodes, (The Making of Atomic Bomb)

Serenity

Thanks for ruining my day!

[Hai_hai]

Everything has a chain reaction. If the US didn't bomb Japan, the war would have continued longer.
This crap about learning from history seems to imply that the Americans didn't learn from history. It is obvious that Japan didn't care to learn from history. Japan was the country that chose to expand its empire through war and aggression. It made the first move. Don't forget that.

[Paikea]

Still...it's a good thing to remember the dead on all sides. This is as good a day for that as any.

[Skolld]

Still...it's a good thing to remember the dead on all sides. This is as good a day for that as any.

well said, and i especially love seeing all the garlands of cranes at the Peace Park. It's always so beautiful.

[indigo0086]

Still...it's a good thing to remember the dead on all sides. This is as good a day for that as any.

epecially considering how many of those were draftees and civilians. Beleive it or not, not all nazi soldiers were supportive of the reich, or war criminals.

[Serenity]

Thanks for ruining my day!Sorry, that wasn’t my attention. It’s a historical fact and from time to time it has to be mentioned. History is a part of our lives and should not be a taboo topic. The people should discus about everything that happened in the past, maybe conversation could prevent conflict situations.

... But the media around the word reported about the speech of Hiroshima’s mayor Akiba-sama ...

Serenity

[Serenity]

epecially considering how many of those were draftees and civilians. Beleive it or not, not all nazi soldiers were supportive of the reich, or war criminals.
This is so true. Many people consider every German to be a Nazi. But the common people didn’t have any other choice. If they didn’t obey, they were executed.


My grandfather was in the German army during the WW II. With only 17 years he was forced to go into the army… he fought in Rusia. This war marked him for his whole life, not only him, a lot of people were psychically destroyed for the whole life.

Serenity

[indigo0086]

[size=3][font=Book Antiqua]This is so true. Many people consider every German to be a Nazi

well, that's stretching it. Maybe back then, but now I think most think the opposite. America probably has more nazis than germany does now :smiley:

[mingshi]

Everything has a chain reaction. If the US didn't bomb Japan, the war would have continued longer.
This crap about learning from history seems to imply that the Americans didn't learn from history. It is obvious that Japan didn't care to learn from history. Japan was the country that chose to expand its empire through war and aggression. It made the first move. Don't forget that.
This cannot justify the terror of dropping radioactive substances on to women and children. Slaying civilians can never make you a hero. I am Chinese but I don't think all the Japanese should die.

[indigo0086]

Not many people can think of alternates to dropping a bomb. It may not be justified, it may not have made anyone a hero, but do you think america or japan would be the same if it had not? Japan probably would have been drafted out of existence.

[Paikea]

This cannot justify the terror of dropping radioactive substances on to women and children. Slaying civilians can never make you a hero. I am Chinese but I don't think all the Japanese should die.
You let him get to you again...:wink:

[Caleb]

True, killing civilians, and innocents is definatly not a good way to handl combatant situations. Like all the others, I have to agree that if it had not been for the manhatten project, and the two atomic bombs, both america, and jepan would have had 10 fold the damage, in lives taken, and other economical side effects of war. Dropping the atomic bombs forced the emperor to surrender, and save thousands of other japanese. I remember reading the account of a United States marine, in the island hopping stages of WW2 of how each and every Japanese soldier would die hands down, and never accept surrender, so without the emperor's surrender, the end would have been alot more painful for both sides. To the History bit- Humans in my opinion can not reach a peacful state, there is always fighting, be it for power, revenge, an idea. Humans as individuals will always have individual thaughts, and thaughts quite often go against others individual ideals, thaugt processes and beleifs.

[Atama]

Good post Caleb.

Its human nature unfortunatley, no matter what your station in life everyone strives for more, but we just make ripples were as the big guns in the goverment, the rich the powerfull, they make the waves that crush nations and kill civilians.

[KhawMengLee]

Unit 731
http://www.aiipowmia.com/731/731mnu.html


Deadly Knowledge

Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare,
1932-45, and the American Coverup
By Sheldon H. Harris
Routledge
Decades before the Aum Shinri Kyo religious sect began gassing subways, the Japanese government funded another horror: the world's most brutal biological warfare (BW) experiments on human subjects. According to writer Sheldon Harris, all of this was delicately covered up for years by the United States in return for the valuable test data.

From the time Japan occupied all of Manchuria in 1931-1932 until the 1945 surrender to Allied forces, the Manchurian countryside became pockmarked with ugly scientific buildings known to locals only as "lumber mills," surrounded by moats and patrolled by aircraft. In these macabre fortresses, deadly microbes - such as anthrax, typhoid, cholera, and dysentery - were tested on live human subjects, who were either kidnapped from neighboring villages or shipped in via POW boats. Once the subjects - or "material" - had exhausted their usefulness and died, the corpses were cremated on-site or dumped in mass graves. Occasionally a nearby town was surreptitiously infected with plague germs. After inhabitants showed terminal symptoms, the test was deemed successful, and the community burned to destroy all evidence.

Sheldon Harris has spent the past 10 years compiling the definitive tome on the subject. One chilling account describes an outdoor test performed on Chinese prisoners:

"The subjects were bound to stakes some 10 to 20 meters away from a shrapnel bomb that was loaded with gas gangrene. The object was not to kill the men by exploding the bomb, but to test the effectiveness of gas gangrene as a BW weapon in below zero temperatures. Consequently, 'their heads and backs were protected with special metal shields and thick quilted blankets, but their legs and buttocks were left unprotected.' Using a remote-control device, the researchers exploded the bomb, and 'the shrapnel, bearing gas gangrene germs, scattered all over the spot where the experimentees were bound. All the experimentees were wounded in the legs or buttocks, and seven days later they died in great torment.'"

According to Harris's exhaustive research, three principal leaders of the BW program - Ishii Shiro, Kitano Masaji, and Wakamatsu Yujiro - were responsible for camps with ominously nondescript names like Unit 731 or Unit Ei1644. Once the war ended, all three men escaped prosecution. United States investigators reportedly cut a deal with them, promising complete immunity in exchange for their data, which was hidden from the War Crimes Tribunal and confined solely to the intelligence community. Thus, when the trials ended in 1948, Soviet and United States intelligence agents swarmed over Japan in a Cold War panic, hurriedly interviewing all known participants. The same questions were on all of their minds:

How did the Japanese do it? What were the results?

The American coverup was kept secret until a 1981 article in the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" by John W. Powell Jr., which eventually led to investigative segments on 60 Minutes and 20/20. Even today, 50 years after the Japanese death factories, United States intelligence still refuses to make public certain related information.

Harris's conclusion is open-ended. The reader is invited to ponder: What does the government have to hide? If the United States claims its own BW experiments ended in 1945, why were Persian Gulf soldiers inoculated with unproven vaccines, including anthrax, and why are 67 percent of their children born with severe illnesses or birth defects? When Factories of Death starts raising questions, they reach uncomfortably close to home.

By Jack Boulware

[KhawMengLee]

Japan Admits Dissecting WW II POWs

By Thomas Easton
The Baltimore Sun
Index

Live dissection of American POWs
When and where
How they died
The sentence
MacArthur let the mudrerers go free

UKUOKA, Japan "I could never again wear a white smock," says Dr. Toshio Tono, dressed in a white running jacket at his hospital and recalling events of 50 years ago. "It's because the prisoners thought that we were doctors, since they could see the white smocks, that they didn't struggle. They never dreamed they would be dissected."

The prisoners were eight American airmen, knocked out of the sky over southern Japan during the waning months of World War U, and then torn apart organ by organ while they were still alive.

What occurred here 50 years ago this month, at the anatomy department of Kyushu University, has been largely forgotten in Japan and is virtually unknown in the United States. American prisoners of war were subjected to horrific medical experiments. All of the prisoners died. Most of the physicians and asistants then did their best to hide the evidence of what they had done.

Fukuoka is midway between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cities that are planning elaborate ceremonies to mark the devastation caused by the United States'dropping the first atomic bombs. But neither Fukuoka nor the university plans to mark its own moment of infamy.

The gruesome experiments performed at the university were variations on research programs Japan conducted in territories it occupied during the war. In the most notorious of these efforts, the Japanese Imperial Army's Unit 731 killed thousands of Chinese and Russians held prisoner in Japanese-occupied Manchuria, in experiments to develop chemical and biological weapons.

Ken Yuasa, now a frail, 70-year-old physician in Tokyo, belonged to a military company stationed just south of Unit 731's base at Harbin, Manchuria. He recalls joining other doctors to watch as a prisoner was shot in the stomach, to give Japanese surgeons practice at extracting bullets.

While the victim was still alive, the doctors also practiced amputations.

"It wasn't just my experience," Yuasa says. "It was done everywhere."

Kyushu University stands out as the only site where Americans were incontrovertibly used in dissections and the only known site where experiments were done in Japan.

On May 5, 1945, an American B-29 bomber was flying with a dozen other aircraft after bombing Tachiaral Air Base in southwestern Japan and beginning the return flight to the island fortress of Guam.

Kinzou Kasuya, a 19-year-old Japanese pilot flying one of the Japanese fighters in pursuit of the Americans, rammed his aircraft into the fuselage of the B-29, destroying both planes.

No one knows for certain how many Americans were in the B-29; its crew had been hastily assembled on Guam. But villagers in Japan who witnessed the collision in the air saw about a dozen parachutes blossom.

One of the Americans died when the cords of his, parachute were severed by another Japanese plane. A second was alive when he reached the ground. He shot all but his last bullet at the villagers coming toward him, then used the last on himself.

Two others were quickly stabbed or shot to death.

At least nine were taken into custody.

B-29 crews were despised for the grim results of their raids. So some of the captives were beaten.

The local authorities assumed that the most knowledgeable was the captain, Marvin Watkins. He was sent to Tokyo for interrogation, where was tortured but nonetheless survived the war.

Every available account asserts that a military physician and a colonel in a local regiment were the two key figures in what happened next. What happened cannot be easily explained. Perhaps caring for the Americans was an impossible burden, especially because some were injured. Perhaps food was scarce.

Whatever the reason, the colonel and doctor decided to make the prisoners available for medical experiments, and Kyushu University became a willing participant.

Teddy Ponczka was the first to be handed over to the doctors and their assistants. He had already been stabbed, in either his right shoulder or his chest. According to Tono, the American assumed he was about to be treated for the wound when he was taken to an operating room.

But the incision went far deeper. A doctor wanted to test surgery's effects on the respiratory system, so one lung was removed. The wound was stitched closed.

How Teddy Ponczka died is in dispute. According to U.S. military records, he was anesthetized during the operation, and then the gas mask was removed from his face. A surgeon, Taro Torisu, reopened the incision and reached into Ponczka's chest. In the bland words of the military report, Torisu "stopped the heart action."

Tono remembers events differently. The first experiment was followed by a second, he says. Ponczka was given intravenous injections of sea water, to determine if sea water could be used as a substitute for sterile saline solution, used to increase blood volume in the wounded or those in'shock. Tono held the bottle of sea water. He says Ponczka bled to death.

Then it was the turn of the others.

The Japanese wanted to learn whether a patient could survive the partial loss of his liver. They wanted to learn if epilepsy could be controlled by removing part of the brain. According to U.S. military records, physicians also operated on -the prisoners' stomachs and necks.

All the Americans died.

"There was no debate among the doctors about whether to do the operations - that is what made it so strange," Tono says.

Word of the experiments eventually leaked out.

Thirty people were brought to trial by an Allied war crimes tribunal in Yokohama, Japan, on March 11, 1948. Charges included vivisection, wrongful removal of body parts and cannibalism - based on reports that the experimenters had eaten the livers of the Americans.

Of the 30 defendants, 23 were found guilty of various charges. (For lack of proof, the charges of cannibalism had been dismissed.) Five of the guilty were sentenced to death, four to life imprisonment. The other 14 were sentenced to shorter terms.

But the attitude of the American occupation forces began to change largely because of the start of the Korean War in June 1950. The United States had less interest in punishing Japan, an enemy-turned-ally.

In September 1950, U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, as supreme commander for Allied Forces, reduced most of the sentences. By 1958, all those convicted were free. None of the death sentences was carried out.




read the section on the link on child experiments...

[kanyil]

all kind of terrible things happen during wars. on all sides.

I do not necessarily support the dropping of those two a-bombs, but I can understand the reasons for doing so, and therefore I do not fault the US on this issue.

[taganahan]

the first pre-atomic bomb explosion happened in canada, at halifax. you may have heard of the halifax explosion where a boat carrying dynamites and another boat collided with each other. the collision caused a spark and eventually litting the fuses of the dynamites causing a huge explosion and a devastating shockwave. after this, the america got interested with the very devastating damage that was cause by a single explosion and eventually made the a-bomb.

sometimes, people don't know who is right or who to go with in a war. a country going to a war might believe that they are doing the right thing while the other country isn't. vice-versa. this leaves the person caught in the middle to really think, who is really doing the right thing? naturally almost everyone will serve their country because of patriotism, loyalty and those kind of stuff. yet, there are other who defect their homeland.

~taganahan

[Hai_hai]

the first pre-atomic bomb explosion happened in canada, at halifax. you may have heard of the halifax explosion where a boat carrying dynamites and another boat collided with each other. the collision caused a spark and eventually litting the fuses of the dynamites causing a huge explosion and a devastating shockwave. after this, the america got interested with the very devastating damage that was cause by a single explosion and eventually made the a-bomb....
Dynamite, a.k.a. TNT, is not atomic.
Nuclear fission research promoted atomic bomb development. Nazi Germany was also on the verge of creating atomic bombs before the end of WWII, and this was done without the help of Halifax fishermen, their boats, their dynamite and their liquored-up stories.

[Musha]

I can't really comment because I guess some people would not understand my views and you know how much I go on some times :D.

I just want to say that the A-bomb and H-bomb are probably the most terrible weapons in existence. They are the peak of what we can do to this world, I am quite sure no country will use them in the near future.

私の平和の望み Watashi no heiwa no nozomi :).

P.s thanks for adding this post chastity, there were some people out site the local college holding signs and I did not have a clue why they were talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki at this time :D.

[don quixote]

It is very important that we remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we should not just remember them once a year. It is especially important that we remember those tens of thousands of japanese civilians, old, young , men and women the next time some politician starts takling about september the eleventh.

While I see that the bombs effectively put an end to the war, I wonder: are we really sure that there was no realistic alternative? And was this really the only motive for using the bombs? And even if we disregard all other questions, was it absolutely necessary to use two bombs?

Whatever the answers, I am very thankful that it has never happened again.

[kanyil]

Although I'm sure the thought of dropping at least 1 in Tokyo cross the president's mind a few times, it's to their credit that they did not do so. despite the war, pearl harbor, Japanese atrocities and all.

I think the main reason was because there were no "politically realistic alternative".

at the end of the day it's down to (1) sending hundreds of thousands of young men (some of which may vote), with families back home that votes into harm's way where many will likely die or become grievously injured, or (2) drop 2 bombs on two medium-sized Japanese cities to show resolve and force a quick surrender (and win a giant approval rating boost at home).

much like what's been happening recently, actually...

[Wout]

Although I'm sure the thought of dropping at least 1 in Tokyo cross the president's mind a few times, it's to their credit that they did not do so. despite the war, pearl harbor, Japanese atrocities and all.

I think the main reason was because there were no "politically realistic alternative".

at the end of the day it's down to (1) sending hundreds of thousands of young men (some of which may vote), with families back home that votes into harm's way where many will likely die or become grievously injured, or (2) drop 2 bombs on two medium-sized Japanese cities to show resolve and force a quick surrender (and win a giant approval rating boost at home).

much like what's been happening recently, actually...
Or maybe because there was not much of tokyo left, or it was an open city. I do know that Hiroshima and nagasaki were spared a bit before the drop of the a-bom. About the dropping of two nukes to speed things up, well actually there is not much off a difference between nuking a city and just bombarding it into the ground with fosforic bombs. .

[Tholon]

There are lot's of important dates to remember.
13:th and 14:th of february 1945. The bombing of Dresden.
App 100 000 civilians died. And the city totally destroyed.

