Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Sukotto · 11 Aug 2006

Han Chan said:
Originally Posted by Dutch Baka
Please do not forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I agree!
QUOTE]

Also,
From the US gov't on the surface there appears to be concern about the spread of nuclear weapons. But the US gov't has or threatened to get out of anti-nuke treaties (it's hard to keep track sometimes) and even mentions it will attempt to build so-called "usable" nukes; "bunker busters".

A test near Las Vegas will be the Pentagon's "divine strake". A "regular" bomb test that many figure will be used to calculate how much power will be needed to bust a bunker. Then convert it to a 'small' amount of nuclear power.

Given that the US was the only one's to ever use the bomb.
US is the only one to ever cross that thresh hold that many US military
leaders at the time thought was some what disgusting.
Who would most likely be the ones to use it next?

Ewok85 · 11 Aug 2006

Sukotto said:
A "regular" bomb test

Conventional is the word you are looking for.

Read -

What would the world be like if Japan didn't lose the war

Has anyone ever wondered what the world would be like if Japan wasn't one of the losers or World War II? Would the nature of Japanese people be less passive? Would some of the customs of western countries be considered weird? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Creative ones are especially welcome.

jref.com

Also -

Accounts of Enola Gay Crew

I'm with Mike on this - yes, it was a horrible thing to do, but was it right? Compared to the alternative - a large scale land invasion - yes, it was right. If I was able to go back in time and decide whether or not it should happen, I would say yes. Theres alot people don't know or...

jref.com

GodEmperorLeto · 13 Aug 2006

sabro said:
No, they (US Military) did not use biological weapons in the Korean War or any other war.

On a technical basis, that's wrong. We learned from the English and Spanish to give smallpox infected blankets to Native American tribes during our wars with them.

But that's me just nitpicking. On all other counts, I agree with your statements.

nurizeko said:
based on the fact that two cities and the life of it were wiped out so coldly without mercy pretty much does all the explaining for me, the Atomic bombs were war crimes, it is no different from taking a whole city of civilians and shooting them in the head, every last one of them, and destroying their city.

Many people like to agree with you, both within the United States and outside of it. My question is, have you ever been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There aren't even craters there. There's no residual radiation, the cities are alive and kicking. More people died in the Tokyo firebombing than from the dropping of both bombs.

The American experience of capturing Okinawa convinced many of the top brass that Japan would not surrender without forcing the United States into a war of genocidal proportions. They were arming their own people with bamboo spears and telling them the Americans would rape and murder them.

People are rapid to judge the United States' actions, saying the bomb-droppings were cavalier and scared the Soviets. The fact remains that we demanded the same terms as we demanded of Nazi Germany: unconditional surrender, and the Japanese refused. One of the ways to win a war is to deprive the enemy of their will to fight. If fewer lives were to be lost dropping two atomic bombs than in a full-scale invasion or continued firebombings than perhaps it wasn't the heinous war-crime many people depict it to be.

Honestly, I don't care if the Japanese forgive us or not. It was a war without mercy on both sides. I do not believe I, or anyone else on earth, has the right to level moral judgement upon the leaders of Japan or the United States regarding their behaviour towards one another, especially since almost none of us were alive back then. I feel that such atrocities as the Bataan Death March are none of my business to forgive, it didn't happen to me, and few alive in Japan today are responsible for it. I feel the same way about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Finally, no one seems to consider that the United States may have learned a horrible lesson about the power of the bomb. One of the men on the Enola Gay said, "My God, my God, my God!" in horror when he saw the destruction one single bomb did. That bomb was tiny and ineffective compared to today's tactical nuclear weapons or even an atomic bomb from the mid-50s. Truman, the man who dropped the bombs on Japan, refused to use them against the Soviets and the Chinese during the Korean War. Nobody ever considers the fact that the United States never made another nuclear attack on another country ever again.

I used to be very much against the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, the more I learned about the conduct of the war, the more I learned about the death tolls on Okinawa and the absolute terror of European veterans regarding the Pacific and the Pacific War's extreme brutality compared to the German front I realized I was mistaken. The use of atomic bombs was horrible. It was a weapon that was used against civilians. It was not a precision-guided munition, and it killed anyone within it's effect-radius indiscriminately (either in that moment, or weeks later from radiation). But I no longer disagree with the decision to use it. Especially since, after I learned how close the Germans and Japanese were to develop their own, I knew those countries wouldn't have hesitated to use them against us.

leonmarino · 13 Aug 2006

The bombs should never have been used. I am in Nagasaki right now, and I was to Hiroshima last year. I visited both peace parks and A-bomb musea. I saw the horrible pictures of dead bodies, burnt corpses or even worse, children carrying their dead siblings searching for other relatives. I can't imagine someone seeing those pictures and still think the bomb was a good idea.

