Hiroshima and Nagasaki

KitsuneUdon · 10 Jul 2004

Rhaven said:
I only wish we lived in the days of swords and spears, at leats those soldiers were not commanded to kill children and mothers

I'm not trying to belittle you here, but that is quite wrong. Throughout history; mass murder, rape, and plundering has always been a military/marshal tatic.

However, the rest of what you posted is rather agnostic, but you do have a point that the use of the bomb was rather unhumane. Anyway.... nuf said.

By the way, it's Ralph Macchio.

bossel · 11 Jul 2004

Golgo_13 said:
I just wonder if the U.S. would have dropped the A-bomb on Germany had the U.S. had it ready before Germany had surrendered.

No Way !

I think, the bomb's original purpose was to be dropped on Nazi-Germany. Only the Nazis were finished before the bomb was.

noyhauser · 11 Jul 2004

Ever hear of Dresden?

Golgo_13 · 13 Jul 2004

noyhauser said:
Ever hear of Dresden?

It was carpet bombed. So?

Look at some photos of Tokyo circa Sept. 1945. Doesn't look much different.

An atom bomb dropped on Dresden (or Hamburg or Frankfurt) would have done much more damage in a split second. I doubt the U.S. would've done it.

bossel · 13 Jul 2004

Golgo_13 said:
It was carpet-bombed. So?

Look at some photos of Tokyo circa Sept. 1945. Doesn't look much different.

An atom bomb dropped on Dresden (or Hamburg or Frankfurt) would have done much more damage in a split second. I doubt the U.S. would've done it.

The number of (direct) deaths of the Dresden bombing is comparable to Nagasaki. In Tokyo & Hiroshima twice as many people died.
Can't really see your point, are you saying Germany has been treated "better" than Japan in WWII?

The A-bomb's original purpose was to be dropped on Germany, partly because the US feared that the Nazis were developing their own bomb (another example of the US over-estimating threats):

http://www.theenolagay.com/study.html
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/info/atom1.html

Golgo_13 · 13 Jul 2004

bossel said:
The number of (direct) deaths of the Dresden bombing is comparable to Nagasaki. In Tokyo & Hiroshima twice as many people died.
Can't really see your point, are you saying Germany has been treated "better" than Japan in WWII?

Dresden is comparable to Nagasaki? I don't see your point.
Did people in Dresden suffer the after-effects of the radiation fallout?

There were many other cities in Japan that were bombed.
Many kids from larger cities were re-located to the countryside for protection. My father was taken from Osaka to Aomori.

My point is, the U.S. had less qualms about dropping the A-bomb on Japan to kill 200,000 - 300,000 yellow race of people insatantly than on Germany simply because many more Americans are of German descent than Japanese (who were locked up in concentration camps).

bossel · 13 Jul 2004

Golgo_13 said:
Dresden is comparable to Nagasaki? I don't see your point.
Did people in Dresden suffer the after-effects of the radiation fallout?

Obviously, you didn't really read what I wrote: "The number of (direct) deaths of the Dresden bombing is comparable to Nagasaki." Or is this so unclear? The lowest estimate for the number of victims in Dresden is 35,000. These are the identified victims only, though. Probably up to 250,000 people died there. There are estimates of up to 600,000, but this is not very credible for those numbers are usually put forward by right-wingers.

A-bombs on Japan:
http://www.ww2guide.com/atombomb.shtml

There were many other cities in Japan that were bombed.
Many kids from larger cities were re-located to the countryside for protection.

Just like in Germany.

My point is, the U.S. had fewer qualms about dropping the A-bomb on Japan to kill 200,000 - 300,000 yellow race of people instantly than on Germany simply because many more Americans are of German descent than Japanese (who were locked up in concentration camps).

Fewer qualms maybe. But they would have bombed German cities anyway. BTW, there were also US Americans of German descent in internment camps, although the number is far lower than that of people from Japanese descent.

Bandit · 14 Jul 2004

I have heard a lot of different points of view about this. I have heard that if the US did not drop the bombs, it would have led to a full-scale invasion on Japan itself, and if that had happened estimated deaths probably could have been millions if not close to a billion if u take into account the US soldiers that would have died, the Japanese soldiers that would have died, the Japanese citizens, and maybe even Russian soldiers since they entered the pacific war a couple of months before it ended.