Or November 10, 1938. The Crystalnight. The start of the nazi genocide.

Why not September 1, 1939. Start of WWII.

Perhaps the start of the chinese "cultural revolution"? Don't know the date though...

The lesson is not to just remember the dates, but also try to learn so that they won't happen again.

[Apostrophe]

For most American citizens the war ended when it ended without lasting effects. For a lot of Japanese citizens the horror of war is still affecting lives (AKA radiation damage and gene damage). Large cancer clusters, and gene mutation. No one deserves that, regardless of what their military may ave done.

[Will]

While I see that the bombs effectively put an end to the war, I wonder: are we really sure that there was no realistic alternative? And was this really the only motive for using the bombs? And even if we disregard all other questions, was it absolutely necessary to use two bombs?


1) Realistic alternative: have the war drawn out for 2 more years with allied powers pressing on Japan until the empire needs to surrender.
2) The bomb's use wasn't solely used to end the war, it also was used to get revenge for Pearl Harbor. (come on, makes sense)
3) The use of two bombs shows that it was necessary to use both of them. Had the Japanese surrendered after the onslaught of Hiroshima but we decided to bomb them anyways, the arguments could easily show that it was necessary for two. But because they did not surrender after the immensely destructive nature of the first bomb within the specified amount of time the US gave to the Japanese, it's safe to say that the Japanese would not have surrendered with out the lost of both lives equal to destruction in Nagasaki.

Also, in times of war, your enemy's citizens' lives are second to your own, it's a fact that all generals most reluctantly agree to. As inhumane as it sound, war is war and every general must do this. That's why war sucks.

[kanyil]

For most American citizens the war ended when it ended without lasting effects. For a lot of Japanese citizens the horror of war is still affecting lives (AKA radiation damage and gene damage). Large cancer clusters, and gene mutation. No one deserves that, regardless of what their military may ave done.
point taken.

let's also remember the large number of "comfort women" from all the non-Japanese countries, taken from their families and pressed into service by the Japanese as barrack whores who are also living today. the comfort women were basically raped by the Japanese soldiers so that their morale could be kept up. and when they tried to sue the Japanese government in Japanese courts in the 1990's, they were basically told to bugger off (in somewhat nicer terms, of course).

(and the small fact that the Japanese conveniently omit any reference to most of their atrocities during WW2 in their textbooks, and still would not admit to such acts now)

[Wout]

1) Realistic alternative: have the war drawn out for 2 more years with allied powers pressing on Japan until the empire needs to surrender.
2) The bomb's use wasn't solely used to end the war, it also was used to get revenge for Pearl Harbor. (come on, makes sense)
3) The use of two bombs shows that it was necessary to use both of them. Had the Japanese surrendered after the onslaught of Hiroshima but we decided to bomb them anyways, the arguments could easily show that it was necessary for two. But because they did not surrender after the immensely destructive nature of the first bomb within the specified amount of time the US gave to the Japanese, it's safe to say that the Japanese would not have surrendered with out the lost of both lives equal to destruction in Nagasaki.

Also, in times of war, your enemy's citizens' lives are second to your own, it's a fact that all generals most reluctantly agree to. As inhumane as it sound, war is war and every general must do this. That's why war sucks.

Actually the japanese war could have been over half a year before that. Their have been three surrender proposals during the Japanese war. Al three asking for the emperor to be maintained. The only problem was only an unconditional surrender was acceptable, so if the Japanese had given up on their condition or the Allied would have accepted that condition the war would be over a bit sooner. The Allies accepted the last proposal after the drop of the second atomic bomb.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

This cannot justify the terror of dropping radioactive substances on to women and children. Slaying civilians can never make you a hero. I am Chinese but I don't think all the Japanese should die.
As far as civilians dying, the Japanese government wasn't exactly showing a lot of concern for the lives of their own civilians, they were training women and children to meet the expected American invasion forces using sharpened bamboo poles as spears. Many in the military were prepared to fight a hopeless war to the last man, woman or child. There was even an attempt to overthrow the emperor whose name they had been fighting in to prevent the surrender order from going out after the bombing of Nagasaki.

The alternative to the atomic bombings was a blockade (spell that massive starvation) followed by an invasion. Take the kind of intense, extremely bloody, foot-by-foot combat that took place on some dinky island nobody every heard of before out in the middle of the Pacific, like Guadacanal for example, multiply it by 10 because it's on one army's home territory, then take the whole country that way and how many dead do you end up with compared to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


Their have been three surrender proposals during the Japanese war. Al three asking for the emperor to be maintainedThere were more conditions than that, the final surrender was unconditional.

[KingCanute]

japan should not have been allowed to keep its emperor. the a bombs were not dropped on military targets but were right to be dropped. Every nation that claims to be democratic and to have learned from the last 100 years of bloody slaughter should send troops into Sudan. BOMB SUDAN, INVADE SUDAN, SAVE SUDAN AND ZIMBABWE FROM THEIR EVIL FASCHIST DICTATORS AND RESTORE PEACE TO THE WORLD ONCE AND FOR ALL. KILL MUGABE (I WOULD IF I HAD THE CHANCE)

[Wout]

There were more conditions than that, the final surrender was unconditional.you would think so but it is wrong: The surrender-proposal that ended the war did contain the condition of the emperor remaining emperor, the tricky thing is in the response of the Americans which read: "The US accept the unconditional surrender of Japan, The emperor must place himself under command of General McArthur". It's actually a nice example of diplomatic engineering :D

[Skolld]

It's interesting that most of the top American Military leaders felt it was not a wise tactical move to drop the bombs. It was largely a decision made by politicians.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[Karaken]

point taken.

let's also remember the large number of "comfort women" from all the non-Japanese countries, taken from their families and pressed into service by the Japanese as barrack whores who are also living today. the comfort women were basically raped by the Japanese soldiers so that their morale could be kept up. and when they tried to sue the Japanese government in Japanese courts in the 1990's, they were basically told to bugger off (in somewhat nicer terms, of course).

(and the small fact that the Japanese conveniently omit any reference to most of their atrocities during WW2 in their textbooks, and still would not admit to such acts now)
Let's also remember 25,000 forced laborers from Korea perished there. Everyone remembers How many Japanese died. Noone remembers how many Koreans who didn't even wanted to be there but forcefully drafted by Japanese Government died there. To this date, Japanese government did not apologize or compensate for those who perished there ( Neither U.S. ).

[Apostrophe]

It's interesting that most of the top American Military leaders felt it was not a wise tactical move to drop the bombs. It was largely a decision made by politicians.
Not only did many military leaders disagree, but their conviction was so strong they resigned. At least one was a member of the Joint Chiefs.

[don quixote]

And maybe someone was thinking... 'Hey, lets see how our fantastic new bombs work on a real city with real people! Let's try one A-bomb and one H-bomb.' Japan was a better testing ground than Europe, beeing geographically distant from the allies... not to mention that they probably had fewer qualms about testing the bombs on Japs than on Europeans.
Also, the Soviets were preparing to invade Japan, so for the US to have control over the whole country after the war they needed a quick and unconditional surrender.

[Wout]

And maybe someone was thinking... 'Hey, lets see how our fantastic new bombs work on a real city with real people! Let's try one A-bomb and one H-bomb.' Japan was a better testing ground than Europe, beeing geographically distant from the allies... not to mention that they probably had fewer qualms about testing the bombs on Japs than on Europeans.
Also, the Soviets were preparing to invade Japan, so for the US to have control over the whole country after the war they needed a quick and unconditional surrender.
Ehm there was never an H bom developed during the war. But funny as it may seem your 'Hey let's see how our fantastic new A-bom works on a real city' isn't that far from the thruth. During th ewar a lot of money was poured into the manhattan project, that means that whoever leads that project has a whole lot of influence. When the war in Germany stopped most politicians thaught about cutting back on the Atomic program, because the war was nearly fought and it took up a lot of money and the effects of the a bomb on a city were uncertain and so and so. The projectleader didn't want to lose it's position (budget) and urged the use of the two a bombs they had left A-bombs on two cities. He knew if the politicians would see the effect they would come around.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

The emperor must place himself under command of General McArthur".
Which would have included renouncing the emperorship if McArthur had ordered it, just as he was forced to renounce his godhood. The earlier surrender proposals weren't regarded as serious, they contained conditions which the Japanese knew to be unacceptable to the Allies, such as leaving Japan in control of most of the occupied territory it still held, which wouldn't have exactly been popular with the politically powerful Soviets, the Chinese, the Koreans or numerous others.

The Soviets were in no hurry to get involved, they were sitting on the sidelines waiting to make a land grab at the last minute (which they did) but they had already lost practically an entire generation of their male population and tens of thousands of civilians 4fighting the Germans, the Americans were doing the job and they knew about the atomic bombs being prepared through their spy network. There was little additional gain and much cost in fighting rather than sitting back and letting the Americans do the job.

Another thing that should be noted, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not the record-holders for the most people killed in a bombing attack. The most people ever killed in a bombing attack was a mass fire bombing attack in Germany, can't remember the name of the city off the top of my head, but nobody ever seems to remember them, not even me:down: .

[Old Warrior]

"The most people ever killed in a bombing attack was a mass fire bombing attack in Germany, can't remember the name of the city"

Dresdin, over 100,000 civilians were slaughtered.

[doUbLe ShInaii]

Well, although dropping a bomb is not the best thing to do, Emperor Hirohito was a mad-man an wouldn't have stopped until something like this (reality) happened to him. He just wouldn't stop with his obsession, and this is coming from one of his long distance relatives. Also the Korean people would've been enslaed by the Japanese for decades longer.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Emperor Hirohito was a mad-man an wouldn't have stopped until something like this (reality) happened to him.
He was useful to the American occupation forces after the war, so he was made out to look like he had been almost a puppet of the military leaders earlier, deeper research does seem to indicate he was up to his neck in planning and promoting the war from well before the Pearl Harbor attack.

Just saw something on the history channel today, "Secret Japanese Aircraft of WW II". It turns out that there was a whole generation of jet and rocket powered fighters, jet bombers and even guided missiles being readied to meet the expected American invasion forces. Many underground aircraft factories had been built in mines or newly dug tunnels and were on the verge of mass production. At least one had already begun production, it had more than 25 fighters the Americans couldn't have touched in final assembly when it was found. Prior to the surrender the Americans had no idea of the existance of any of these facilities or resources, they were being readied to oppose landings on the home islands and had successfully been kept secret to spring unexpected on the invasion. More than 12,000 ready-to-fly planes both of the older types and the new generation were found. Meaning those US military leaders who opposed the use of the bomb had little idea of what the Japanese had laying in wait for them during the war, and maybe not after, the new developments captured were incorporated into American planes in the following years, so of course they were considered military secrets, and the technical details probably still are.

Also from that show: the Japanese military estimated it could make the conquest of the home islands cost 1 million American lives, that's not killed and wounded, that's killed with probably a much larger number wounded as well as a huge number of Japanese (the fighting style they used often caused them to suffer a high casulty rate - can you say "banzai charge" - and fighting on the home islands would have involved many civilians). So I'm back to my original arguement of basic math, 150,000 or so deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or millions across the whole country.

A special thanks to Old Warrior for providing the name of Dresdin <bow>

[Keith Hong]

And don't give me any of that crap about the Japanese being the victims of war. They started the war, they were the aggressors. There's a tendency in Japanese literature and media to portray themselves as unwitting victims of war. That they were forced to go to war due to unrelenting imperialist foreign policy of European powers and the US.

Also, Americans work under the false assumption that in aggressor states, like WWII Japan, a peace-loving people are forced to war by a government that has enslaved them against their will. Wrong. If this were true, the trouble in Iraq would be a non-problem since Saddam's been ousted. The Japanese people, as a whole, chose to go to war. Let's not forget the clear and huge difference between fighting to defend your loved ones and invading another country for profit and gain. Japan's post-war lack of official acknowledgement and apology towards their past deeds(unlike the Germans) plainly shows that thay still haven't learned their lesson.

Let's not let our love of Kendo get in the way of seeing things clearly.

[KhawMengLee]

Let's not let our love of Kendo get in the way of seeing things clearly.

Well said.

Unfortunately, the world is never fair. Churchill was coined to have said, "History will be kind to me. For I intend to write it."

Whoever holds the power makes the rules. Biological warfare experiments, human test subjects, murder, rape and the worst of what humanity could do...whitewashed and hidden.

Its interesting how many members of Unit 731 got away with athrocities that make Saddam look like a boy scout. Trade off for their research being handed over to the US Military.

Omeletes and eggs...

[Hyaku]

Well the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that is the ones that are still alive would simply wish that it didnt happen again.

http://www.angelfire.com/un/hibakusha/index.html

At the end of WW2 as the UN was founded, a force commanded by General Paget went into Andaman with the purpose of repatriating members of the allied forces. Those stranded in Thailand Malaysia etc were taken care of and ships commissioned to take them home. Vietnam proved to be an impossible penetrate them not liking any sides. It was a small Japanese force that went in under command of the British Military and got the allies out.

The things is some good things come from Wars. If it was not for the war we expats would probably not be in Japan now. Even more likely this forum would not exist and there would be no Kendo outside Japan.

I think we have to look at Japan's present policy that was a result of WW2 Seems to me like everybody else seems to be making a mess of it now.
I think in general people want a peaceful life.

Not my opinion but someone elses who was the youngest enlisted soldier in WW2 He wanted to come to Japan and embrace his fellow man. (And got his wish)

[Tholon]

Just an odd thought. I wonder if Mrs Enola, the pilots mother, appreciated the way she became a part of history?

[louisvandalen]

Just an odd thought. I wonder if Mrs Enola, the pilots mother, appreciated the way she became a part of history?
Yeah, I wouldn't be to happy with Gay for a last name, why the hell did he tell everyone?

Best Regards,

Louis

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Yeah, I wouldn't be to happy with Gay for a last name, why the hell did he tell everyone?

Best Regards,

Louis I don't think it had the connotation then that it does now, but there are a handful of Gays in my local phonebook, well, probably a lot of gays - and a handful of people named Gay:wink: .

[yamaguchi]

I am Japanese. I apologize that what we have done before. I know about 731 Army troop. I know also they made all biological and Chemical weapons and used to some Asian people. After WWII, in Japan, there are peace educations in every school on once year. We are taught that not hate People, but hate war! So we do not hate American, but hate war. It has been succefull until recently.

I have seen so many pictures of WWII. I used to see nightmare for that. Seeing Chemical weapons used to Chinese people, and seeing radioactive effect on people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The one of reasons that I start to teach kendo is getting influence people how nice peace is, and how bad war is.

Some country is so naive that they do not show any picture of War to kids. Of cause, if you show the picture, they will not be able to recruit the any solder. This is political.

At this moment, somebody is getting to kill right now. It is too sad.

Japanese government is also changing constitution of Japan, so that they can send soldier to field easier. Something is not right. Do we have to fight and kill each other? I just hope that sometimes, we will be peace.

Yamaguchi

[Hyaku]

Japanese government is also changing constitution of Japan, so that they can send soldier to field easier. Something is not right. Do we have to fight and kill each other? I just hope that sometimes, we will be peace.

Do that and they could be heading backwards. Regardless of what happened all round I do respect Japan as a country that has learned by its mistakes.

[louisvandalen]

I am Japanese. I apologize that what we have done before. I know about 731 Army troop. I know also they made all biological and Chemical weapons and used to some Asian people. After WWII, in Japan, there are peace educations in every school on once year. We are taught that not hate People, but hate war! So we do not hate American, but hate war. It has been succefull until recently.

I have seen so many pictures of WWII. I used to see nightmare for that. Seeing Chemical weapons used to Chinese people, and seeing radioactive effect on people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The one of reasons that I start to teach kendo is getting influence people how nice peace is, and how bad war is.

Some country is so naive that they do not show any picture of War to kids. Of cause, if you show the picture, they will not be able to recruit the any solder. This is political.

At this moment, somebody is getting to kill right now. It is too sad.

Japanese government is also changing constitution of Japan, so that they can send soldier to field easier. Something is not right. Do we have to fight and kill each other? I just hope that sometimes, we will be peace.