In my opinion, there is a difference between a war between soldiers and the indiscriminate killing of people in a certain area. The latter is a war crime, and thus is the droppings of the A-bombs a war crime to me.

Anyway, although some of us will agree on the legitimacy of the dropping of the bombs, I hope all of us living today agree that this kind of bombs should never be used again.

GodEmperorLeto · 13 Aug 2006

leonmarino said:
In my opinion, there is a difference between a war between soldiers and the indiscriminate killing of people in a certain area. The latter is a war crime, and thus is the droppings of the A-bombs a war crime to me.

It wasn't indiscriminate. Those sites were selected after reviewing other possible target zones.

Since many of you are so quick to judge, I'd like to ask this: what would you have done? Would you have advocated a full-scale invasion of Japan, and watched as a quarter-million American soldiers and one million Japanese civilians died in Operation Olympic alone? Would you like to pick up an M-1 Garande and stand in the front line shooting at Japanese civilians charging you with bamboo spears? Would you like to watch as your comrades torch those charging civilians with a flamethrower, or see artillery shells hit apartment complexes and residential areas that refuse to surrender? It would help if you looked up photographs of Japanese civilians throwing themselves off of cliffs because they were told that the Americans intended to butcher the men, rape the women, and enslave the children. Because that was the mentality, we were going to go up against--death before surrender.
Japan was not like Europe. The German civilians did not resist the American and British soldiers marching into their cities and towns. They may not have liked the invaders, but they didn't resist them. Japan was an entirely different situation.

Perhaps your attitude towards the lives lost in combat is so cavalier because those lives were, after all, American.

"That operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire but also by a fanatically hostile population."

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in defence of Japan. --Wikipedia, "Operation Downfall"

"Now, some historians have stated incredulously that Marshall's estimate of up to one million casualties for the invasion of Japan significantly exceeded those sustained in Europe. But while the naval side of the Pacific War displayed the broad, sweeping moves so loved by historians, land combat in the Pacific had little in common with the manoeuvre warfare that went a long way toward keeping casualties comparatively low in France and the central German Plain."

"On 29 July 1945, there came a stunning change to an earlier report on enemy strength on Kyushu. This update set alarm bells ringing in MacArthur's headquarters and Washington because it stated bluntly that the Japanese were rapidly reinforcing southern Kyushu and had increased troop strength from 80,000 to 206,000 men, quote: 'with no end in sight.' Finally, it warned that Japanese efforts were, quote: 'changing the tactical and strategic situation sharply.'"

"On October 9, 1945, a similar typhoon packing 140-mile per hour winds struck the American staging area on Okinawa that would have been expanded to capacity by that time if the war had not ended in September, and was still crammed with aircraft and assault shipping- much of which was destroyed. US analysts at the scene matter-of-factly reported that the storm would have caused up to a 45-day delay in Kyushu's invasion. ... If there had been no atom bombs and Tokyo had attempted to hold out for an extended time- a possibility that even bombing and blockade advocates granted- the Japanese would have immediately appreciated the impact of the storm in the waters around Okinawa."

"As for the Imperial Army itself, it was in somewhat better shape than is commonly understood today. Moreover, the Japanese had figured us out. They had correctly deduced the landing beaches and even the approximate times of both invasion operations, and were thus presented with huge tactical and even strategic possibilities." --Transcript of "OPERATION DOWNFALL [US invasion of Japan]: US PLANS AND JAPANESE COUNTER-MEASURES" by D. M. Giangreco, US Army Command and General Staff College, 16 February 1998

So, I must ask you again, which do you advocate? And please do not tell me to accept a conditional surrender. None of our countries (including yours) accepted anything less than complete disarmament and unconditional surrender from Germany. We had no reason to treat Japan any differently.
Now, which would you choose?

Anyway, although some of us will agree on the legitimacy of the dropping of the bombs, I hope all of us living today agree that this kind of bombs should never be used again.

And hopefully, they never will be. But I imagine that a few certain nations, who have been backed into corners by their neighbours, and who have found themselves bereft of allies, would seriously consider the use of nuclear weapons to prolong their own survival.

For the record, I have seen many photographs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have spoken with a survivor of the Hiroshima bomb personally. And it is with a heavy heart that I believe that the bombing was necessary. I find no joy in the fact that civilians died. But I'm glad that millions of both Americans and Japanese survived because of the bombings.