I have also heard that the US should have waited to drop them to see if there could have been some legal/government settlement to end the war.
It is a very controversial topic seeing how there are so many different points of views, and it is something that might never be solved because of all of that different point of views.

zeroyon · 6 Nov 2004

As for who was forcing who to start WWII, I believe that it was the harsh conditions of the treaty of versailles that lead to germany's ambitious needs... I won't go into why i think japan wanted to enter the war and sided with the axis.. (its kinda obvious, look at japan from a geographic standpoint and you will know what I mean)..

As for dropping the A-bombs, I don't think it was necessary.

However, I DO think that it was a much better alternative than invading japan. Most likey in the end, much of japan's cities would have lied in ruin, there would be millions of casulaties on both sides (especially tons of civilan casualties), and much of japans culture and hearatige that is still there today would have been wiped out. But also, I think that the USA could have dropped the A-bombs, most notably little boy (the one dropped on hiroshima) in a less densley populated area. It would have got the same message acrosss, and wouldnt have killed so many people.

I think the USA had another resason for dropping the A-bombs as well, as the USA realised the upcoming problems they were going to have to face with the Soviet Union's communist ways after the war, and they needed a way to show off to the Soviet Union the destructive power of their new weapon, and unfortunatley Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two unlucky hosts...

Also, does anyone know what the Roentgen count at ground zero in hiroshima is? like... does it still have a high radiation count (at least compared to places where neuclear explosions didnt occur)?

Also... if you want to visit an interesting website... go to http://www.kiddofspeed.com/ , its a site with pictures taken from a girl who constantly goes inside the "Dead Zone" near chernobyl, and has some pretty crazy picutres (especially the Ghost town near the reactor)... if you want the direct link with picures of the ghost town (and skip all of the stuff outside of the town before), the go to http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter11.html

VISIT THAT SITE. It will totally open up your eyes to the devastating consequences of nuclear radiation (no it doesnt have any pictures of dead bodies, or anything greusome, so you dont need to be worried. Some of the pictures are kinda scary though (of the ghost town )

snow san · 7 May 2005

War crime? Maybe, who is to judge? the Japanese? Americans? the French?... hope not they think dressing wrong for battle is a war crime...
didnt this happen over a half century ago? as for
(brooker): Maybe targeting civilians was wrong but you cannot justify Japanese slaughtering all over asia and the pacific theater before WWII either... Oh wait a minute thats not in the Japanese history books so it must not have happend...people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones...
and to
(Rhaven): the Japanese Army did employ tactics such as bayonetting civilians to save ammunition and then marching civillians 90 giving them little to no water... but lessons have been learned on both sides and if we had to do it all over again, I don not think that the use of nuclear weapons would be an option.

I think its funny how people like to stir the pot...talk till your blue in the face about wrong or right; you cant change what happened. No one will appologize because right or wrong is relative to what side you were on at the time. It was war, can you not just suffice it to say wrong was done by both parties, shake hands and dont let it happen again....(oh yeah) pretty please

sabro · 8 May 2005

General Curtis Lemay even said that if we had lost the war, he should be charged as a war criminal. He said this in response to the firebombing of Tokyo.

I read back through the last few posts, and I think we make a huge error when we try judge history out of context. I don't think think there is a relative right and wrong here, and I don't think equivalent wrong was done by both parties. I don't think the US should apologize, and I do think we would use nuclear weapons again given the same set of circumstances. I can't apply my twenty first set of values to decisions made 60 years ago- unless I consider all the facts, the background, the situation- as the people knew it back then.

From Pearl Harbor, to Bataan, to Wake Island- America formed a perception and an opinion largely based on racism, about the Japanese and what should happen to them. What the US military and the public saw in thousands of battles on dozens of islands told them that Japan would never surrender. That they would fight on with savage persistence beyond what would seem rational to the western mind. They saw fierocity and brutality beyond imagination. On Saipan, they saw women and children jump off of cliffs. On Okinawa, they saw waves of suicide pilots crash into ships and near naked men rush crude explosives up to tanks. Four years of the most savage brutal kind of combat had desensitised them into believe that whatever they could do to end a war they did not start would be justifiable. They began to reduce the country to ashes. They designed weapons to kill civillians, to burn their houses- and night after night the set out to burn every last Japanese city. They only slowed down when the supply of napalm ran low. They planned an invasion that would regard every man, woman, and child as an enemy combatant. It would take eight years and cost millions of lives. When Truman discovered he had a bomb that could end all of this he jumped at the opportunity and never lost a single night of sleep.