Yamaguchi
Don't be sorry for the things you can't change. War sucks, so think most of the soldiers and civies. It's normally a matter of some &^%$#*@!# wankers trying to settle a score. And forgetting about the consequences. I'm Dutch, born in 1973, what difference would it make if I would appologise to the Afro-americans because some *&#!!^(*#% hole took a 9 month journey on a pest infested boat to make a couple of bucks in 1673? To me none. As I can't blame colonial Britain from stealing every island we ever used to own before. (maybe thats a little different :)). I guess it's what we represent now, the things we believe in and not the things our (possibly stupid) ancestors did. Anyway, death is a bitter subject, ask the cows and pigs that die in human slaughterhouses every day. What makes us so different?

Kendo?

Best Regards,

Louis

P.S. I'm quite happy with Japan sending troops to Bananarepublics with some maniacs for president. Sadamski scr*@!&#!wed up the lives of many (as many dictators tempt to do) and it was about time that someone digded his butt up from the mudd. As soon as they start this "ubermensch" thing towards anyone: carpet bombing will change their minds!!!!

[louisvandalen]

I don't think it had the connotation then that it does now, but there are a handful of Gays in my local phonebook, well, probably a lot of gays - and a handful of people named Gay:wink: .
I'm so happy I don't know you :)

Best Regards,

Louis

[indigo0086]

..because some *&#!!^(*#% hole took a 9 month journey on a pest infested boat to make a couple of bucks in 1673?...while I understand your point, that is a pretty big underexaggeration of historic events :tongue:

[louisvandalen]

while I understand your point, that is a pretty big underexaggeration of historic events :tongue:
I am guilty as hell....

Best Regards,

Louis

[mero]

As tragic as it were, bombing civilian targets was standard warfare during WWII. Japan flew biological bombs/balloons into midwest US hoping to start plagues. Small outbreaks did occur although the bombs weren't as deadly as their designers had hoped.

[nalogg]

1) Realistic alternative: have the war drawn out for 2 more years with allied powers pressing on Japan until the empire needs to surrender.
Sure i wish that so many lives were not lost... allies and axis alike...
but it was important that the bomb was dropped because we got a taste of real bigtime destruction and we SAW the implications on the countryside and the culture... unfortunate that humans have to see to believe, but if seeing those facts can possibly deter even one crazy government that might drop a bomb, it's worth all those lives.

That's why we gotta honour our dead on all sides... it sounds cliche, but they did die so that others could live.



That's why war sucks.you got that straight buster!

[indigo0086]

Sure i wish that so many lives were not lost... allies and axis alike...
but it was important that the bomb was dropped because we got a taste of real bigtime destruction and we SAW the implications on the countryside and the culture... unfortunate that humans have to see to believe, but if seeing those facts can possibly deter even one crazy government that might drop a bomb, it's worth all those lives.

That's why we gotta honour our dead on all sides... it sounds cliche, but they did die so that others could live.

you got that straight buster!
honor american, british, and canadian soldiers, yes. honor dead japanese soldiers, maybe. Honor dead nazi soldiers, I'll pass.

[nalogg]

honor american, british, and canadian soldiers, yes. honor dead japanese soldiers, maybe. Honor dead nazi soldiers, I'll pass.
I'm not a nazi sympathizer... i hate em
but that's the thing about a facist government.. the soldiers become so afraid of the consequences of NOT following this crazy regime that they believe they have no other choice but to fight a war.

Modern day germany is not evil, and that's a country made up of nazi descendents.. so it might be correct to say that the nazi infantry were not necessesarily all evil. - hitler was evil, many of his generals were evil but they masked their INCREDIBLY misguided intentions under the guise of nationalism/religion to subvert the population. Populations are dumb, and they'll believe it.

I'm not too spiritual myself but i'll honour the "german" soldiers along with everybody else. A human life is a human life.

[mero]

Honor Japanese soldiers???

They were driven by an ethnocentric, religious zeal to subjegate the world under their empire. All of you would be subhuman slaves of the empire if Imperial Japan had their way.

[Lloromannic]

Rome was one of the "nicest" proto-fascist empires in earth's history. We still study them and base our life on standards for which they laid the foundations.

[mero]

Yeah they didn't try to erase ethnicity of cultures they conquered and force everyone to speak 1 language and enslave undesirable races like imperial Japan did.


Rome was one of the "nicest" proto-fascist empires in earth's history. We still study them and base our life on standards for which they laid the foundations.

[Lloromannic]

They didn't want to erase their ethnicity. They only wanted them to be reassured that they were not as good. People from the provinces did not have the same rights or privileges and had to adopt a roman style of life. They had another set of rights for them. Kind of having Human Rights for one country and almost-human rights for others.

Note: I find this discussion interesting. Not trying to pick a fight or anything.

[mero]

I actually don't care about Rome. I was just trying to contextualize your comment through comparison to Japanese atrocities committed during WWII in relation to the topic of this thread.


They didn't want to erase their ethnicity. They only wanted them to be reassured that they were not as good. People from the provinces did not have the same rights or privileges and had to adopt a roman style of life. They had another set of rights for them. Kind of having Human Rights for one country and almost-human rights for others.

Note: I find this discussion interesting. Not trying to pick a fight or anything.

[Apostrophe]

[QUOTE=nalogg]
Modern day germany is not evil, and that's a country made up of nazi descendents.. so it might be correct to say that the nazi infantry were not necessesarily all evil. - hitler was evil, many of his generals were evil but they masked their INCREDIBLY misguided intentions under the guise of nationalism/religion to subvert the population. Populations are dumb, and they'll believe it.[QUOTE]

Very well put. Probably one of the most intelligent statement I have read yet.

[grasshopper_r2]

[QUOTE=nalogg]
Modern day germany is not evil, and that's a country made up of nazi descendents.. so it might be correct to say that the nazi infantry were not necessesarily all evil. - hitler was evil, many of his generals were evil but they masked their INCREDIBLY misguided intentions under the guise of nationalism/religion to subvert the population. Populations are dumb, and they'll believe it.[QUOTE]

Very well put. Probably one of the most intelligent statement I have read yet.
I also agree, troops are easily brainwashed.

[nalogg]

thanks :)

but don't get me wrong, i think Nazis suck ROYALLY

[El Gringo]

The problem here is that there was a difference between Nazis and german soldiers. Nazis were followers of hitler, the wehrmacht (german army) wasnt really a Nazi army they were just the military. Hitlers body guard the SS were different, they WERE crazy Nazis followers, they WERE the ones who formed the death squads who slaughtered many innocent civilians.

My point is that not all germans involved in WWII were Nazis. Even some of those who fought on the German side. Just trying to sort out some distinctions here.

[nalogg]

The problem here is that there was a difference between Nazis and german soldiers. Nazis were followers of hitler, the wehrmacht (german army) wasnt really a Nazi army they were just the military. Hitlers body guard the SS were different, they WERE crazy Nazis followers, they WERE the ones who formed the death squads who slaughtered many innocent civilians.

My point is that not all germans involved in WWII were Nazis. Even some of those who fought on the German side. Just trying to sort out some distinctions here.
right on,
i think that's what i said a couple posts up isn't it?

[mero]

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." - Dante

I don't know if I'd be so quick to undermine the venemous hatred against Jews that was common as air in Europe for as long as civilizations began in Europe. Pograms were a common events for centuries before Hitler. Hitler didn't invent the evil, hate of Nazism. He just industrialized and used it for his own purpose. I'd consider this common hate to be evil and I'd attribute it to the German populous during Hitler's times.

Human beings are very capable of such evil.


The problem here is that there was a difference between Nazis and german soldiers. Nazis were followers of hitler, the wehrmacht (german army) wasnt really a Nazi army they were just the military. Hitlers body guard the SS were different, they WERE crazy Nazis followers, they WERE the ones who formed the death squads who slaughtered many innocent civilians.

My point is that not all germans involved in WWII were Nazis. Even some of those who fought on the German side. Just trying to sort out some distinctions here.

[El Gringo]

I cant see how you can 'attribute it [common hate] to the German populous during Hitler's times.' , the masses were brainwashed and repressed into following wot their rulers did. They had no choice but to follow them, cos if they didnt they would end up with the same fate as the jews.

There was a lot of anti-semitism around the time of the second world war, they just happened to be the scape-goats that everyone chose to blame for the recession, which was cause by the first world war and the debts that surrounded it.

Im not saying that humans arent capable of evil, but more like they tend to think of themselves when it comes to the crunch. i.e. they would rather follow the Nazis than be killed.

[Reikon]

The only people who knew what Hitler did to the jews (supposidly) was Hitler and the S.S...The reason people followed hitler was because he promised them better lives, etc. He fed out a lot of propaganda. Hitler was a very evil person.

[ajk713]

im confused... what is this post about...

[don quixote]

As tragic as it were, bombing civilian targets was standard warfare during WWII. Japan flew biological bombs/balloons into midwest US hoping to start plagues. Small outbreaks did occur although the bombs weren't as deadly as their designers had hoped.
Unlike the atomic bombs, which were quite as deadly as their designers hoped. They must have been very happy and proud. :smiley:

[mero]

No but they were very successful in other endeavors such as systemized sexual enslavement, labor enslavement, destruction of culture and language as well wonderful scientific achievements through vivasections on pregnant women and subjects infected with diseases for development of their shoddy biological "bombs" as well as your run of the mill massacres of civilians, etc.. :smiley:


Unlike the atomic bombs, which were quite as deadly as their designers hoped. They must have been very happy and proud. :smiley:

[Hisham]

The problem is nobody will know for sure if there was any alternate option to "abombing" Hiroshima and Nagasaki but gen McArthur (who made many questionable decisions) and the people who were close to him.The clouds are too thick ,for example there are people who think that race was one of the factors that made the bombing "an easy" decision to make .The fact is the A bomb's effect doesn t stop at the immediate destruction as we all know ,people are still physicaly suffering from it to this day (different kinds of cancers).
What is scary about all of this is how the military everywhere dehumanizes war and make it look like a videogame with the help of new technologies.
I remember an anecdote about a WW2 american ace who if i recall well was in his third tour of duty,he was in a dogfight against a japanese fighter, he had him in his line of fire and of course started shooting, the japanese plane caught fire as its pilot ,the thing is the latter jumped of the plane while the american ace was watching, which made him "realize that there was a human being in that plane"(it s a bit late but better late than never),anyway he decided to go back home after that.

[JasonC]

....nt....

[Shiro]

Regardless of what happened all round I do respect Japan as a country that has learned by its mistakes.

I agree.
Japan might not admit the atrocities they committed during WWII but at least they are behaving like a decent country on the international scene.

It might be a dumb example, but I think they wouldn't share something like Kendo with the rest of the world if they were still nationalistic or something.
I have fond memories of kendo courses and meetings with Japanese sensei :).

[Hyaku]

Can't remember if i posted it here before.

This a home page i put up some time ago.

Accounts of A-Bomb Victims

http://www.angelfire.com/un/hibakusha/index.html

[kanyil]

That's a good website with a fairly balanced introduction. At least the Americans were never evasive about their role in WW2, A-Bomb and all.

The problem is, without a Germany style admission of guilt and apology from Japan there can be no closure for the Chinese, Koreans and many other countries which suffered in WW2, and everytime another Japanese cabinet member comes out to applaud the denial of Japanese WW2 atrocities in their text books as "good for our children", it's rubbing more salt in the wounds.

[hamish]

[QUOTE=nalogg]
but they masked their INCREDIBLY misguided intentions under the guise of nationalism/religion to subvert the population. Populations are dumb, and they'll believe it.[QUOTE]

This has been the same story throughout history, and continues on to this day, doesn't it?

[EzzzE]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/229030784X/qid=1102232381/sr=8-8/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i8_xgl14/102-1088350-2358554?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

/

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670321907/qid=1102232381/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-1088350-2358554?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

i read it in german. very unique insight on the genertion after, very sad.

[Hisham]

The problem is, without a Germany style admission of guilt and apology from Japan there can be no closure for the Chinese, Koreans and many other countries which suffered in WW2, and everytime another Japanese cabinet member comes out to applaud the denial of Japanese WW2 atrocities in their text books as "good for our children", it's rubbing more salt in the wounds.

Very true,reminds me of how the French government keeps (not aware of any appology ,if it happened then read keeps as kept) on denying the atrocities committed against the algierians during the colonization and in the algierian war that made the French leave.

[kanyil]

This has been the same story throughout history, and continues on to this day, doesn't it?
hear hear

Anybody seen the movie "Nanjing 1937"?

[ISSAC RU]

This is what japanese did in Nanjing 1937..!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am from the CITY OF NANJING!
i WILL NEVER FORGIVE WHAT THEY DID TO US !
NEVER EVER EVER AND FOREVER !!!

You white ppl don't know what we been thru..?!
we can't just forget the pain like u guys could..
This painful experience is scared our country forever
WE WILL NEVER FORGET WHAT THE JAPANESE DID TO US !
NOT FOR ANOTHER 100 YEARS!!!
ITS NOT SOMETHING HAPPENED 60YEARS AGO , THAT DOESN'T MATTER
ANYMORE..?? IT DOES!!!

PIctures are shown below !!!!!!!
http://www.6park.com/bolun2/messages/40567.html

[ISSAC RU]

Especially to those ppl who said

' JUST LET IT GO...its 60 years ago , who cares ? '

all of those TOJO bastards should die DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE !!!

( doesn't include japanese cilivians , just fhose tojo bastards! )

WHY THE F*** IN THE WORLD THE EMPEROR was not convicted as
the murder of 23 M Chinese ppl ?

That bastard 's head should be cut off for the sake of 40 M ppl
died becuz of him in Asia !!!

[Shiro]

I know about Nanjing.
I think it's something that shouldn't be forgotten.

But a lil' arrogant brat ranting like that about it is very disrespectful if you ask me......

[alan dean]

whenever two different countries have a history where there is this HUGE painfull thing in their history, and yet right now due to current world situations they need to be close friends, there is always going to be a struggle to remember who is the foe?, who is the friend?

Korea and Japan stand with each other at times in this world due to the next door countries that would love to casue both of them trouble...

Yet Korea has a right to view Japan as it does not with dislike....

All we can do is change things in the "now"....none of the past can be changed,,,no words can bring back the dead..

But let us hope that in the "now" we dont do things that just add to the pain for the next generation....

[lol]

however made this thread is a complete fag and loser

excuse me, anyone who isnt a sensei who does kendo is a complete fag

weaklings

[alan dean]

actually it is very good to remember that the problems in this world today date back to the past and can run deep at times...

Korea has a beef against Japan that is at times , Blinding in its hurts...

But,,,,Korea must also remember that "That was then, This is now"...and in the now, both Japan and South Korea face many dangers to both of them...

[Kaoru]

however made this thread is a complete fag and loser

excuse me, anyone who isnt a sensei who does kendo is a complete fag

weaklings
You are going to be banned again. I have notified the moderators of your behavior.

Kaoru

[Serenity]

60. years since the time in Hiroshima stopped.

[Andou]

Yeah. It's not the anniversary that I'm too happy to "celebrate". I just hope that the world'll take a hint and not do something like this again to take so many lives in one push of a button. Gah...I guess we're on the right track since we haven't been nuked out yet.

[Hisham]

As long as the "it's either us or them" mentality exists in circles of power, the probability of a nuke being used will always be there.

[mononokifool]

this is one of those moments in american history weere i kinda feel ashaimed to be an american. i got up this morning and watched the history channel like usualy and i saw the scenes of the children with ski peeling of there face and i (and i am not afraid to admet this)cried at the site of this. i felt ashaiemed and responible in a way.i would just like to apoligize and i send all my heart to the peole and the servivors.

[piggy]

its deep and its true. like hamish said, they had that mentality but took it to far by bombing japan. they were desperate after struggling in midway, parts of europe and guadacanal.

in all wars there are casulties. the difficult part of being a leader is asking yourself how many is enough? often it can be difficult to distinguish the line or even have the power to back down.

alot of those involved and those who have witnessed this horrific event have begun destroying nuclear weapons and attempted to prevent others from creating them.