Nevertheless, they were fighting an unjust war. And I doubt many Europeans would shed a tear if the United States found itself the victim of nuclear attacks for fighting unjust wars. Indeed, many of you would sit comfortably in your chairs at home, smirking with satisfaction because it "served us right".

caster51 · 13 Aug 2006

I think it is not a problem of forgiving or not forgiving.
there must not be Grudge there against someone.
Even if they hate United States as war crime, it does not become the resolution of a problem.
The wish for Japan is those abandonments.
Today many coutries have A-bomds.
maybe So dose terroists.
they dont have a moral and a nation......

It is regrettable many ppl are not good at a philosophical idea.

GodEmperorLeto · 13 Aug 2006

caster51 said:
I think it is not a problem of forgiving or not forgiving.
There must not be Grudge there against someone.
Even if they hate the United States as a war crime, it does not solve a problem.
The wish for Japan is those abandonments.
Today many countries have A-bonds.

Actually, I completely agree with you here. People need to put their grudges aside.

I'm not happy my country used the A-bomb. And I'm not happy that civilians died because of it. Hell, I'm not happy that World War II was fought at all!

The point is, rather than laying blame, or saying, "This country has done war crimes," or "that country has done war crimes", we need to accept the past for what it is, learn, and move on. People need to stop laying blame because laying blame begins to lead to victimization, and victimization does not encourage forward progress.

Let the past be the past. Learn lessons. Move on.

In fact, this thread, and the "Why Other Countries Hate Japan" thread serve no purpose except to upset people and foster feelings of victimization and injustice. Their very purposes are, in my opinion, not constructive.

Sukotto · 13 Aug 2006

historians (not just a few) disagree on the topic

a very substantial number (of historians) also disagree with this view. One of the most respected, Stanford University Professor Barton Bernstein, judges that all things considered it seems ﾂ"quite probable–indeed, far more likely than not–that Japan would have surrendered before Novemberﾂ" (when the first landing in Japan was scheduled.)

It is the belief of some that a change in the surrender conditions,
to allow Japan to retain the Emperor as well as the Soviet Union
entering the war would have ended the war within the
three months before the scheduled invasion.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060321030737/https://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm

besides Eisenhower having been against it,

The well-known "hawk," General Curtis LeMay, publically declared that the war would have been over in two weeks and that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with bringing about surrender.

President Truman's friend and Chief of Staff, five stars Admiral William D. Leahy was deeply angered: The "use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.

--

Nor is this a simple left-right debate. In recent years liberals have been critical of the decision. At the time The Nation magazine defended the bombing while many conservative publications criticized it–including Human Events and the National Review.

Click to expand...

inkink · 13 Aug 2006

I am not happy with any civilian killing, by traditional military or terrorism, including the A-bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I've seen the pictures of victims in the two cities, especially children, which puts things in the throat every time I remember them. In my mind civilians, especially children suffering, can never never be justified.

The sad reality is these days the TV tube is filled with similar pictures. I saw, just yesterday, pictures of children burnt to charcoal in the middle-east. Time like this fills one with frustration, outrage and (I hate to admit it) a sense of hopelessness.

I'm afraid I have to disagree, though talking about the painful past can only be negative. Many problems in today's world are exactly attributed to the lack of or ineffective communication: wide-spread anti-Americanism among Muslim countries is just one example. There are historical and practical reasons why the Muslim countries may perceive the UK, US and Israel as oppressors and sworn enemies. Still, the US has allowed the animosity to feed on itself and form a vicious cycle by not engaging the Arab countries with more grass-root level communication.

From my perspective, the mere fact that we are debating the history, re-examining the scars instead of trying to hide them, may very well be the beginning of reconciliation.

I understand that Americans, in general, want to be politically correct and positive. But a mere positive atmosphere per se does not help anyone learn the follies of the past. We need to put in a mechanism to fix the things that went berserk the last time around. Avoiding them doesn't help get them fixed.

Whether facing those problems and discussing them is constructive, destructive or pointless, depends on our motives for entering such discussions and wise enough to avoid the easy traps of allowing ourselves to hate. Regardless of our past views, in general, we all love life, people and peace, and ultimately we all want to be good people. I believe if we try harder to refrain from hate, and help others, including your opponents to do so as well, we will all be fine.