War is nasty, ugly and inhumane-- it is all hell, simple murder on a mass scale. Without apology from the people who did not choose to start the war, did not chose the brutal conduct of the war, but did chose to end it- we can still hope it never happens again.

bossel · 9 May 2005

sabro said:
Four years of the most savage brutal kind of combat had desensitised them into believe that whatever they could do to end a war they did not start would be justifiable. They began to reduce the country to ashes. They designed weapons to kill civillians, to burn their houses- and night after night the set out to burn every last Japanese city.

Sorry, but that's not quite correct, I think. They didn't need 4 years to come to the conclusion that bombing the civilian population was an option. Right from the start of the bombing campaigns civilian population centres were targeted. I know that in Europe cities were targeted at least from 1941 onwards. In 1942 the British cabinet officially approved carpet bombing of civilians.

"Bomber" Harris, appointed in Feb 1942 as Marshal of the Royal Air Force, had an even longer history of targeting civilians, IIRC. He had used mines & nerve gas while fighting anti-colonial insurgencies.

Even under the circumstances of WWII, even under the impression of fierce Japanese resistance, targeting civilians was illegal & the Allies knew what they were doing.

snow san · 9 May 2005

bossel said:
Sorry, but that's not quite correct, I think. They didn't need 4 years to come to the conclusion that bombing the civilian population was an option. Right from the start of the bombing campaigns civilian population centres were targeted. I know that in Europe cities were targeted at least from 1941 onwards. In 1942 the British cabinet officially approved carpet bombing of civilians.

"Bomber" Harris, appointed in Feb 1942 as Marshal of the Royal Air Force, had an even longer history of targeting civilians, IIRC. He had used mines & nerve gas while fighting anti-colonial insurgencies.

Even under the circumstances of WWII, even under the impression of fierce Japanese resistance, targeting civilians was illegal & the Allies knew what they were doing.

everybody wants to bring up the bombing of civilians, maybe its be cause the magatude of bombing warrants higher visibility on the international scale.

the only real differnance,I see, is ons side chose to kill many civilians at one time using an a-bomb
and the other side chose to kill many civilians over a long period of time using more conventional weapons

sabro · 11 May 2005

Bossel- you are quite right. My point wasn't that it took four years to bomb civillians, but that after bombing and roasting civillians for four years that the Atomic bomb was not much different. I don't think they considered it morally objectionable at that moment. My overall point is that we should not try to judge them by our standards without considering the context of the decision.

Snow-san- There were other conventional bombing raids (such as Dresden and Tokyo) that killed more in one night than the bombing of Hiroshima.

Tim33 · 11 May 2005

Well as the American president back then said:
Any country to drop bombs on innocent civilians is clearly uncivilized barbarians.

Not exact speech, sadly i could not find it on the net and im not re-reading my history books.

So Whether the Americans were right to do it or not they are still hypocrits.

sabro · 11 May 2005

Guernica and Nanjing showed 'em how to do it.

sabro · 11 May 2005

September 1, 1939- Germany invades Poland. Stuka divebombers take to the air and bomb terrified civillians. Franklin Delano Roosevelt responds: "The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population...has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.... ﾃ I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every Government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations."

In 1941: Churchill responds that "...the intentional aerial bombing of civillians...is the worse form of inhuman barbarism."

When Britain swiched to bombing cities at night, "Bomber" Harris said of the Germans: "They have sown the wind, and now they will reap the whirlwind."

Ikyoto · 11 May 2005

The statement earlier in this thread that the US was out to reduce every Japanese city to ashes is an outright lie. Missions to bomb Kyoto were curtailed or redirected or done in daylight to prevent the destruction of it's historical treasures.

sabro · 11 May 2005

Kyoto was also a secondary target for the Nagasaki bomb.

bossel · 11 May 2005

sabro said:
after bombing and roasting civillians for four years that the Atomic bomb was not much different.

True. (except for the long-term consequences, but it's debatable if those were entirely clear for the decision makers at the time)

My overall point is that we should not try to judge them by our standards without considering the context of the decision.