[piggy]

oh and also, rhapsody in august will be on azntv this week. its a movie about the bombings and forgiveness.

[drizzt]

wanna make yourself even more sick...... think about how many deaths there would have been had it NOT happend. ITs like lopping off a foot to save a leg.....neither one is right, but one had to be done. I hate to say it that way, but MILLIONS more would have died had the bombs not been employed.....american and japanese, civilian and military. Personaly i find no justification for war, so neither loss is justifiable.......

[drizzt]

this is one of those moments in american history weere i kinda feel ashaimed to be an american. i got up this morning and watched the history channel like usualy and i saw the scenes of the children with ski peeling of there face and i (and i am not afraid to admet this)cried at the site of this. i felt ashaiemed and responible in a way.i would just like to apoligize and i send all my heart to the peole and the servivors.

Like i said, think about the idea of small children attacking us soldiers with sticks, and those soldiers having killed them.....or they themselves killing soldiers...... Wich was the right choice? dont be ashamed of were you come from, ALL countries have there sins, many of them worse than ours. You have the right attitude, i just wish there were more who felt like that

there is no justification for war and death, we were put on this earth to live not die and kill...

[Sepiraph]

This cannot justify the terror of dropping radioactive substances on to women and children. Slaying civilians can never make you a hero. I am Chinese but I don't think all the Japanese should die.

It was a world war, so get off your high horse because frankly none of us who grew up and lived in peace can really judge those who fought in a war. Surely I also think dropping bombs on civilians was wrong but remember this was done on both sides. Also to note that the American physicists actually underestimated the destructive power of the atomic bomb, not to mention that the lasting and harmful effect of radioactivity was not understood at that time.

[Hisham]

wanna make yourself even more sick...... think about how many deaths there would have been had it NOT happend. ITs like lopping off a foot to save a leg.....neither one is right, but one had to be done. I hate to say it that way, but MILLIONS more would have died had the bombs not been employed.....american and japanese, civilian and military. Personaly i find no justification for war, so neither loss is justifiable.......

Although it would sound as a crazy choice but i'd rather be bombed by conventional means than survive a nuke as a leaving dead, here lies the difference my friend, nuke's effects don't end with the explosion, how many generations will still be paying for some nationalistic bastards that made a fool think he's a god.

[Phil-co]

Also to note that the American physicists actually underestimated the destructive power of the atomic bomb, not to mention that the lasting and harmful effect of radioactivity was not understood at that time.
If you have a bomb, and you suspect it does things that you don't even can imagine, and you don't know it's destructice power let alone it's harmful effect over time, maybe you shouldn't use it, hmmm?

[nasrullah]

The nuke which took place at Heroshima and Nagasaki was absoultely and TOTALLY WRONG. It is cruel thing to do bombing the cities and killing the innocent children and women. GOD is really angry of those who done this

[Mugu]

This may sounds weird, this is what my Psychology teacher who is white and he said this, "Why did you think we didn't bomb the nazi? It would ended the war pretty quick, too? Well, let's just say because they were white." I felt shocked hearing that from him... maybe it was just an easy for him to explain other complicated political factors going at that time. It sounded kind of weird from a white guy.

Now for all of us defending why should we use the nuke or not... it's hard to say that those people didn't know about the consequences of an atomic bomb, they probably did. I guess they just wanted to end the war quicker. Some would say the Americans dropped the bomb coz the Americans were afraid coz Japanese are right in their ass, Hawaii. If they don't do something big, West Coast would have been next. If Germany was closer and took over one part, the bomb would have went there also. Just a thought...

[piggy]

Although it would sound as a crazy choice but i'd rather be bombed by conventional means than survive a nuke as a leaving dead.


as would i. i would much rather be a victim of a carpet bomb attack that feel the effects of nuclear radiation. and not only would i suffer, so would my children and even thier children and it keeps repeating.

[Andou]

as would i. i would much rather be a victim of a carpet bomb attack that feel the effects of nuclear radiation. and not only would i suffer, so would my children and even thier children and it keeps repeating.

Yeah. You know, even with the excuse of war, dropping a bomb on innocent people is brutal. However, making people who weren't even able to pick up a gun suffer throughout life and kids who have no idea why the bomb was dropped feel its effects is even worse. I'm not saying America didn't make the right choice...I don't know what would have happened had they not dropped the bomb...but something that'll keep killing 60 years after it was employed may be something they should have second guessed.

[Hisham]

This may sounds weird, this is what my Psychology teacher who is white and he said this, "Why did you think we didn't bomb the nazi? It would ended the war pretty quick, too? Well, let's just say because they were white."


That was Herman Goering's view before his end.

[joekc6nlx]

I remember watching a program on The History Channel which described the last few days of the war. Not the "Last Days of World War II", it was one which was devoted to the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

According to secret Japanese records, the Emperor made a recording the night before his intent to surrender unconditionally to the Allies. The military, led by a junior officer, found out about this recording, found out about the Emperor's plans, and decided to locate and destroy the recordings. This was all before August 6, so the war was effectively lost in the Emperor's eyes, and he did not want his people to suffer any longer under the attacks by the Allies. His recording stated his desire to his people that they should surrender honorably, and not try to fight to the death. Their deaths would have been meaningless to the Allies, who hardly understood Japanese philosophies, at least, the leaders in power didn't.

The decision to use the bombs was Truman's, but he was indecisive about it, until his Secretary of State, who was rabidly afraid of the Russians, insisted that he do so, and the fateful decision was made. All of this was going on during the time that the Emperor was making his recording for broadcast the next day. They wanted to "show the Russians" that even though they were our "allies", we didn't trust them, and if they tried to get too aggressive with us, we'd give them a taste of our new weapons.

The coup by the military rebels failed, the recordings were safe, but unfortunately, the Enola Gay was already on its way to Hiroshima.

A little side observation - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively untouched by the bombers, and so people went to those cities believing they were safe. When the bombs were dropped, the maximum effect of civilian casualties had occured.

The morality and the ethics can be argued forever, with no real solution to the question. My personal beliefs were that the use of those weapons was unnecessary, given that the Emperor was ready to surrender. The argument that it would have cost nearly 1 million Allied lives if Japan were invaded is pointless, as again, the Emperor wished his people to surrender. Those soldiers who held out long after the war are a different case, as they were not able to hear the orders to surrender. Rather than villify them, they really are quite courageous - not necessarily right, just courageous.

I spent a long time in the military, long enough to see the power of some of our weapons. My feeling was that if we had to use those weapons, some breakdown in the world of diplomats had occured.

You people can argue all you want about how "evil" the United States was in using the bombs. I remember a conversation with a Japanese friend in which she stated she was appalled at what had happened in Nanking and Shanghai. As for what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, she said she could understand the reasons they were used. I had to gently disagree with her on that point - I hope they are never used again against another people in this world.

[Andou]

I remember watching a program on The History Channel which described the last few days of the war. Not the "Last Days of World War II", it was one which was devoted to the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

According to secret Japanese records, the Emperor made a recording the night before his intent to surrender unconditionally to the Allies. The military, led by a junior officer, found out about this recording, found out about the Emperor's plans, and decided to locate and destroy the recordings. This was all before August 6, so the war was effectively lost in the Emperor's eyes, and he did not want his people to suffer any longer under the attacks by the Allies. His recording stated his desire to his people that they should surrender honorably, and not try to fight to the death. Their deaths would have been meaningless to the Allies, who hardly understood Japanese philosophies, at least, the leaders in power didn't.

The decision to use the bombs was Truman's, but he was indecisive about it, until his Secretary of State, who was rabidly afraid of the Russians, insisted that he do so, and the fateful decision was made. All of this was going on during the time that the Emperor was making his recording for broadcast the next day. They wanted to "show the Russians" that even though they were our "allies", we didn't trust them, and if they tried to get too aggressive with us, we'd give them a taste of our new weapons.

The coup by the military rebels failed, the recordings were safe, but unfortunately, the Enola Gay was already on its way to Hiroshima.

A little side observation - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively untouched by the bombers, and so people went to those cities believing they were safe. When the bombs were dropped, the maximum effect of civilian casualties had occured.

The morality and the ethics can be argued forever, with no real solution to the question. My personal beliefs were that the use of those weapons was unnecessary, given that the Emperor was ready to surrender. The argument that it would have cost nearly 1 million Allied lives if Japan were invaded is pointless, as again, the Emperor wished his people to surrender. Those soldiers who held out long after the war are a different case, as they were not able to hear the orders to surrender. Rather than villify them, they really are quite courageous - not necessarily right, just courageous.

I spent a long time in the military, long enough to see the power of some of our weapons. My feeling was that if we had to use those weapons, some breakdown in the world of diplomats had occured.

You people can argue all you want about how "evil" the United States was in using the bombs. I remember a conversation with a Japanese friend in which she stated she was appalled at what had happened in Nanking and Shanghai. As for what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, she said she could understand the reasons they were used. I had to gently disagree with her on that point - I hope they are never used again against another people in this world.

I believe I've heard of everything in this except for what I've bolded. That's news to me...And it makes me wonder then, whether this was a coincidence that the 2 cities that the US bombed were targeted because they hadn't taken damage or if it was to show the USSR how many lives the bomb could take. Thinking about the fact that the US had MAYBE dropped the bomb only to show the Russians the sheer firepower is inhumane...and it makes my eye twitch in anger.

[Theodore]

Here's what a historian has to say about the atomic bombing:



60 Years Later
Considering Hiroshima.

For 60 years the United States has agonized over its unleashing of the world’s first nuclear weapon on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. President Harry Truman’s decision to explode an atomic bomb over an ostensible military target — the headquarters of the crack Japanese 2nd Army — led to well over 100,000 fatalities, the vast majority of them civilians.
Critics immediately argued that we should have first targeted the bomb on an uninhabited area as a warning for the Japanese militarists to capitulate. Did a democratic America really wish to live with the burden of being the only state that had used nuclear weapons against another?

Later generals Hap Arnold, Dwight Eisenhower, Curtis LeMay, Douglas Macarthur, and Admirals William Leahy and William Halsey all reportedly felt the bomb was unnecessary, being either militarily redundant or unnecessarily punitive to an essentially defeated populace.

Yet such opponents of the decision shied away from providing a rough estimate of how many more would have died in the aggregate — Americans, British, Australians, Asians, Japanese, and Russians — through conventional bombing, continuous fighting in the Pacific, amphibious invasion of the mainland, or the ongoing onslaught of the Red Army had the conflict not come to an abrupt halt nine days later and only after a second nuclear drop on Nagasaki.

Truman’s supporters countered that, in fact, a blockade and negotiations had not forced the Japanese generals to surrender unconditionally. In their view, a million American casualties and countless Japanese dead were adverted by not storming the Japanese mainland over the next year in the planned two-pronged assault on the mainland, dubbed Operation Coronet and Olympic.

For the immediate future there were only two bombs available. Planners thought that using one for demonstration purposes (assuming that it would have worked) might have left the Americans without enough of the new arsenal to shock and awe the Japanese government should it have ridden out the first attack and then become emboldened by a hiatus, and our inability to follow up the attacks.

As it was, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, General Tojo’s followers capitulated only through the intervention of the emperor. And it was not altogether clear even then that Japanese fanatics would not attack the Americans as they steamed into Tokyo Bay for the surrender ceremonies.

These are the debates that matured in the relative peace of the postwar era. But in August 1945 most Americans had a much different take on Hiroshima, a decision that cannot be fathomed without appreciation of the recently concluded Okinawa campaign (April 1-July 2) that had cost 50,000 American casualties and 200,000 Japanese and Okinawa dead. Okinawa saw the worst losses in the history of the U.S. Navy. Over 300 ships were damaged, more than 30 sunk, as about 5,000 sailors perished under a barrage of some 2,000 Kamikaze attacks.

And it was believed at least 10,000 more suicide planes were waiting on Kyushu and Honshu. Those who were asked to continue such fighting on the Japanese mainland — as we learn from the memoirs of Paul Fussell, William Manchester, and E. B. Sledge — were relieved at the idea of encountering a shell-shocked defeated enemy rather than a defiant Japanese nation in arms.

About a month after Okinawa was finally declared secure came Hiroshima. Americans of that age were more likely to wonder not that the bomb had been dropped too early, but perhaps too late in not avoiding the carnage on Okinawa — especially when by Spring 1945 there was optimism among the scientists in New Mexico that the successful completion of the bomb was not far away. My father, William Hanson, who flew 39 missions over Japan on a B-29, was troubled over the need for Okinawa — where his first cousin Victor Hanson was killed in the last hours of the battle for Sugar Loaf Hill — when the future bomb would have forced Japanese surrender without such terrible loss of life in 11th-hour infantry battles or even more horrific torching of the Japanese cities.

Hiroshima, then, was not the worst single-day loss of life in military history. The Tokyo fire raid on the night of March 9/10, five months earlier, was far worse, incinerating somewhere around 150,000 civilians, and burning out over 15 acres of the downtown. Indeed, “Little Boy,” the initial nuclear device that was dropped 60 years ago, was understood as the continuance of that policy of unrestricted bombing — its morality already decided by the ongoing attacks on the German and Japanese cities begun at least three years earlier.

Americans of the time hardly thought the Japanese populace to be entirely innocent. The Imperial Japanese army routinely butchered civilians abroad — some 10-15 million Chinese were eventually to perish — throughout the Pacific from the Philippines to Korea and Manchuria. Even by August 1945, the Japanese army was killing thousands of Asians each month. When earlier high-level bombing attacks with traditional explosives failed to cut off the fuel for this murderous military — industries were increasingly dispersed in smaller shops throughout civilian centers — Curtis LeMay unleashed napalm on the Japanese cities and eventually may have incinerated 500,000.

In some sense, Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only helped to cut short the week-long Soviet invasion of Japanese-held Manchuria (80,000 Japanese soldiers killed, over 8,000 Russian dead), but an even more ambitious incendiary campaign planned by Gen. Curtis LeMay. With the far shorter missions possible from planned new bases in Okinawa and his fleet vastly augmented by more B-29s and the transference from Europe of thousands of idle B-17s and B-24, the ‘mad bomber’ LeMay envisioned burning down the entire urban and industrial landscape of Japan. His opposition to Hiroshima was more likely on grounds that his own fleet of bombers could have achieved the same result in a few more weeks anyway.

Postwar generations argued over whether the two atomic bombs, the fire raids, or the August Soviet invasion of Manchuria — or all three combined — prompted Japan to capitulate, whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a stain on American democracy, or whether the atomic bombs were the last-gasp antidote to the plague of Japanese militarism that had led to millions of innocents butchered without much domestic opposition or criticism from the triumphalist Japanese people.

But our own generation has more recently once again grappled with Hiroshima, and so the debate rages on in the new age of terrorism and handheld weapons of mass destruction, brought home after an attack on our shores worse than Pearl Harbor — with more promised to come. Perhaps the horror of the suicide bombers of Japan does not seem so distant any more. Nor does the notion of an extreme perversion of an otherwise mainstream religion filling millions with hatred of a supposedly decadent West.

The truth, as we are reminded so often in this present conflict, is that usually in war there are no good alternatives, and leaders must select between a very bad and even worse choice. Hiroshima was the most awful option imaginable, but the other scenarios would have probably turned out even worse.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution (http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/) at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com (http://www.victorhanson.com/).

[drizzt]

Although it would sound as a crazy choice but i'd rather be bombed by conventional means than survive a nuke as a leaving dead, here lies the difference my friend, nuke's effects don't end with the explosion, how many generations will still be paying for some nationalistic bastards that made a fool think he's a god.

look at what agent orange is still doing doing to vietnam......