GodEmperorLeto said:
Actually, I completely agree with you here. People need to put their grudges aside.
I'm not happy my country used the A-bomb. And I'm not happy that civilians died because of it. Hell, I'm not happy that World War II was fought at all!
The point is, rather than laying blame, or saying, "This country has done war crimes," or "that country has done war crimes", we need to accept the past for what it is, learn, and move on. People need to stop blaming because lying blame begins to lead to victimization, and victimization does not encourage forward progress.
Let the past be the past. Learn lessons. Move on.
In fact, this thread, and the "Why Other Countries Hate Japan" thread serve no purpose except to upset people and foster feelings of victimization and injustice. Their very purposes are, in my opinion, not constructive.

Crazy Russian · 20 Aug 2006

I've found an article concerning Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I should like to emphasise the following excerpts from it:

'The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.'

'...others think that [by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki] he [Truman] was trying to intimidate Stalin or even prevent the USSR from invading and conquering Japan before the United States could.'

'The U.S. government has killed civilians for well over a century. During the Civil War, General William Tecumseh Sherman waged war on civilians in Atlanta. During the Philippine Insurrection at the turn of the 20th century, U.S. forces killed about 200,000 civilians. They even had the policy to shoot anyone more than 10 years old who dared to resist the Philippines' U.S. occupation. During World War II, the Allies ruthlessly firebombed Dresden and Tokyo and other cities in Germany and Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent non-combatants.'

'Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. government has continued to treat civilians and combatants as roughly indistinguishable. During the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon carpet-bombed Cambodia, killing hundreds of thousands of peasants. The first Bush and Clinton administrations devastated the lives of Iraqi civilians, bombing civilian infrastructure and imposing UN sanctions with the express policy goal of destroying civilian water treatment facilities and starving the Iraqi people into submission, in hopes to invite them to rise and overthrow Saddam.'

'On 60 Minutes in May 1996, Leslie Stahl asked Clinton's UN Ambassador, Madeline Albright, point-blank: "We have heard that a half million children have died [from the sanctions]. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And — and you know, is the price worth it?"
Albright replied, "I think this is a tough choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."

'Three years after Albright's frightening admission, Clinton went on to drop cluster bombs on Serbia, knowing full well that civilians would endure the most suffering. Regarding Gulf War II, the U.S. government has shown a complete apathy toward civilian deaths in Iraq, refusing even to keep and publicize an accurate body count.'

'Let the past be the past. Learn lessons. Move on.'

Unfortunately, the American politicians, to all appearances, have a different opinion. They've kept on killing innocent civilians. Nothing has changed.

I don't believe that killing civilians can be justified. Let only soldiers die in wars. It's their job.

The article:

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0408b.asp

Crazy Russian · 23 Aug 2006

Originally posted by GodEmperorLeto:

'I believe that the bombing was necessary.'

Bullsh!t.

I believe that it wasn't. Have you read the article? Its author also believes that the bombing was not necessary. Why do you think that you are better historian than he is? Why are you so biased? Why do you so blindly justify what your country's done? It is not 'okay' for a historian. For such a smart guy, you must understand it.

I'm sorry, but I think that you are bad historian. I don't trust you any more.

I've read your amusing commenting on the philosophy of Nietzsche. Could you comment on the article, pleezzz.

GodEmperorLeto · 23 Aug 2006

Crazy Russian said:
I believe that it wasn't.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Have you read the article? Its author also believes that the bombing was not necessary.

I hadn't read the article when I posted. And I hadn't replied to you, either.

Why do you think that you are a better historian than he is?

Because he's not a historian, he is a politician.

Why are you so biased?

You are so certain that because I disagree with you, I am biased? Perhaps that's a common trait in Russia? It would explain why anyone who disagreed with Stalin or Khruschev ended up shot or in a gulag.

Why do you so blindly justify what your country's done?

I'll ask you what you asked me. Do you think you are a better historian than D. M. Giangreco, who wrote the presentation I quoted? Did you even read the articles I posted? Or even skim the stuff I wrote?

Nope. Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks, such as "I think you are a bad historian." Honestly, I think you are incredibly biased. And you have admitted being as much against the United States in general.

Could you comment on the article, pleezzz.

Okay, I will. Anthony Gregory is obviously a politician, a bleeding-heart, and highly misinformed. Although I am a registered libertarian, I'm afraid I have to disagree with his article.

Look, Crazy Russian, I am honestly sick and tired of debating these topics. And I am weary of your curmudgeonous behaviour. You are incredibly young and misinformed, and what is worse, you enjoy being misinformed. You have failed to attack the information I posted. You have only voiced that you feel there was no reason to bomb anybody.

The facts, however, stand. The Japanese were not willing to surrender unconditionally. They were arming their civilians to fight against us. Civilians who refused to fight or commit suicide rather than face occupation would have been killed by Japanese soldiers.