Also true. But even measured at the standards of the time, it was a war crime. Whether the other side committed war crimes (& the degree thereof) as well doesn't really matter, IMO.

In the case of Harris we can also see that he had a history of targeting civilians long before the Nazis started the war.

Ikyoto said:
The statement earlier in this thread that the US was out to reduce every Japanese city to ashes is an outright lie. Missions to bomb Kyoto were curtailed or redirected or done in daylight to prevent the destruction of it's historical treasures.

Sabro said that "They began to reduce the country to ashes." I think this is a legitimate metaphor. Of course they were not out to burn every single square meter of Japan.

Re Kyoto I have to say that IMO it's not really a positive point for them when they did not bomb historical treasures but apartment blocks.

Ikyoto · 11 May 2005

I stand corrected on the statement about the ashes.

Kyoto was so debated by the small group of people that one of the books I read in my asian history class had a line in it - I don't remember which of the gnerals said it, but it was along the lines of "bombing Kyoto would be like bombing the greatest museums in Europe. Even the Nazis at least stole the art before they destgroyed museums!"

snow san · 11 May 2005

so according to timm33, all Americans are hypocrites?

Tim33 said:
Well, as the American president back then said:
Any country to drop bombs on innocent civilians is clearly uncivilized barbarians.

Not exact speech, sadly I could not find it on the net, and I'm not re-reading my history books.

So Whether the Americans were right to do it or not, they are still hypocrites.

that is a loose very derogatory accusation... its so offensive and absurd it doesn't even warrant rebuttal

Tim33 · 11 May 2005

hypocrisy

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

That is what happened and therefore the statement was true.
When stating Americans i did not mean all Americans or Americans at this particular time i was refering to What was said and done during WW2. And the statement in those terms is a true one.

I meant no offence in it. I am quite willing to say that the British were at the time also.

I will apologize however as i dont think that i really phrased what i said to carefully.

sabro · 13 May 2005

Bombing Kyoto would be alot like bombing Dresden- it was another of those untouched museum-like cities with almost no war industry.

I am not offended by the hypocisy comment at all. I totally agree. War is immoral. We should avoid it whenever possible. It has always exacted a high price from the innocent, from childern, the elderly, the civillian... It is the excuse for doing the inexcusable, for making deals with the devil for no small gain, for comprimising every ethical and moral value a person and a society has. We pretend to have rules about who and how and when to kill, and what we should do to those who are wounded or captured...To wage war you must embrace immorality- the killing of others, the destruction of lives and property, the hate and dehumanization of your fellow man- the consequences, the "collateral damage"- and the first casualty of war, it is said, is truth.

I cannot see how, in the context of WWII, Truman would have been remotely capable of making another choice. The rules that moral, reasonable society generally follows- had long lost any relevant meaning. To focus only on the ends- the end of the war, stopping the killing- justified any means they felt necessary. It is at this point- where any means is justified that we all become hypocrites.

Sabro

tarattara · 14 May 2005

Golgo_13 said:
An atom bomb dropped on Dresden (or Hamburg or Frankfurt) would have done much more damage in a split second. I doubt the U.S. would've done it.

It's a well-known fact that "Truman" insisted on dropping the A-bombs on Japan but the front-line military officers were against it, including Admiral Nimitz and General Eisenhower. Eisenhower confessed to Newsweek in 1963.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hiro/silencing.html

http://www.aer.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=244&Itemid=46

Japan was already in ashes, and she was ready to surrender, and the allies knew that well. The A-bombs HAD to be dropped, for experimental reasons and also to scare Russia off but it couldn't be dropped over Germany which is in the heart of Europe. Truman Doctrine was the use of military power to
contain communism. The development of the A-bombs began before WWII, and the number of people engaged at the Manhattan project peak went over 125,000. It cost the US citizens billions of dollars, and the US government had a political need to use it. The A-bombs were ready by the time of Dresden's firebombings but never to be used over Nazis Europe, of course.

Most of the uranium used in the A-bombs came from Belgium Congo.
http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/archive/200408/04/20040804p2a00m0fp011001c.html

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

先輩

後輩

先輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

後輩

後輩

後輩

後輩

後輩

後輩

後輩

後輩

先輩

後輩

後輩

JSPS

後輩

後輩

JSPS

後輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

Similar threads