Either one is horrendous, its like picking between the devil and the deep blue sea, to turn an old phrase

[Asian Wombat]

As sad as it is, the Japanese had it coming. The Japanese were the ones who, in a cowardly act, surprise attacked Pearl Harbor which drew the U.S. into the war. Having the superiority complex that the Japanese did, they thought that they could take on the lazy Americans and invade her. However they severely underestimated a riled up America. I do agree that, the dropping of both bombs was excessive, however I do feel that the Japanese did bring it onto themselves. Leading up to the end of the Pacific Theater (and thus the end of World War II), the United States Marines and the United States Navy took slightly over 56,000 casualties in the Pacific Theater.
56,000 men were either killed in action, died from their wounds, or died in POW camps. 14,000 more were invalided for life. These brave men died fighting against a strong hearted enemy who refused to retreat, who would rather die than to let their enemy get closer to their country. It should be known that the Japanese took little prisoner's if any. The U.S. POWs taken by the Japanese had a survival percentage of less than 50%, and that's 50% of the little number of POWs that were taken. POWs in that time were subjected to horrendous living conditions, forced labor, abuse, and murder.

After all of this, and the knowledge of the atrocities (I can not even express how horrible they were) that were going on in China, Korea, and Malaysia, would anyone really expect the U.S. to deal with Japan in any less of a manner? The Japanese forced the U.S. into the war, and killed 56,000 of her sons. Is it not natural to assume that the United States would be pissed?

I agree that the end result was horrible. However, I wonder how many of you (and this is mainly directed to Americans) could go up to the men fighting and tell them that instead of ending the war then and there, they would have to invade Japan and for some, die in the process. All of this to avoid civillian casualties, which I can pretty much guarantee there would be either way, but on a smaller scale of course.

Someone estimated around 100,000+ dying in the hiroshima bombing, but what about the 370,000 civillians in Nanking alone who were subjected against the Japanese's cruelty? For the Japanese not giving any sort of apology for that alone is deplorable, nay heinous. How can the Japanese government expect the world to weep for their losses when they themselves will not weep for the rest of Asia's.

[Andou]

As sad as it is, the Japanese had it coming. The Japanese were the ones who, in a cowardly act, surprise attacked Pearl Harbor which drew the U.S. into the war. Having the superiority complex that the Japanese did, they thought that they could take on the lazy Americans and invade her. However they severely underestimated a riled up America. I do agree that, the dropping of both bombs was excessive, however I do feel that the Japanese did bring it onto themselves. Leading up to the end of the Pacific Theater (and thus the end of World War II), the United States Marines and the United States Navy took slightly over 56,000 casualties in the Pacific Theater.
56,000 men were either killed in action, died from their wounds, or died in POW camps. 14,000 more were invalided for life. These brave men died fighting against a strong hearted enemy who refused to retreat, who would rather die than to let their enemy get closer to their country. It should be known that the Japanese took little prisoner's if any. The U.S. POWs taken by the Japanese had a survival percentage of less than 50%, and that's 50% of the little number of POWs that were taken. POWs in that time were subjected to horrendous living conditions, forced labor, abuse, and murder.

After all of this, and the knowledge of the atrocities (I can not even express how horrible they were) that were going on in China, Korea, and Malaysia, would anyone really expect the U.S. to deal with Japan in any less of a manner? The Japanese forced the U.S. into the war, and killed 56,000 of her sons. Is it not natural to assume that the United States would be pissed?

I agree that the end result was horrible. However, I wonder how many of you (and this is mainly directed to Americans) could go up to the men fighting and tell them that instead of ending the war then and there, they would have to invade Japan and for some, die in the process. All of this to avoid civillian casualties, which I can pretty much guarantee there would be either way, but on a smaller scale of course.

Someone estimated around 100,000+ dying in the hiroshima bombing, but what about the 370,000 civillians in Nanking alone who were subjected against the Japanese's cruelty? For the Japanese not giving any sort of apology for that alone is deplorable, nay heinous. How can the Japanese government expect the world to weep for their losses when they themselves will not weep for the rest of Asia's.

I can understand where that comes from. But what if the story about the slow-typing translator writing the Declaration of War was true? What you say about Nanking is also understandable. I suppose the only justifiable way to end something as touchy as this is for everyone responsible for the deaths to have met their death and no civilains were to be involved. As horrible as Nanking was, I don't think every person who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was directly responsible for Nanking. Yes, those who were involved probably deserve to meet a grisly end, but killing innocent civilians and seeing it as revenge is unfair and can only motivate the military powers to act more aggressive as an act of retaliation...

As I said...it's a touchy subject and I don't want to make an enemy out of anyone here, but it's just crazy to think that that many lives could be taken in a flash of light...

[drizzt]

even if he was slow typing, it wouldnt have made the strike on pearl harbor any better. The NEVER beleived hawaii would be hit in a first strike

[Andou]

even if he was slow typing, it wouldnt have made the strike on pearl harbor any better. The NEVER beleived hawaii would be hit in a first strike

Yeah, but I'd rather have Japan known as one who struck first in a war, not one who struck first and started the war.

[drizzt]

Wouldnt have made it any better, just more legal. it was still a first strike with no real warning.

However, to the victors go the right to write history. If Japan had won the war, they would be talking about the "glorious assault on pearly harbor" against the "evil american dogs".(thats not meant to be rude, its just the truth of how history was and is written)

[Sepiraph]

If you have a bomb, and you suspect it does things that you don't even can imagine, and you don't know it's destructice power let alone it's harmful effect over time, maybe you shouldn't use it, hmmm?

If you have a bomb that have great destructive power and can single-handedly end the war, maybe you'd use it? Put yourself in the shoes of the generals, if you cannot imagine that, dont bother answering.

[drizzt]

dude, they werent even shure what the first a-bomb would do(the one in nevada).they were taking bets on wether it would ignite the atmosphere or not.....

[KhawMengLee]

As sad as it is, the Japanese had it coming. The Japanese were the ones who, in a cowardly act, surprise attacked Pearl Harbor which drew the U.S. into the war. Having the superiority complex that the Japanese did, they thought that they could take on the lazy Americans and invade her. However they severely underestimated a riled up America. I do agree that, the dropping of both bombs was excessive, however I do feel that the Japanese did bring it onto themselves. Leading up to the end of the Pacific Theater (and thus the end of World War II), the United States Marines and the United States Navy took slightly over 56,000 casualties in the Pacific Theater.
56,000 men were either killed in action, died from their wounds, or died in POW camps. 14,000 more were invalided for life. These brave men died fighting against a strong hearted enemy who refused to retreat, who would rather die than to let their enemy get closer to their country. It should be known that the Japanese took little prisoner's if any. The U.S. POWs taken by the Japanese had a survival percentage of less than 50%, and that's 50% of the little number of POWs that were taken. POWs in that time were subjected to horrendous living conditions, forced labor, abuse, and murder.

After all of this, and the knowledge of the atrocities (I can not even express how horrible they were) that were going on in China, Korea, and Malaysia, would anyone really expect the U.S. to deal with Japan in any less of a manner? The Japanese forced the U.S. into the war, and killed 56,000 of her sons. Is it not natural to assume that the United States would be pissed?

I agree that the end result was horrible. However, I wonder how many of you (and this is mainly directed to Americans) could go up to the men fighting and tell them that instead of ending the war then and there, they would have to invade Japan and for some, die in the process. All of this to avoid civillian casualties, which I can pretty much guarantee there would be either way, but on a smaller scale of course.

Someone estimated around 100,000+ dying in the hiroshima bombing, but what about the 370,000 civillians in Nanking alone who were subjected against the Japanese's cruelty? For the Japanese not giving any sort of apology for that alone is deplorable, nay heinous. How can the Japanese government expect the world to weep for their losses when they themselves will not weep for the rest of Asia's.

The American casualty issue is one of the arguments used. The other was that Japan was possibly going to sign a peace accord with the Russians. And also that the US wanted to show the reds what power they had in their arsenal.

Yes...though the loss of human life is a sad thing I often find it pure hypocrisy how people harp about the deaths at Hiroshima and yet stay mute over Japan's war crimes in Asia.

[Andou]

Yeahhh. Even if it isn't any better, just making it so much as legal would at least help against SOME of the "WE BOMBED THOSE JAPS" I hear so much in history classes. And I agree with the fact the winners write the history. Kinda disturbing, but that's just the way humans are, apparently.

[KhawMengLee]

And I agree with the fact the winners write the history. Kinda disturbing, but that's just the way humans are, apparently.

Just like the Van Halen song says:


HUMANS BEING

[Phil-co]

If you have a bomb that have great destructive power and can single-handedly end the war, maybe you'd use it? Put yourself in the shoes of the generals, if you cannot imagine that, dont bother answering.
Hm, now I'm going to imagine that I am in the shoes of a general; I'm a big stupid lame-o with no respect whatsoever of other lives than my own. I smell bad, my wife neglects me, and my kids loath me.

That was fun, but I still wouldn't drop the bomb. (And yes, the above description is of a general whom I have met).

[samurai999]

All i have to say about this is bachi-atatta. This is usually used in the context that if you do something bad or if you don't do what you are told, something bad will happen to you. (kind of karma)The Japanese imperialist gov't had what coming to them for their role in Asia.

Thinking about it just in terms of numbers, the US generals had little other information other than the # killed at that instant so they thought anything is better than 1million american dead. Nuclear technology was still a new technology at the time so its side-effects weren't well documented if at all. Remember that they fully expected the Japanese people to take up arms and defend their country to the last man(or woman or child).

However, the bomb that america dropped on Japan doesn't exactly right the wrong either. There are still fallout victims alive today getting health checks from Japanese doctors. (even in america) Also remember that although some memories are lost with time, the nuclear fallout from those bombs are carried from generation to generation. It is not just the mental anguish the survivors carry with them, it is there also on the physical level as well. The risks of cancer is much higher for the offspring of Hiroshima and Nagasaki's survivors than the average human. So on top of what they have to suffer, they have to witness their children going through the same thing...

My 0.02$(US),
Tim

[J. Schitt]

Hm, now I'm going to imagine that I am in the shoes of a general; I'm a big stupid lame-o with no respect whatsoever of other lives than my own. I smell bad, my wife neglects me, and my kids loath me.

That was fun, but I still wouldn't drop the bomb. (And yes, the above description is of a general whom I have met).

If you wouldn't have dropped the bomb, then would you like to explain what you would have done, to minimize or halt the casualty rate of 8,000 deaths a day (J & US)?

Thats how many were dying every day at the time the a-bombs were used and as the conflict continued.

World War 2 Death Count Per Country
Country Military Civilian Total
USSR 12 million 17 million 29 million
Poland 597,000 5.86 million 6.27 million
Germany 3.25 million 2.44 million 5.69 million
Yugoslavia 305,000 1.35 million 1.66 million
Romania 450,000 465,000 915,000
Hungary 200,000 600,000 800,000
France 245,000 350,000 595,000
Italy 380,000 153,000 533,000
Great Britain 403,000 92,700 495,000
United States 407,000 6,000 413,000
Czechoslovakia 7,000 315,000 322,000
Holland 13,700 236,000 249,000
Greece 19,000 140,000 159,000
Belgium 76,000 23,000 99,000

War is a tragedy. If both sides are reasonable, then they don't happen. If one side is unreasonable, then the reasonable side has little choice, if attacked.

[Phil-co]

If you wouldn't have dropped the bomb, then would you like to explain what you would have done, to minimize or halt the casualty rate of 8,000 deaths a day (J & US)?

Thats how many were dying every day at the time the a-bombs were used and as the conflict continued.

World War 2 Death Count Per Country
Country Military Civilian Total
USSR 12 million 17 million 29 million
Poland 597,000 5.86 million 6.27 million
Germany 3.25 million 2.44 million 5.69 million
Yugoslavia 305,000 1.35 million 1.66 million
Romania 450,000 465,000 915,000
Hungary 200,000 600,000 800,000
France 245,000 350,000 595,000
Italy 380,000 153,000 533,000
Great Britain 403,000 92,700 495,000
United States 407,000 6,000 413,000
Czechoslovakia 7,000 315,000 322,000
Holland 13,700 236,000 249,000
Greece 19,000 140,000 159,000
Belgium 76,000 23,000 99,000

War is a tragedy. If both sides are reasonable, then they don't happen. If one side is unreasonable, then the reasonable side has little choice, if attacked.
First of all; why bring up other countries death counts? I was talking about the atomic bomb. Your numbers are irrelevant. Remember Henry L. Stimson and he's refusal to start with peace negotiations? Remember Curtis LeMay's assessment of the situation in Japan? Remember the Japanese government's messages to Naotake Sato in Moscow, to get him to ask V. M. Molotov to help with a peace treaty. If you don't, I will be glad to explain them to you in further detail.

There were peaceful solutions before the bombs were dropped, but they were ignored by, as you put it, the unreasonable side (though we're not talking about the same side). It was the demand for unconditional surrender for Japan that made the war between the two sides go on.

Now, you ask me what I would have done? I would have listen to reason and humanity. And I would do everything is my power to bring up peaceful negotiations, which would suffice in this situation.

The bombs were not means to halt the casualty rate. The reason was not military, but political. The bombs were dropped to create fear.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

And it makes me wonder then, whether this was a coincidence that the 2 cities that the US bombed were targeted because they hadn't taken damage or if it was to show the USSR how many lives the bomb could take.

It was to show the Japanese the power of the bomb. Some people make a big deal out of this "we want to scare the Russians" idea, but don't forget at that point there was a hot war going on with Japan with thousands on both sides killed every day and the Soviets were current allies. They did look like they'd be at cross purposes with US in the future, but any consideration of the USSR was far behind the consideration of dealing with Japan. President Truman was the one who made the ultimate decision of whether the bomb should be used and his writings say he made the decision to use it to end the war, but of course that's politically inconvienent for some people, so they ignore it.


i saw the scenes of the children with ski peeling of there face
An important point that was brought up on the History Channel show that somebody else mentioned. There are pictures and videos of those who were killed or injured in the atomic bombings, but there are no pictures or videos of what would have happened to the millions who were saved by the end of the war.


This may sounds weird, this is what my Psychology teacher who is white and he said this, "Why did you think we didn't bomb the nazi? It would ended the war pretty quick, too? Well, let's just say because they were white." I felt shocked hearing that from him... maybe it was just an easy for him to explain other complicated political factors going at that time. It sounded kind of weird from a white guy.
Your psych teacher needs to learn some history, the bomb was originally intended to use again Germany to counter the atomic weapons the Germans were working on, but the Nazis surrendered before it was ready. I used to annoy professors by calling them on crap like that, because half of the people in that class probably walked out thinking that was in fact the reason. Of course there's always the chance he knows the history perfectly well and is trying to plant his political ideas, I had a couple professors that like.

[nodaka]

What i always think about is the incredible amount of martial knowledge that was lost on those two days.

[drizzt]

Of course there's always the chance he knows the history perfectly well and is trying to plant his political ideas, I had a couple professors that like.

ALOT of profs are like that

[tattooedasshole]

Dynamite, a.k.a. TNT, is not atomic.
Nuclear fission research promoted atomic bomb development. Nazi Germany was also on the verge of creating atomic bombs before the end of WWII, and this was done without the help of Halifax fishermen, their boats, their dynamite and their liquored-up stories.
True. However, It was due to the massive amount of damage done during the halifax exploision of WW1 that was the impetus for the US, and other countries, to look in to making masive explosive. This culminated in the nuclear bomb.
The Halifax explosion is still the larges non-nuclear explosion ever (aside from natural disasters. Volcanos, meteors, ect.)

[J. Schitt]

First of all; why bring up other countries death counts? I was talking about the atomic bomb. Your numbers are irrelevant.
Just to provide some context of the numbers.

Remember Henry L. Stimson and he's refusal to start with peace negotiations? Remember Curtis LeMay's assessment of the situation in Japan? Remember the Japanese government's messages to Naotake Sato in Moscow, to get him to ask V. M. Molotov to help with a peace treaty. If you don't, I will be glad to explain them to you in further detail.

No need to thank you.


There were peaceful solutions before the bombs were dropped, but they were ignored by, as you put it, the unreasonable side (though we're not talking about the same side). It was the demand for unconditional surrender for Japan that made the war between the two sides go on.

Unconditional surrender really was the only option, the Japanese did appear that would continue the war and fight to the last man, (do you remember Okinawa?) while at the same time they knew that that they were losing.