Okinawa's anguish over the widespread civilian suicides has been sharpened by the deep belief here that soldiers from Japan's main islands encouraged Okinawan civilians to choose suicide. In a display at the Okinawa Prefectural Peace Memorial Museum, a spotlight highlights a glinting bayonet held by a fierce-looking Japanese soldier who stands over an Okinawan family huddled in a cave, the mother trying to smother her baby's cries.

"At the hands of Japanese soldiers, civilians were massacred, forced to kill themselves and each other," reads the caption. Nearby, a life-size photo shows the grisly aftermath of a family killed by a hand grenade.

According to captions, soldiers seeking refuge from the naval shelling forced civilians out of limestone caves and, during the fighting, out of the island's turtle-back shaped tombs. About two weeks into the battle, the Japanese military commander sought to suppress spying by banning the Okinawan dialect, a version of Japanese often unintelligible to nonresidents. Armed with this order, Japanese soldiers killed about 1,000 Okinawans, according to local historians.

Two mainstream Japanese history textbooks from the 1990s that talk of Japanese soldiers "coercing" civilians to kill themselves are on display. Now, Okinawans fear that this history will be dropped from the national consciousness.
--Japundit--The Battle of Okinawa

I can present an endless roll of facts. Facts you fail to attack.

You did not live back then. You didn't fight in the war. You've probably never spoken to a veteran of the Pacific War, either. You've never seen footage of Okinawa. And you refuse to learn the truth, instead preferring to listen to politically-charged spin.

You obviously don't know how Russian soldiers massacred and raped German civilians and pillaged German towns they occupied on their way to Berlin. There's a reason the German civilians were happy to see American and British soldiers march through their towns. It was because that meant Soviet ones wouldn't be.

I'm tired of arguing these points with you. We all know you hate the United States. You've shown yourself to be little more than an America-bashing curmudgeon with little other interest in Japan except for how much you can use it to fuel your arguments against the United States. It is doubly-insulting because you are using the pain and suffering of hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese soldiers and civilians in a bloody and hideous war for your own agenda on this thread. Enough already. Just shut up and take it someplace else.

Davey · 23 Aug 2006

Keep it nice you guys! let everyone have their opinion, with respect.

Kinsao · 23 Aug 2006

Forgive me for butting in here without reading the whole of the arguments but I think that the killing of the civilians in a time of war is wrong, no matter whether that is in firebombings, massacre, A-bomb or any other way. I also think that the brutal and inhumane treatment of prisoners-of-war is wrong. In my view, there is no way you could say it was right to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ☝

You can argue until the cows come home about what might have happened if they had not been dropped, the possible consequences, and it won't change my view on the matter. However, it is possible to say that there could exist some mitigating circumstance, that 'the US' as a whole isn't under a 'blame' for the actions (I don't know how to put it very well ><). I guess what I'm trying to say is that all war crimes and brutalities against people are instrinsically wrong, circumstances don't make them become ok, neither do intentions, because you have the big chain of events: 'if such-and-such country hadn't done this, then we wouldn't have had the need to do this, and therefore...' - the chain can go on right to the beginning of conflict, and other people's actions are always the 'justification', that by acting in your way, you can save more lives from being lost... therefore something becomes a 'better' option because fewer lives are lost...? Ethically it's difficult, because it's always a preferable that fewer lives are lost rather than more, but it doesn't make any of the options right... to be simplistic, if I go into a school with a gun, it is 'better' if I just shoot the teacher than if I gun down a classful of kids, but that doesn't make it a 'good thing' that I shoot the teacher...?

P.S. I knew someone who was a prisoner of war in Japan and who suffered terribly at their hands, including some health problems enduring for the whole of his life; I am aware of some of the things that went on and the terrible things done on the Japanese side as well, so I am not trying to paint a picture of 'good' or 'bad' sides. There is a saying "two wrongs don't make a right"; it's a simple saying that we say to children, but there is truth in it.

Crazy Russian · 23 Aug 2006

"Mais que diable allait il faire dans cette galere?"

Okay. It's my last post on the thread.

Thanks for your post. I have always said that any reply (including gruff, stinging and rude ones) is much better and politer than keeping silence. All I wanted was your commenting the article.

'Okay, I will. Anthony Gregory is obviously a politician, a bleeding-heart, and highly misinformed. Although I am a registered libertarian, I completely disagree with his article.'

It is not what I wanted. Of course, I respect your opinion. But I'll rather believe Mr Anthony Gregory. And I will necessarily read the transactions by Mr D. M. Giangreco.

'You have only voiced that you feel there was no reason to bomb anybody.'