Now, you ask me what I would have done? I would have listen to reason and humanity. And I would do everything is my power to bring up peaceful negotiations, which would suffice in this situation.
And as I wrote, 8000 more would die each day as they negotiated further


The bombs were not means to halt the casualty rate. The reason was not military, but political. The bombs were dropped to create fear.
We agree that it was a political decision. Wars usually are. The bombs IMO were dropped to create so much fear that a surrender would be hastened, thereby shortening the war and saving lives that may have been wasted if it dragged on.

[J. Schitt]

Originally Posted by Hai_hai
Dynamite, a.k.a. TNT, is not atomic.
Nuclear fission research promoted atomic bomb development. Nazi Germany was also on the verge of creating atomic bombs before the end of WWII, and this was done without the help of Halifax fishermen, their boats, their dynamite and their liquored-up stories.



True. However, It was due to the massive amount of damage done during the halifax exploision of WW1 that was the impetus for the US, and other countries, to look in to making masive explosive. This culminated in the nuclear bomb.
The Halifax explosion is still the larges non-nuclear explosion ever (aside from natural disasters. Volcanos, meteors, ect.)
Two idiots agreeing with each other.

Dynamite and TNT both go bang and aren't atomic, but they are NOT the same.
As usual hh is wrong.

[Phil-co]

Just to provide some context of the numbers.
No need to thank you.


Unconditional surrender really was the only option, the Japanese did appear that would continue the war and fight to the last man, (do you remember Okinawa?) while at the same time they knew that that they were losing.
That is not correct, unconditional surrender was not the only option. For example, Eisenhower, MacArthur and other generals were indignant at that demand. You are trying to spread propaganda.


And as I wrote, 8000 more would die each day as they negotiated further
Again, that is not correct. The negotiations would have been short. There would have been truce (or at least cease-fire).


We agree that it was a political decision. Wars usually are. The bombs IMO were dropped to create so much fear that a surrender would be hastened, thereby shortening the war and saving lives that may have been wasted if it dragged on.
In your opinion indeed. But history is not about your opinion. History is about looking at the facts, which in this case are overwhelming. That the war was shortened by the bomb is an old, and nowadays rejected view on history. If you go through your national archives you will find that I am correct in this matter.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

That the war was shortened by the bomb is an old, and nowadays rejected view on history. If you go through your national archives you will find that I am correct in this matter.

Revisionist history maybe, the 1-2-3 punch of Hiroshima, the Soviets entering the war and Nagasaki is what most of the prinicipals (including Japanese) said in 1945 forced the Emperor's decision.

Mind you the Soviets wouldn't have entered the war at that point without the attack on Hiroshima, go back to an earlier post of mine for a perspective on that, but do you really believe it's a coincidence that after years of quiet on the Japanese/Soviet front the Soviets launched a massive attack just days after Hiroshima? They were attempting a land grab on their Eastern flank just like they did on their Western flank, but not as successfully.

[tattooedasshole]

Two idiots agreeing with each other.

Dynamite and TNT both go bang and aren't atomic, but they are NOT the same.
As usual hh is wrong.
How did I get lumped into the "idiots" category? Since Hai Hai and I are not in agreement, I think you should re-read my post. Or, at least send me laminated card proclaiming that I am a professional idiot.

[drizzt]

No need to thank you.


That is not correct, unconditional surrender was not the only option. For example, Eisenhower, MacArthur and other generals were indignant at that demand. You are trying to spread propaganda.


Again, that is not correct. The negotiations would have been short. There would have been truce (or at least cease-fire).


In your opinion indeed. But history is not about your opinion. History is about looking at the facts, which in this case are overwhelming. That the war was shortened by the bomb is an old, and nowadays rejected view on history. If you go through your national archives you will find that I am correct in this matter.

And you acuse other people of spreading propoganda? I disagree strongly with an assertion that its "an old and discredited" theory. I can point to several highly respected proffesors jsut at the university i attend that would disagree with that, much less the rest of the world.

[samurai999]

Now, you ask me what I would have done? I would have listen to reason and humanity. And I would do everything is my power to bring up peaceful negotiations, which would suffice in this situation.

The bombs were not means to halt the casualty rate. The reason was not military, but political. The bombs were dropped to create fear.

Well, the kamikaze and the way the soldiers were gutting it out at Midway and Iwo Jima weren't really giving Americans good reasons that the peace process would work. US Soldiers really believed that they would fight to the death. Well also you said you'd listen to "reason and humanity". There is not much to reason with stubborn Japanese politicians who just went out and downright invaded most of asia and provoked the US into joining WW2. Please, if you think you could've ended the war without anymore bloodshed on either side (no invasion or nuclear weapons), have Japan stop their war machine, and do this without Japan regaining the upperhand on the war, I'd be really interested in knowing how you'd go about it. The one big point i'd be interested in hearing is how you'd assure that Japan wouldn't try to mass troops again and rebuild their war machine.

Note - If the US went into invade Japan by conventional means, they'd have to break through coastal defenses, then fight from town to town and building to building. With the technology they had at the time, that would've taken eons. Japan would most likely pull back all of their troops from the eastern theatre to protect their homeland and set up booby traps everywhere. There is no more dangerous an enemy than an enemy on their own turf. (see Vietnam)

Tim

[drizzt]

Samurai999 thank you for taking the time to make an inteligent answer to him, I did not have the time earlier.

[Phil-co]

And you acuse other people of spreading propoganda? I disagree strongly with an assertion that its "an old and discredited" theory. I can point to several highly respected proffesors jsut at the university i attend that would disagree with that, much less the rest of the world.
As I said earlier, take a look at the national archives. There you can find indisputable evidence. If the highly respected professors deny the reliability of those sources, they are in fact either spreading propaganda, or are ignorant of the matter. If you e.g. look at evidence saying that the war ended in 1945, and then start yelling that the war ended in 1954 you are either trying to mislead the public, or are misreading the evidence.

[Phil-co]

Well, the kamikaze and the way the soldiers were gutting it out at Midway and Iwo Jima weren't really giving Americans good reasons that the peace process would work. US Soldiers really believed that they would fight to the death.
The thing is, the American government knew the Japanese were anxious to start a peace process, but ignored it. This, they didn't tell the public. The horrible part is that they knew it, and still wanted to make use of the bomb. And to use the excuse of 'but what if they don't want peace after all' is no good. You can at least try. That is what I am getting at, here. The American government didn't try anthing else, although they had plenty of options.


Well also you said you'd listen to "reason and humanity". There is not much to reason with stubborn Japanese politicians who just went out and downright invaded most of asia and provoked the US into joining WW2. Please, if you think you could've ended the war without anymore bloodshed on either side (no invasion or nuclear weapons), have Japan stop their war machine, and do this without Japan regaining the upperhand on the war, I'd be really interested in knowing how you'd go about it. The one big point i'd be interested in hearing is how you'd assure that Japan wouldn't try to mass troops again and rebuild their war machine.
I'm not justifying Japanese aggression at all. I am, however, against genocide caused by atomic bombs. That was the main issue here. Furthermore, the Japanese war machine was completely broken down. The American fighters reported that they didn't meet any resistance. The towns were bombed to dust.


Note - If the US went into invade Japan by conventional means, they'd have to break through coastal defenses, then fight from town to town and building to building. With the technology they had at the time, that would've taken eons. Japan would most likely pull back all of their troops from the eastern theatre to protect their homeland and set up booby traps everywhere. There is no more dangerous an enemy than an enemy on their own turf. (see Vietnam)
There are other options, for example oil embargo. There was talk of showing the destructive powers of the bomb in a controlled environment, hence warning the Japanese that way, scaring them to surrender. There were other solutions. You again overestimate what was left of the Japanese war machine.

But what about yourself? Do you believe that the atomic bomb was the only real solution? Just curious.

[Phil-co]

Revisionist history maybe, the 1-2-3 punch of Hiroshima, the Soviets entering the war and Nagasaki is what most of the prinicipals (including Japanese) said in 1945 forced the Emperor's decision.

Mind you the Soviets wouldn't have entered the war at that point without the attack on Hiroshima, go back to an earlier post of mine for a perspective on that, but do you really believe it's a coincidence that after years of quiet on the Japanese/Soviet front the Soviets launched a massive attack just days after Hiroshima? They were attempting a land grab on their Eastern flank just like they did on their Western flank, but not as successfully.
That was what people said in 1945, yes. That doesn't mean it is true, does it? And regarding the Soviet Union entering the war, because they wanted a land grab - off course! I don't argue that. The Soviets entered the war when they saw a chance of getting some of the land in Asia. The Americans though, thought that the Soviets' intervene was too little, too late. But that is not what we're discussing here. If this is not what you meant, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

[drizzt]

theres been an awful lot of talk of a "wanted peace process".....you realise the EMPEROR wanted it, but the military government had NO intentions of surr3ender. For God sakes they were forcing the civilian population into mandatory training. With the military dictatorship still in power, the japanese would have fought to the last person and the last inch of ground. Just because it was said in 1945 doesnt mean its not true either. I hate this PC history people are preaching.

BTW, A. there was a oil embargo pre-war. They STILL managed to build a superior fleet right under our noses. I to am against Genocide using A-bombs, but it was a hell of alot more effective than the firebombing campaign that was doing more damage, but was taking longer to do it. talk to some of the survivors of a firebombing(i have met two people who survived dresden). Ill qoute them(although mildly inaccurate, its not absolutley word for word). "I knew hell existed, because i lived in it. I have heard of the damage caused by the nuclear bombs, and would have prefered it".

The only justification for nuclear usage in WW2 was a stopping force, and point blank thats what it was employed as. Its amazing that a war that had dragged on for nearly four year ended in nine days. In those few days, the japanese government went form "we will fight to the last woman and child" to "we give up completely and unconditionaly"

[samurai999]

I'm not justifying Japanese aggression at all. I am, however, against genocide caused by atomic bombs. That was the main issue here. Furthermore, the Japanese war machine was completely broken down. The American fighters reported that they didn't meet any resistance. The towns were bombed to dust.


There are other options, for example oil embargo. There was talk of showing the destructive powers of the bomb in a controlled environment, hence warning the Japanese that way, scaring them to surrender. There were other solutions. You again overestimate what was left of the Japanese war machine.

But what about yourself? Do you believe that the atomic bomb was the only real solution? Just curious.

Well i'm not sure I agree with "totally broken down". Where guns, bombs and conventional warfare work wonders in a normal battlefield, guerilla warfare (which it probably would have resorted to) in the towns of Japan would hardly be "easy" for US troops. Plus if you compare and contrast what the US is doing in Iraq, there are some similarities. Just that the "technology amplitude" is higher. Remember that the US can take pictures from planes and fighters can report no resistance, but that doesn't give them ANY IDEA what is going down on the ground. Just imagine the US with bullets and dummy bombs instead of laser guidedbombs, smart bomb, night vision, infrared, UAVs, and the Japanese with booby traps, mines, bamboo poles, swords, etc instead of RPGs, homemade explosives, roadside bombs, mines, etc. (don't laugh at sharpened bamboo poles and swords. They can make a formidable weapon if used in complete surprise) In close proximity combat, standard military issue M1-Garands (at the time) with bayonets get OWNED by the slimmer katanas. (why would kendo get banned then as part of the armistice?) As for coastal defenses, its not just flak cannons and AA. I'm talking about full coastal defenses with beaches lined with barbed wire, mines, etc. Looking at that plus casualties the US forces would've taken on the ground fighting from town to town plus the losses trying to just invade compared to the losses incurred at Iwo Jima, that would have been much worse.

While true that the oil embargo was hindering Japanese forces, I can't quite fathom Imperial Japan giving up just because they were exhausted on oil. Like drizzt mentioned, the Japanese already had an oil embargo on them (from the US) before the war started and still managed to amass a HUGE army and a HUGE navy. The Japanese gov't have always been reluctant to admit to or tell bad news. In wartime and in the propoganda, do you think that the people would've known about this? (see the Iraqi information/"intelligence" minister) They would've tried to hype up the upcoming defense of the motherland. Thus, there would have been a lot of motivated soldiers ready to die for Japan that were in training, about to be deployed and being called back.

Remember that a lot of Japanese technology was smuggled via sub from Germany. If the US didn't use that A-bomb, those new technologies could have turned the tide of the war. There was a Japanese version ME-262, rocket plane, gyrocoptors, etc being built. There was a very informative History Channel documentary on those top secret Japanese warplanes.Though it would've been difficult for those technologies to exist without oil, Japans scientists and engineers were crafty and they always thought up of a way to keep the machine going without oil. (see above paragraph)

Also i did mention in a post before that little was known at that time what the side effects of a nuclear explosion would do. Lots of ppl at the time (including higher ups in US govt and military) thought it was just a bomb that produced a bigger explosion. Lots of countries like China and India later thought nuclear power was a world-level "status symbol" item. Some countries still do (Iran, North Korea are examples). Perhaps they (US) thought why use many bombs when we can use just one? (they totally firebombed Dresden in Germany and that just leveled everything as well) Only years after were the real effects revealed.

Given this information and the situation at that time, i would've dropped the A-bomb too. If you are talking about if we are in the situation (technology wise and all) we are at now, I wouldn't have dropped it. It is always easy to look back at an incident and wish things could be changed and point out "see! thats info they could've used!". I wish that the bomb wasn't dropped either, but in the "heat of the moment" there was no way out of it IMHO.

My 0.02$(US) (plus a buck more haha.. :D),
Tim

[Phil-co]

theres been an awful lot of talk of a "wanted peace process".....you realise the EMPEROR wanted it, but the military government had NO intentions of surr3ender. For God sakes they were forcing the civilian population into mandatory training. With the military dictatorship still in power, the japanese would have fought to the last person and the last inch of ground. Just because it was said in 1945 doesnt mean its not true either. I hate this PC history people are preaching.

BTW, A. there was a oil embargo pre-war. They STILL managed to build a superior fleet right under our noses. I to am against Genocide using A-bombs, but it was a hell of alot more effective than the firebombing campaign that was doing more damage, but was taking longer to do it. talk to some of the survivors of a firebombing(i have met two people who survived dresden). Ill qoute them(although mildly inaccurate, its not absolutley word for word). "I knew hell existed, because i lived in it. I have heard of the damage caused by the nuclear bombs, and would have prefered it".

The only justification for nuclear usage in WW2 was a stopping force, and point blank thats what it was employed as. Its amazing that a war that had dragged on for nearly four year ended in nine days. In those few days, the japanese government went form "we will fight to the last woman and child" to "we give up completely and unconditionaly"
Alright, now I'm in a two front word war against drizzt and samurai999. Could be fun! :)

Ok, first of all: the japanese would only fight 'til last man, woman and child IF the surrender was unconditional. If not, they would have surrendered. Not gladly, but still. There are documents showing this, and you can check it for yourself. While you're at it, look up Eisenhower's statements about the a-bomb, and why not the Strategic Bombing Survey, where it was concluded that it was NOT necessary to drop the bomb. They are actually saying that.

Second, about the oil embargo. Since Japan was inferior to the U.S. after the U.S:s bombings, it would most certainly have worked rather well.

Third. Even though the survivors of fire bombings lived in hell, they can't possibly know what it was like to be bombed by an atomic bomb. Hence the statements aren't relevent.

Fourth, the a-bomb wasn't a stopping force, since Japan was already stopped. This is were we differ greatly, and I am not able to persuade you on this. And vice versa. If neither of us won't change on this, I guess we are stuck, don't you think?

[mero]

WHat a laughable notion that having two of your major cities bombed to oblivion wasn't a stopping power! Top secret documents of Emperor and leaders like tojo have been declassified and its clear that there were factions for and against surrender. THe fact that both factions wouldn't have surrendered unconditionally only adds to the necessity of the A-bombs. The meeting minutes clearly show that after the bombs the anti-surrender faction had nothing to say and the pro-surrender faction won. Bombs worked and saved lives and ended the war definitively.

In any case, even if Japan surrendered on its own, militarism would've been salvaged imperialistic ambitions not squashed. There would also have been no assurance that invaded territory would've been completely surrendered. Taiwan, Korea, Northeast China, Phillipines, South East Asia may have remained Japan. Ask a Chinese, Korean if the bombs were worth it. Attempted destruction of cultural identity and soveregnty will tend to have bombed dropped on you.