Actually, I follow only philosophical considerations.

'You obviously don't know about how Russian soldiers massacred and raped German civilians and pillaged German towns they occupied on their way to Berlin.'

You obviously don't know that German soldiers HAD done much worse things with innocent Russian women and children. Though I hate revenge.

'We all know you hate the United States.'

I am tired of arguing about my liking the Americans. Probably, it is much better and easier for you to think that I hate both the USA and the Americans. Okay, it's your right. You live in the free country, don't you?

In fact, I like the Americans and many things about America.

I love Ken Kesey, J. D. Salinger, Ernest Hemingway, Jack London, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., several books by Stephen King and so on...

I love American comedies, e.g., 'Roman Holiday', all films feat. Jim Carrey, 'Back to the future 1,2,3', 'Jackass', 'Home alone 1,2', films by Quentin Tarantino (except for 'Kill Bill') and so on...

I love American music: Jimi Hendrix, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Louis Armstrong, Glenn Miller, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Metallica, folk music and so on...

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

I dislike ONLY American politicians and MacDonald's.

'You've shown yourself to be little more than an America-bashing curmudgeon with little other interest in Japan...'

Actually, my sole purpose of visiting the forum for the first time was congratulating the Japanese on Japanese figure skater's winning the golden medal. And I was not going to post more than 1 message.

However, I did. But not because I hate America.

Misinformed? About the role of the USA in history? I'm not sure. But it doesn't matter.

Okay. Let's shut up together...

And good luck.

yamada · 23 Aug 2006

U-boat to Japan was captured by U.S. warship before starting Japan vs. U.S. war. Inside of it, there was a material for a nuclear fuel which was also available for a-bomb.

kamaru · 22 Oct 2006

GodEmperorLeto said:
Let the past be the past. Learn lessons. Move on.

I guess you're ready then to forgive those who killed 3000 people on 9-11..no hard feelings ,no grudges...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's just stupid to say that the killing of innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the solution to end the war...
I find it weird how those who spread the philosophy of war and make use of power to solve issues can also talk about human rights and the respect of life ...
War is not the answer.. killing civilians , children for a guilt they never committed is just wrong ..My opinion might seem too ideal but how complicated is the idea of "live and let live" ? How hard is converting the use of these billions of dollars invested in producing weapons , into helping the poor ?!
If the belief of "the most powerful is always right" continues then I must say that I picture the world sinking in a darkness where the bullet is more powerful then a child's tear:67: ...

sabro · 22 Oct 2006

I doubt that the Germans produce enough fissionable material to light a light bulb, much less build a bomb. They did try to ship rocket and jet engine technology to Japan late in the war.

Japan had already built three underwater carriers that could have been used to bomb the Panama Canal and the West Coast, but the war was already lost and it would have been a one way trip.

In a perfect world, there would be no bombs or guns and no wars...

But in 1945, the United States was engaged in the bloodiest conflict in history and facing years of bloody engagement in which the objective was to kill as many of the enemy as possible. And although the enemy was nearly defeated they had shown themselves to be formidable and ruthless. They had brought the US into the war with an unprovoked attack and had expanded their influence for over a decade taking lives both military and civillian, and property throughout Asia. As their new empire collapsed they tenaciously defended themselves using tactics never before seen. The taking of Japan would be a bloody, protracted continuation of this conflict. In that context, the bomb probably seemed like a very good idea.

Sukotto · 23 Oct 2006

kamaru said:
How hard is converting the use of these billions of dollars invested in producing weapons, into helping the poor ?!

Here's a documentary, streaming online titled "Why We Fight."

Military Industrial Complex

Why We Fight

www.informationclearinghouse.info

Basically, it is about the military-industrial-congressional-complex.
Huge arms contractors have factories in all 50 states so the congress
persons will vote to keep jobs in their district.

~no war, ever again~

kellymich · 23 Oct 2006

JimBeam said:
I think that asking who started the war is a moot point as from my understanding the war was probably unavoidable. You have to hungry nations extending the reach of their wealth and influence throughout the Pacific at some point these two would have had to come into conflict. I don't think either side would have yeilded to the other. There were many historical forces behind the dynamics off WWII, it makes my head spin trying to fit together all the diffrent angles.
As far as dropping the bombs. I do beleive that the US's 1,000,000 man bit did play a part in the decision, I know that it was much more than that. Dropping the bombs was a powerfull symbol of the US's emergance as a superpower. Also, as much as it was ment to show the US's power to our enemies I think it served an even more powerful role as declearation to our allies that we were incharge, that the US had become a shot caller, that Brittian and everyone else should know there place under the US.
Those are my thoughts the matter anyway whether it was justified or a war crime I don't know, but what I do know is that it is never right for a person to lose thier life.

I think the majority of credible historians, both western and eastern agree that Japan's Imperial ambitions were the main cause of the war. The militarists in japan at that time were trying to forge a greater Japanese empire which would span much of asia.

The Japanese military began an aggressive push (conquest) into China and Manchuria. The United States and Britian told them they must stop the military aggression or they would put an embargo on Japan's oil supplies -- which they did. Then the Japanese attacked at Pearl Harbor, killing 2,403 americans, and seriously damaging the American Pacific Fleet. The aggression in China and Manchuria, and the attack at pearl harbor, is pretty clear cut.

The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did put an end to the war. But some people feel that the Americans did not give the Japanese sufficient warnings of the power of the bomb so that the Japanese could have the opportunity to surrender without the devastation of the bomb. During the potsdam conference however shortly before the dropping of the bomb, Roosevelt made it clear to Japan that they must surrender or face ﾂ"total destructionﾂ". This had absolutely no effect on the Japanese militarists who were in power.

Some people have suggested that the bomb should have been dropped in an area where its power could have been displayed to the Japanese – They have suggested that America did not try hard enough to not drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There may be some truth to this.

However, the fierce fighting on Okinawa, the Kamikaze attacks which destroyed around 400 american ships in a last ditch effort by the Japanese to stop the Americans from advancing toward Japan, showed that the Japanese militarists at that time were not inclined to surrender or give up easily at all. A land invasion of Japan, like the invasion on Okinawa, would have been extremely bloody, it would have cost millions of lives - both American and Japanese.

Nevertheless, I do wish that America had given a demonstration of the atomic bombs power to the Japanese and given the Japanese a chance to surrender. The pain, suffering and brutality that the war caused to millions of people on all sides of the conflict was a terrible thing. But to those who did not live through this very bloody War and want to condemn America I would say – the world was engaged in a titanic struggle at that time in history and America did display a generosity toward the countries it vanquished which japan and germany in that time in history would not have displayed toward America and other nations had they won the war. The war was about whether nazi germany, facist italy and imperial japan would create vast empires by carving up other countries. America decided, it was something worth fighting against and around 310,000 to 400,000 of America's best young men lost their lives in this conflict and around 670,000 were wounded.

To put things in perspective below is a causality list of world war 2. Taken from "world war 2 for dummies".

The Soviet Union lost the most with 25 million deaths, but only about a third were combat related.

China's death toll is incomplete but estimates are between 15 and 22 million.

Poland had 6 million deaths including 3 million Jews, roughly 20% of its prewar population.

Germany lost 4 million soldiers and 2 million civilians, many of them women.

Japan had 1.2 million battle deaths and another 1.4 million soldiers listed as missing, almost 1 million civilians were killed in the bombing raids between 1944 and 1945.

Over 1.7 million Yugoslavs and 500,000 Greeks died in the war.

France lost 200,000 soldiers and 400,000 civilians.

Italy lost 330,000 people.

Hungary lost 147,000 men in combat.

Bulgaria lost 19,000 in combat.

Romania lost 73,000 in combat.

Great Britain lost 264,000 soldiers and 60,000 civilians in bombing raids.

The United States lost 310,000 soldiers.

The Dutch lost 10,000 soldiers and 190,000 civilians.

Australia lost 23,000 men in combat.

Canada lost 37,000 soldiers.

India lost 24,000 men in battle.

New Zealand lost 10,000.

South Africa lost 6,000.

These totals do not include the 6 million Jews who perished in the Final Solution of Nazi Germany or the 17 million dead as a result of Japan's policies in Asia from 1931 to 1945.

Sukotto · 23 Oct 2006

kellymich said:
To put things in perspective below is a causality list of world war 2. Taken from "world war 2 for dummies".

"world war 2 for dummies" is maybe leaving some countries off the list?
for ex:

In the Second World War, Australian forces used East Timor as a shield against the Japanese advance. As many as 80,000 Timorese died fighting alongside Australian soldiers in a war that was not theirs.

kellymich · 23 Oct 2006

Sukotto said:
"world war 2 for dummies" is maybe leaving some countries off the list?
for ex:
In the Second World War, Australian forces used East Timor as a shield against the Japanese advance. As many as died fighting alongside Australian soldiers in a war that was not theirs.

That's interesting, thank you for that.

Yes, what can one expect from world war II for dummies.