Lastly, Japan engaged in attacks against civilians with chemical, biological weapons. They sent over balloons containing deadly diseases to start epidemics of disease in the US. They didn't work of course but our A-bombs did. They also performed vivasections on pregnant women and tested chemical and biological weapons on humans for the purpose of killing US civilians. I don't think we ever tested the Abomb on people whom we considered to be inferior people.


Alright, now I'm in a two front word war against drizzt and samurai999. Could be fun! :)

Ok, first of all: the japanese would only fight 'til last man, woman and child IF the surrender was unconditional. If not, they would have surrendered. Not gladly, but still. There are documents showing this, and you can check it for yourself. While you're at it, look up Eisenhower's statements about the a-bomb, and why not the Strategic Bombing Survey, where it was concluded that it was NOT necessary to drop the bomb. They are actually saying that.

Second, about the oil embargo. Since Japan was inferior to the U.S. after the U.S:s bombings, it would most certainly have worked rather well.

Third. Even though the survivors of fire bombings lived in hell, they can't possibly know what it was like to be bombed by an atomic bomb. Hence the statements aren't relevent.

Fourth, the a-bomb wasn't a stopping force, since Japan was already stopped. This is were we differ greatly, and I am not able to persuade you on this. And vice versa. If neither of us won't change on this, I guess we are stuck, don't you think?

[drizzt]

you seem to forget something phil, Ultimate victory was not to be JUST the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan, but to crush both nations military power to a point they would no longer be a threat. Not only did the A-bombs silence the keep-fighting faction, they destroyed any ideas of plans they might have of rebuilding Japans military power. It forced an unresisted unconditional, instead of sparking an underground movement and sinking the country into gorilla warfare

[Akai Bushi]

Well Japan was moving toward surrender. Tojo was no longer in office as prime minister and Suzuki Kantaro was brought in to make preperations for surrender. The fact of the matter is the United States has justified the use of Nuclear Weapons against civilian populations. So who are we to say if North Korea, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, or any number countries should haven them. We've already proven that we will use them even when all avenues aren't exausted. I as well wouldn't say the Western powers were innocent and that Japan started it. Japan was WRONG but in those days Western Powers and Japan were busy with colonialism which is what Japan was doing, colonizing. They saw the US as a threat to the colonial empire so they attacked. Maybe if the US would have left the Tokugawa Shogunate alone and not opened the can of worms in the first place there wouldn't have been a Pacific War. And does this act by the United States of droping the bomb mean that if the Native Americans had the same weapon during the late 19th century that they would have the same right of droping it on Cleveland or Chicago to save their nation?

[KhawMengLee]

Well Japan was moving toward surrender. Tojo was no longer in office as prime minister and Suzuki Kantaro was brought in to make preperations for surrender. The fact of the matter is the United States has justified the use of Nuclear Weapons against civilian populations. So who are we to say if North Korea, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, or any number countries should haven them. We've already proven that we will use them even when all avenues aren't exausted. I as well wouldn't say the Western powers were innocent and that Japan started it. Japan was WRONG but in those days Western Powers and Japan were busy with colonialism which is what Japan was doing, colonizing. They saw the US as a threat to the colonial empire so they attacked. Maybe if the US would have left the Tokugawa Shogunate alone and not opened the can of worms in the first place there wouldn't have been a Pacific War. And does this act by the United States of droping the bomb mean that if the Native Americans had the same weapon during the late 19th century that they would have the same right of droping it on Cleveland or Chicago to save their nation?

Look mate, colonialism sucks but at least in most cases they let the people they colonize live. Japan was murdering and raping their merry way accross asia. You are trying to downplay Japan's actions in the past...saying "oh, everyone else was doing it". Was the US or Britain sponsoring kidnapping of women to serve in field brothels to be raped repeatedly everyday? Were they bombing civilians as part of 'colonizing'? Did they have competitions between soldiers to see who could behead the most people in a day?

I think there's a huuuuuge difference between 'colonizing' and genocide.

As for the whole dropping of the A-bomb...well, today, we look at the loss of all those lives in one single terrible moment and we say 'omg, what a tragedy!' 'jesus, the US didn't have to!' 'Tojo wasn't in charge anymore!' Yes, yes, yes...its all different now because we are friends but believe me to those who survived what the Japanese did to them in Asia. The murders, the rape, the torture, the slaves...I don't think people had much sympathy then for Japan.

Personally, I think justice was done. You may sit there and say this is a terrible thing to say...well, I think its terrible to say that japan was only just 'colonizing asia' as opposed to the truth of what they really did.

You feel its an injustice 'US' dropping the bomb on Japan. I feel its an injustice what japan did to 'us'. Both issues are in the past. Neither is going to do much for our future.

An eye for an eye. Blood has been paid now on both sides. Lets not try and downplay Japan's role in the war, eh? Better we ackowledge the past and get on with the future.

[Landorph]

life should move on... dead should not be remembered...

those died are only a fragment of someone else's imaginations..

The 2 Nuclear bombs made Japan stronger... in both wealth and spirit.
the people are united.. and can not be divided.


It is more costly to upgrade a failing system than to completely destory it and build a new one.

The Hurrican in new Orleans is a great example... Lives were lost.. and a new era shall begin... you wait and see... time shall come.

But yes.. some day the earth will wipe us all out.. and start a new. Like the Dinasours ...

[Theodore]

For me:

(1). 8/6/1945: Hiroshima bombed
(2). 8/9/45: Nagasaki bombed.
(3). 9/2/45: Japan surrenders.
(4). 9/30/45: My father mustered out of the USN. He had survived 13 naval engagements on the USS Utah (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-u/bb31.htm) (sunk at Pearl Harbor) and the USS Ralph Talbot (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-r/dd390.htm)(struck twice, Battle of Savo Island and Okinawa).
(5). 11/6/45: My folks get married.

Without 1 and 2, 3-5 would not have happened. My Dad was convinced he had used up all of his luck and there are a lot of his mates who feel the same. I can't gainsay his opinion based on his experience. I have a lot of friends who are Japanese and/or Japanese Americans. It's over. Let's move on.

[Akai Bushi]

The US was just as bad in the colonization of the whole country starving, raping, slaughtering innocents(native americans). They used crude biological warfare even. The US is far from innocent in its colonization. Droping an A-bomb is no two ways about it wrong. Does America stand for killing babies, well I guess yes if it serves the interests to show off to Russia. Japan was on its last leg. There was no need to drop an A-bomb let alone two. "Look what we've got and look we've got more of them."
***
And just to go off on another topic.
Japan was denied it's permanent place on the UN security council. Well since Japan gives more money to the UN than any country except the US(19%). I think Japan should drop its contribution down to China's meger .7%. That would be only fair.

[KhawMengLee]

The US is far from innocent in its colonization. Droping an A-bomb is no two ways about it wrong. ***

And the rape of Nanking I suppose was a jolly excursion into Manchuria? Japan bombed Pearl Harbour. Do you think the victim's there give a rat's arse about whether its 'moral' to drop the A-bomb on Japan? The victims of Japan's merry tour of Asia would probably not have stopped at just two bombs.

Its easy to sit there now and say the A-bomb was wrong. But what about Japan's actions which caused this event? I'm not just talking about Pearl Harbour...the argument that it was caused by cutting off Japan's oil is valid. But what about the the 'colonizing' Japan was doing before this? Annexing Korea and Manchuria.

You sit there and say the A-bomb is wrong like Japan didn't do anything to deserve it. its like a pedophile getting beaten by the parent's of his victims saying "what did I do to deserve that?"

Sure, politics and powerplay was one of the main factors why japan got the bomb. At the same time its not as if japan was innocent.

Killing civilian's? Japanese soldiers had no problem raping little girls, murdering innocent people or strafing a road full of civilians with their aircraft. Yes its wrong. But if you do onto others, don't be surprised if the same gets doen to you.

[Theodore]

The US was just as bad in the colonization of the whole country starving, raping, slaughtering innocents(native americans). They used crude biological warfare even. The US is far from innocent in its colonization.

1. It was never the official policy of the US Government to starve, rape, and slaughter the American Indian population. That is not to say that it did not happen, nor to say that local military and/or Indian Agents on scene did not turn a blind eye to atrocities. The whole thing is shameful.

2. Your second sentence is patently false. The only recorded instance of smallpox infected blankets and Native Americans is a suggestion by a British Army major to his commanding general during during the French and Indian War that smallpox infected blankets be distributed to tribes who were allied with the French. There is no record that it was carried into effect. (http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm)

3. See John Keegan, Fields of Battle, The Wars for North America (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679746641/qid=1126706620/sr=1-18/ref=sr_1_18/103-3721577-7399830?v=glance&s=books) for a comprehensive description of the American-Indian wars (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679746641/qid=1126706620/sr=1-18/ref=sr_1_18/103-3721577-7399830?v=glance&s=books). (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679746641/qid=1126706620/sr=1-18/ref=sr_1_18/103-3721577-7399830?v=glance&s=books)
Contrary to your analysis, it was not the United States of America which initiated the struggle between Europeans and the Native population. We inherited the legacy of rancor, rapine, slaughter, and massacre from the English, French, and Spanish who held sway in North America for a long time before 1776 and these countries used the native populations as allies in their wars for domination.

Finally, forget the notion that Native Americans were peaceful pastoralists until the Europeans showed up. They exterminated all the large mammals on the continent after they arrived (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393321002/qid=1126707544/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-3721577-7399830?v=glance&s=books) and engaged in constant inter-necine warfare as well.
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0806127732/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-3721577-7399830#reader-page)
Do some reading. It might actually benefit you to have a little information under your belt before popping off.

[Akai Bushi]

So it might not have been US policy to rap, starve, and kill Native Americas, but we did. And we had a choice to whether we were going to make peace with the indian nations, but we decided on land instead. It doesn't matter whether the Europeans started it. We finished it. The point of the matter is if you kill innocence I guess it's ok to us Atomic bombs against the aggressor. So the Apache or the Souix should have droped an A-bomb if they had it.
***
It's also in a sense our fault Japan became a world power. Pushing our weight around were it didn't belong with Commadore Perry in 1853. Look, it bit us in the ass. We were lucky Japan didn't have the resources to keep WWII going. Japan would have stuck to its medieval ways for good nother half century at least, by then it would have been too late to compete on the world scale until after Germany's collapse and markets started opening up and the power vaccum of the west easied.
***
Nanking isn't in Manchuria. And yes it was wrong what Japan did, but killing babies no matter how you put it is wrong. Whether it's a Japan soldier killing babies or an indiscrimanted A-bomb. It's wrong.
But I guess the civilians deserved it in Japan after everything soldiers did to China.

[kendonewbie]

*edit*techinical problem...

[kendonewbie]

The US was just as bad in the colonization of the whole country starving, raping, slaughtering innocents(native americans). They used crude biological warfare even. The US is far from innocent in its colonization. Droping an A-bomb is no two ways about it wrong. Does America stand for killing babies, well I guess yes if it serves the interests to show off to Russia. Japan was on its last leg. There was no need to drop an A-bomb let alone two. "Look what we've got and look we've got more of them."
***
And just to go off on another topic.
Japan was denied it's permanent place on the UN security council. Well since Japan gives more money to the UN than any country except the US(19%). I think Japan should drop its contribution down to China's meger .7%. That would be only fair.

Interesting argument...i'll bite.

There are several things wrong with this. First off, your perspective of the native americans. The colonists didn't kill them using "crude biological warfare". As far as my limited knoweldge goes, the American government didn't enforce any sort of anti-indian policies until 1828. Kinda after the the colonization was done.

Second, civilians would have died regardless of whether or not the US dropped the A bombs. I do not agree with the mass slaughtering of civilians but it would have happened, regardless. Its already been covered that the civilian population was forced to do madatory training. Milita or civilian armies like that can pose a threat: they are fighting to protect their homes and families. If the US tried to invade japan, its almost certain they would have run into several such groups. Also, troops were exausted after "island hopping"...its was uncertain whether an invasion of japan would have been successful.

Third, since you want to point a finger at the US slaughtering innocents during colonization, fine. Didn't japan do the same thing when expanding it territory? Are you familar with the occupation of Korea? The rape of nanking? hm? read up on them before pointing fingers again.

Fourth...
Does America stand for killing babies, well I guess yes if it serves the interests to show off to Russia
Where are you trying go with this? The cold war started AFTER WWII...and AFTER the A-bombs were dropped.

i don't support the slaughtering of innocents. I don't really care about politics or the american government, they can both go to hell for all i care. what i do care about is when people like you come up and say "this is wrong! i'm right! listen to my one-sided opinion!". You don't even have your facts right. People like this more often than not CAUSE problems like these. If your going to go off like this again, at least do some research and consider what might have happended if things were different.

[piggy]

The only form of biological warfare used in colonizing North America was that the Native Americans immunity system was not able to cope with the diseases that the Europeans brought over.

[Hank]

The only form of biological warfare used in colonizing North America was that the Native Americans immunity system was not able to cope with the diseases that the Europeans brought over.Well, there's that... and the smallpox-infected blankets purposely handed out to Native Americans in hopes that their numbers would dwindle. It's recorded - biological warfare old-school.

Hank.

[piggy]

Well, there's that... and the smallpox-infected blankets purposely handed out to Native Americans in hopes that their numbers would dwindle. It's recorded - biological warfare old-school.

Hank.


Ah... The things they never teach you in school.

[samurai999]

Well, there's that... and the smallpox-infected blankets purposely handed out to Native Americans in hopes that their numbers would dwindle. It's recorded - biological warfare old-school.

Hank.

Yes I did hear about that somewhere. But DEFINITELY not in HS.

Tim

[Hank]

Ah... The things they never teach you in school.Well, every country has done good and bad things in the past, and the bad things tend to get glossed over, which is too bad, really.

Actually, the recorded use of pox blankets happened before the revolution, so, technically, it was England doing this.

Hank.

[Akai Bushi]

Interesting argument...i'll bite.

There are several things wrong with this. First off, your perspective of the native americans. The colonists didn't kill them using "crude biological warfare". As far as my limited knoweldge goes, the American government didn't enforce any sort of anti-indian policies until 1828. Kinda after the the colonization was done.

Second, civilians would have died regardless of whether or not the US dropped the A bombs. I do not agree with the mass slaughtering of civilians but it would have happened, regardless. Its already been covered that the civilian population was forced to do madatory training. Milita or civilian armies like that can pose a threat: they are fighting to protect their homes and families. If the US tried to invade japan, its almost certain they would have run into several such groups. Also, troops were exausted after "island hopping"...its was uncertain whether an invasion of japan would have been successful.

Third, since you want to point a finger at the US slaughtering innocents during colonization, fine. Didn't japan do the same thing when expanding it territory? Are you familar with the occupation of Korea? The rape of nanking? hm? read up on them before pointing fingers again.

Fourth...
Where are you trying go with this? The cold war started AFTER WWII...and AFTER the A-bombs were dropped.

i don't support the slaughtering of innocents. I don't really care about politics or the american government, they can both go to hell for all i care. what i do care about is when people like you come up and say "this is wrong! i'm right! listen to my one-sided opinion!". You don't even have your facts right. People like this more often than not CAUSE problems like these. If your going to go off like this again, at least do some research and consider what might have happended if things were different.
Why do people think I'm trying to down play what Japan has done. I'm just giving a different point of view. I agree Japan did many horrible things to Korea and China and many other countries. However I'm trying to say in my examples that native americans have just as much right to use A-bombs as the USA considering what happened to them.
In addition the USA would not have had to invade Japan. This is contrary to what we are taught in school, but Japan was moving toward surrender already and a naval blockade would have finished them off easily. We put too much faith in the Japanese populations willingness to die. If they were willing to die so readily then no number or bombs would have stoped them. A-bombs just sped up the process by a couple months. They were going to surrender. We knew it to.
It was a show off to Russia. Yes the cold war came after WWII, but the tension was already building and the coming cold war was already in sight. Patton even wanted permission to invade Russia after the war with Germany.
And I'll bite I am right and yes droping A-bombs is wrong. Sorry you hate someone with an opinion. Just because something is contrary to what you currently believe doesn't make it right. Same goes for me.
Sorry to disappoint you with FACTS. I in no way want to down play Japanese crimes in WWII. But dont downplay US crimes agaisnt Native Americans. The US kept colonizing westward well after 1828, it was far from done until the 1890's. Even one of our greatest presidents was known as Jefferson the Indian killer. In addition Custer came well after 1828 the wars with the Sioux and Apache were well after 1828. Colonization was far from finished. Even if we don't want to consider it US colonization. We slaughtered a people. But all countries have dark pasts. Again so no one makes a mistake I think the Rape of Nanking was wrong, but to use a cliche two wrongs don't make a right.