If you look at a map of imperial japan at the height of its power no people and no country in the pacific was safe from Imperial Japanese domination. They were gobbling up nations and peoples right and left. And Imperial Japan was considering expanding all the way to austrialia.

I would humbly suggest that the war may have been as much East Timors war as Austrialia's war.

The only alternative for Australia and the United states would have been to not engaged Japan in a war and allow the Japanese Miltarists their empire.

As an aside, I hope people don't take my posts as anti Japanese. I love the Japanese people and culture. But the facts of world war II are the facts of World War II. Certainly, I don't have all the facts and all the information and the western powers are not saints. Still, in world war II, I don't see any good alternatives for America, Australlia, China, and many other peoples than to go to war and attempt to stop the Japanese Militarists who were carving up asia.

A japanese pacific empire might have been an interesting thing, perhaps even better than what exists now. The japanese are a very creative people. But I doubt there would have been much room for the chinese, the koreans, the manchurians, the timorese or the austrialians.

kellymich · 24 Oct 2006

Sukotto said:
Here's documentary, streaming online titled "Why We Fight"
basically it is about the military-industrial-congressional-complex.
Huge arms contractors have factories in all 50 states so the congress
persons will vote to keep jobs in their district.
~no war, ever again~

Yeah, Gore Vidal, one of the authors of this book ﾂ… I like Gore on a lot of things, he was a friend of Tennesse Williams, but I think many of his political views are hopelessly bad and naive.

His fiction writing is pretty mediocre too.

Gore's problem, in my opinion, is that he has no sense of measure in many of the political ideas he has.

I am no traditional american conservative by any means, but many people on the more liberal (if you can still call them that) side of the political spectrum have gone somewhat batty over the last 30 to 40 years. I think Gore Vidal's political views are a perfect example of this.

For a time I took seriously ideas such as his but I am disillusioned by the gore vidals, the noam chomskys, the susan sontags, the NPR and PBS parade of depressives, troubled intellectuals, neo socialists, rabid anti westerners, identitity politicians, etc. etc. I realize it is a huge generalization, but I don't think many of their ideas or their politics have given the world what it needs, or made life much better for westerners, or for anyone else.

Sukotto · 24 Oct 2006

kellymich said:
Yeah, Gore Vidal, one of the authors of this book ﾂ…
For a time I took seriously ideas such as his but I am disillusioned by the gore vidals, the noam chomskys, the susan sontags,

Gore Vidal, It's funny my online Libertarian 'friend' is probably the one who agreed with Vidal the most. Talking about the "republic" not being any more and such.

Chomsky's often dissed as conspiracy theory, but he's really only doing institutional analysis. Such analysis never gets mainstream coverage so it sounds other-worldly, especially in sound-bites.

Susan Sontag- I have no idea who that is.

You should read what someone like John Stockwell has written.
He is the highest ever CIA to become dissillusioned and write about it.
He also sat on the National Security Council for a bit with Kissinger under..?
Maybe even email him. I'm sure he be kind enough to write you back.

kellymich · 24 Oct 2006

Sukotto said:
Gore Vidal, It's funny my online Libertarian 'friend' is probably the one who agreed with Vidal the most. Talking about the "republic" not being any more and such.
Chomsky's often dissed as conspiracy theory, but he's really only doing institutional analysis. Such analysis never gets mainstream coverage so it sounds other-worldly, especially in sound-bites.
Susan Sontag- I have no idea who that is.
You should read what someone like John Stockwell has written.
He is the highest ever CIA to become dissillusioned and write about it.
He also sat on the National Security Council for a bit with Kissinger under..?
Maybe even email him. I'm sure he be kind enough to write you back.

Oh, I don't doubt that some of the things they say are true. I understand what realpolitik is.

But I would doubt the analysis, for example, that the reason we go to war is because of the military industrial complex who have installed ﾂ"theirﾂ" politicians into office.

Again for me, it is simply a matter of measure and perspective.

I worked on wall street for a while ﾂ… I don't have many illusions about big business or government. This is not to say that I believe that business and governement is always nefarious. Quite often they are benificial. But uh, they do have their problems.

Nevertheless, I am not one of those people who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because they discovered that the bathwater is sometimes dirty. I'd rather try to clean up the water, and save the baby.

I am sure that Henry Kissinger believes that what he has done has been for the good of the nation. And who knows, many of his policies, may have benefited the nation. It is a dangerous world. The fact that america has been able to keep relative peace and prosperity is no small thing.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

先輩

先輩

先輩

Back

先輩

後輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

Banned forever!

Banned forever!

先輩

先輩

Horizon Rider

Banned forever!

先輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

Similar threads