[mero]

LOL. What a joke.

[alan dean]

They were going to surrender.
Im new to Kendo,,,Im new to making Katana in my forge...But I have been reading about much of Japaneese history...

So far I believe we were just "lucky: the A-Bomb worked and they gave up.

I dont believe they would have just "surrendered" for a moment without the dropping of the Bomb....not for a moment.

Yes, we were lucky they did surrender....very lucky....

[drizzt]

[quote=Akai Bushi. We put too much faith in the Japanese populations willingness to die. If they were willing to die so readily then no number or bombs would have stoped them. A-bombs just sped up the process by a couple months. They were going to surrender. We knew it to.
It was a show off to Russia. [/quote]

A but do you understand the number of casualties those months would have cost both of us? The US's casualties would have been as much if not more, much less the horrendous casualties the japanese people would have suffered.


No the dropping of the nuclear bombs was most likely not a NECESSITY, especialy the second one. you do have to look at the number of casualties the bombs STOPPED however. Is it better to kill fewer people, or more people?

I dont know what sources your looking at that Japan had a plan to surrender, the military leadership hd no intentions of laying down arms.

Your revisionist , ultra PC, view of history seems to be the new prevailing view in an effort to not offend the japanese people. I have no trouble with the japanese(well except some of there economic policys...), but here are two facts you PC folks need to think about before you tamper with history, 1. The japanese started the shooting with an unprovoked, illegal, attack on the US, and 2. THEY refused to go to the negotiating table until they realise the us had the power to issue a simple order and annihalate them. In reality that view was foolish, quite simply because fire bombing was just as, if not more, devastating (look at some of the city's that were bombed......better yet read people like Kurt Vanahagut's(i know i misspelled that) accounts of the dresden firebombing).

[drizzt]

Im new to Kendo,,,Im new to making Katana in my forge...But I have been reading about much of Japaneese history...

So far I believe we were just "lucky: the A-Bomb worked and they gave up.

I dont believe they would have just "surrendered" for a moment without the dropping of the Bomb....not for a moment.

Yes, we were lucky they did surrender....very lucky....

The pshycological impact of realising your enemy can do that kind of damage with one plane, and one bomb, tends to have that effect. Ever wonder why weve never had ANOTHER full blown conventional world war?

[Lloromannic]

.better yet read people like Kurt Vanahagut's(i know i misspelled that) accounts of the dresden firebombing).
Kurt Vonnegut- Slaughterhouse 5, great book

Link to Wikipedia about the Dresden Bombing here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_bombing)

[drizzt]

Kurt Vonnegut- Slaughterhouse 5, great book

Link to Wikipedia about the Dresden Bombing here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_bombing)

Thanks for the correction. Im partial to his short fiction as well.

[piggy]

In reality that view was foolish, quite simply because fire bombing was just as, if not more, devastating (look at some of the city's that were bombed......better yet read people like Kurt Vanahagut's(i know i misspelled that) accounts of the dresden firebombing).


If i'm not mistaken, wasn't the death toll of the fire bombings greater than that of the two bombs? IMHO, I would rather be torn apart by a nuclear weapon than the inferno of the fire bombs.

[drizzt]

If i'm not mistaken, wasn't the death toll of the fire bombings greater than that of the two bombs? IMHO, I would rather be torn apart by a nuclear weapon than the inferno of the fire bombs.

I think it was significantly higher, but i was trying to not be overtly dramatic. I would rather be zapped by a nuke as well, especialy after reading survivors accounts of firebombings.

[Alan Molstad]

Nothing I have ever read has made be believe for a moment that the Japanese were about to give up.

In fact, the things I have seen have made it clear to me that we were just darn lucky the Bomb worked, and lucky the Leadership of Japan took the hint and called a stop to the war.

From the many other examples I have seen, the Japanese were, until the Bomb, making everything ready for a full-scale war on their home land. I believe they were getting ready for a fight to the last man, woman, child.

Everything in the war until the actuall landing of American troops on Japan would have been just been the warm up. The fighting over islands gave us an idea of how strong a fighters the Japanese were. This would have been the most dark time in human history. The fact is, that the American troops would have likly had to have killed almost all of the millions of Japanese before the war could be called truly "over"

I have also learned (via the History Ch), that even after the Japanese leadership had made the speach to end the war to be broadcast to all the Japanese people, that the Japanese army had moved against the leadership and sought to keep the war going. We are lucky the acts of a few Japanese loyal officers were able to fullfill the wish of their leader and end the war.

We are lucky the Bomb went off in the first place...
We are lucky the Japanese leadership call in end to the war after the 2 Bombs were dropped...
We are lucky the wish of their leadership was carried out by their troops...

We, both America and Japan, are lucky, very lucky...

[mero]

Actually declassified meeting minutes only show that even pro-surrender factions were only considering conditional surrender and that unconditional surrender was out of the question.

That would've meant, at the very least that Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan would've been enslaved under Japanese Empire with its ethnocentric religiosity which would've been alive and well and would've b!tch slapped South African Apartheid or American racism in South making it look docile and gentile in comparison.

Whether surrender was inevitable is not the issue. The issue is whether the bombs ended the war.

The answer to that question is a noncontroversial, indubitable YES.

[mero]

Unfortunately, during WWII civilian bombing targets either by firebombing or by atom bomb were well within accepted international law: e.g. bombing campaigns against Lond and German cities, etc.. The same can't be said of Japanese war tacitcs: e.g. atrocities against civilians, vivasections and germ warfare experiments on civilians, vivasections on pregnant women, germ bombs that landed in american midwest that caused contained outbreaks of disease, etc..

[piggy]

Unfortunately, during WWII civilian bombing targets either by firebombing or by atom bomb were well within accepted international law


Its terrible that the firebombings targeted cities filled with thousands of civilians. That was the purpose. They created such heat that even if firerescue tried to put them out or rescue other people, they were simply just too hot to approach. Because the fire bombs were actually clusters of much smaller incinerary (sp?) rods put togther and broken apart during the descent, it made them capable of covering a significant area of the ground and turning it into a living hell. Although napalm was not developed until later, the firebombs were fully capable of reducing anything to ashes.

Just throwing in some information that I happen to know about them.

[Akai Bushi]

Well then it's decided the use of atomic weapons is ok. Killing civilians is ok. If it saves more soldiers lives killing babies is ok.

[KhawMengLee]

Well then it's decided the use of atomic weapons is ok. Killing civilians is ok. If it saves more soldiers lives killing babies is ok.

Maybe you should voice the same amount of concern over the Japanese Imperial Forces handing out anthrax laced chocolates to children...yes, killing is wrong but Japan was in no way 'innocent'. You reap what you sow.

[Lloromannic]

Its terrible that the firebombings targeted cities filled with thousands of civilians. That was the purpose. They created such heat that even if firerescue tried to put them out or rescue other people, they were simply just too hot to approach. Because the fire bombs were actually clusters of much smaller incinerary (sp?) rods put togther and broken apart during the descent, it made them capable of covering a significant area of the ground and turning it into a living hell. Although napalm was not developed until later, the firebombs were fully capable of reducing anything to ashes.

Just throwing in some information that I happen to know about them.

It's also important to remember that the other side (the Axis) also used terror bombing greatly. It was not simply something the allies did, that old and flayed horse of Issac (Nanking/Nanjin) is one of the most gruesome parts of modern history.

In resume to all the debates on firebombing and civilian kiling: War Sucks mightily.

[drizzt]

Im still an advocate of settling international disputes with a chess game....

[Lloromannic]

Im still an advocate of settling international disputes with a chess game....

We'd all be speaking Russian...!!!!!!

Save the Rodina :D

[Akai Bushi]

It's also important to remember that the other side (the Axis) also used terror bombing greatly. It was not simply something the allies did, that old and flayed horse of Issac (Nanking/Nanjin) is one of the most gruesome parts of modern history.
In resume to all the debates on firebombing and civilian kiling: War Sucks mightily.
Because Hitler killed 5 million Jews in consentration camps does that make it ok for the Allies to kill 5 million Germans? This is an extreme example, but just because one person or nation does something doesn't make it ok to do it yourself.
Here is an example of your fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right_%28fallacy%29
The fact is if you except killing of Japanese civilians in Hiroshima you have to except it to be ok to kill civilians intentionally in any war.
That makes Agent Orange ok because VC were everywhere and we needed to stop communism at any cost, right?
I agree Nanking was a terrible massacre, but killing Japanese women and children on purpose wasn't justified. Just as the slaughter of Chinese wasn't justified. Both acts are wrong and should be considered independantly. The fact is many Japanese soldiers and officers diserved severe punishment for their acts, but not civilians.
Just as if Tibet took power in China(which of course would never happen) because the Chinese persecuted the Tibetians and murdered hundreds of them that would make it ok for the Tibets to do the same thing to the Chinese. Eye for an Eye right. Then everything is even. Eh but where does it end?

[piggy]

Eye for an Eye right. Then everything is even. Eh but where does it end?

To quote Ghandi, "An eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind"

None of these actions are justified but many times, they are nescisary. If Hitler decides that he's going to go on a rampage across Europe, it would certainly be bad to kill his troops but it is nescisary to stop him from killing more people.

[mero]

That's why societies have laws and criminal justice systems. On an international level, no such systems exist. Only customs and mutual agreements and even those have no enforcement measures. That's why wars happen.

But in any case, when a crime is committed, you figure out why it happened. Who's responsible for it. And you make perpetrators pay for their crimes and try to remedy the loss of the victims.

You don't revictimize the victim by whitewashing the criminal or treating the criminal and victim in the same light.

During WWII, Japan in its lust for empirial conquest and was committing all types of unspeakable atrocites. A philipine friend told me that the short Japanese occupation made the Spainards civil and docile in comparison.

Dropping the bombs ended those atrocities definitely and immediately and ended WWII in Asia. Period.

When someone comes into your house, kills your wife and proceeds to rape your daughter, asking yourself, "where does it end" is a luxury you can't afford.

[piggy]

When someone comes into your house, kills your wife and proceeds to rape your daughter, asking yourself, "where does it end" is a luxury you can't afford.


It ends when I get my shotgun. Say, this sounds rather framiliar like a thread I read once....:ko:


(^This is a somewhat subtle joke.)

[Hisham]

I got a question, why didn't the emperor pay for his crimes as the nazi leaders did at Nuremberg, in fact he even had his image cleaned. It was said that japan couldn't be hold together without him, do you think it was true?

[mero]

Perhaps, Americans thought it more advantageous to use the emperor in post war Japan rather than deposing him. It seems reasonable that keeping the emperor would be a stabilizing factor in the turmoil of postwar Japan. There was a book that came out a few years ago Hirohito and making of modern Japan by Bix where he says the emperor played a much greater hand in Japan's rabid imperialism than previously thought. ANyone read it?


I got a question, why didn't the emperor pay for his crimes as the nazi leaders did at Nuremberg, in fact he even had his image cleaned. It was said that japan couldn't be hold together without him, do you think it was true?

[Paikea]

I got a question, why didn't the emperor pay for his crimes as the nazi leaders did at Nuremberg, in fact he even had his image cleaned. It was said that japan couldn't be hold together without him, do you think it was true?For the same reason that the Queen could not be held responsible for the actions of the British government (just an example, nothing specific to infer there) - the Emperor at that time (as now) is the head of state in a constitutional monarchy. He held no legal or binding power within the government.

Yes, I believe that dissolving the monarchy in Japan at that time was important in getting Japan beyond the war and starting reconstruction. The Emperor was able to convince the population that the war was lost, and to stop fighting. Without that, you'd have a situation similar to what we see in Iraq today.

How important to Morocco is the King? In a time of crisis, would the Moroccan people tend to listen to him?

[Lloromannic]

Because Hitler killed 5 million Jews in consentration camps does that make it ok for the Allies to kill 5 million Germans? This is an extreme example, but just because one person or nation does something doesn't make it ok to do it yourself.
Here is an example of your fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right_%28fallacy%29
The fact is if you except killing of Japanese civilians in Hiroshima you have to except it to be ok to kill civilians intentionally in any war.
That makes Agent Orange ok because VC were everywhere and we needed to stop communism at any cost, right?
I agree Nanking was a terrible massacre, but killing Japanese women and children on purpose wasn't justified. Just as the slaughter of Chinese wasn't justified. Both acts are wrong and should be considered independantly. The fact is many Japanese soldiers and officers diserved severe punishment for their acts, but not civilians.
Just as if Tibet took power in China(which of course would never happen) because the Chinese persecuted the Tibetians and murdered hundreds of them that would make it ok for the Tibets to do the same thing to the Chinese. Eye for an Eye right. Then everything is even. Eh but where does it end? Now, when did I say that? I'm not saying it's ok. Rather I say that it's never ok, but one must look at the whole picture.

[mero]

I thought the same when i read a.b.'s response. You nor anyone said it was ok. I think the guy confused issues and created strawman arguments.


Now, when did I say that? I'm not saying it's ok. Rather I say that it's never ok, but one must look at the whole picture.

[Greger]

this is one of those moments in american history weere i kinda feel ashaimed to be an american. i got up this morning and watched the history channel like usualy and i saw the scenes of the children with ski peeling of there face and i (and i am not afraid to admet this)cried at the site of this. i felt ashaiemed and responible in a way.i would just like to apoligize and i send all my heart to the peole and the servivors.

Its good to se that somebody cares man. I thought that the majority of the americans had accepted hiroshima as justified. I dont. Its never justified to kill, if the crime is already commited, theres no need to punish and kill, it wont undo it, if innocents are "punsihed", then a new crime has arisen.

"an eye for an eye will make the world go blind"

[Akai Bushi]

Now, when did I say that? I'm not saying it's ok. Rather I say that it's never ok, but one must look at the whole picture.
Well you didn't say that, but you make a connection that Japan deserved it because of Nanking. I was just giving you several examples of how two wrongs make a right. It's much better to say Japan needed to be stopped than to say Japan deserved it because of Nanking. Not to say I believe the Atomic bomb should have been the method for stoping Japan. I also don't think an invasion should have been the method. I think a sea and air blockade would have been best. Anything that flys blow it up. Anything that floats blow it up. Any war factorys blow them up. But, don't kill civilian on purpose. I understand accidents, but an Atomic Bomb is no accident. Japan would have been sufficated to death through this method.

[drizzt]

Ah but a sea and air blockade would have starved the masses and caused horrendus deaths all over the country. Personaly, and talking to former POW's and prisoners of concentration camps(i had the honor to meet several survivors and speak with them about two years ago), i think being nuked is a VASTLY preferable choice. The attrocities the atomb bomb caused are nothing compared to the idea of starving a country.

War is a choice of the lesser of two evils, wich is what makes war fundamentaly wrong. However, when a country starts a war, it becomes survival of the fittest(while i have an odd stance on darwins theory, I do beleive in social darwinism.). Unfortunatly WW2 was a case of the need for total victory, and we had two choices......neither were pleasent.

[Akai Bushi]

I'm looking at it from a point of moral judgement(even if its my own). You're looking at it as purely numbers. If the US blockaded Japan then its the Japanese government killing people due to not surrendering not an American soldier killing thousands of civilians with a bomb. In addition hunger ends either in death or recouping and living. With an Atomic bomb people who survive have to live with pain and agony for 50 some years left of their life. Surviving an Atomic bomb is a life time of torture. Death would be better than living with radiation poisoning and melted limbs.