Japan forgivable?

[OoTmaster]

This is a classic I've heard from Americans a lot. The a-bombs were needed to stop the war. Okay, so why not drop them kilometers away from civilian centres? Then, the "besides" Japan did a whole bunch of terrible stuff, so dropping a-bombs on a civilian population wasn't bad.

It was either necessary to end the war, or it was okay since the Japanese did bad stuff. I think all (patriotic) Americans have had to adapt this narrative to the atomic bombings, since the alternative is too frightening to consider: that one's country committed an atrocity. It's interesting to see the late life interviews with Pacific war leader Robert McNamera in "The Fog of War," where he admits that if America had somehow lost, he would have been charged with war crimes.


I most definitely think Japan committed war crimes and atrocities in World War II and the years leading up to it. They shall not be forgotten. But I won't use them as an excuse for America's actions either. Civilians. What was the population like of Hiroshima like? San Diego? Cleveland? Would their ever be an excuse Americans could ever accept if two of its cities were wiped off the map? Many Americans are still bitter about Pearl Harbour.

Something to think about.

I think the reason to drop them on a city is very easily explained. If it had been dropped outside of the city it would have been seen as a warning. When you are at war currently you do not send warnings. The dropping on the city was a threat, "we bombed your cities because you did not give up, if you still do not we will bomb more" kind of thing. It showed that we had the means and tenacity to have a long drawn out war with the Japanese if needed, otherwise it is just a "Surrender or else" situation. In which the Japanese may have tried to "call our bluff."

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Mark, if you're going to quote my posts then please have your remarks be germane to what you're quoting rather than using just using my remarks for a launching pad for your rants.

Thank you.

Your post is chock full of logical flaws, despite being short. Its difficult to explain that all clearly.

But I will try and add some things and explain in a way that may seem more germane to you. Sympathy is not garnered just because of the type of bomb, although there is relevance. Other types of bombs don't render survivors as radioactive untouchables.

But the majority of the sympathy is not because of the bomb used. In addition to what I already wrote, its easy to see that the majority of the ATTENTION is because of the bomb used. You yourself asked if the OP was aware of the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities. Even though firebombings killed just as many innocent civilians, because of the bomb type the nukes get more attention. And sympathy is given for what is known, not what is not known or barely on the radar.

I hope that ties it all up for you.

But no part of my post is a rant. If you could not follow what was relevant to your post and what parts weren't...well, its not up to you to dictate how I post, is it? To quote Mike Cash:

You seem to be operating under the impression that you get to decide the manner in which others post. If that is the case, you're going to be disappointed.

 

[caleb89sw]

Dropping the first bomb offshore would IMO have proved nothing to the Japanese except we could make a big noise. I say this because even after the first one was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan didn't surrender.

Who makes such a rebuttal to the A bomb use? I don't think I've ever heard such a thing, and I think it's rather silly.

Your home schooling seems to have been pretty poor, despite what so many people say about the quality of such education

My knowledge about the rebuttal wasn't due to my homeschooling, it was from the Internet. There's comments on YouTube, posts on Yahoo answers from people who try to diminish the severity of the bombs by bringing up Nanking, among other things. That's what I meant.

 

[Mike Cash]

Mark, I knew you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between snottily worded imperatives and a politely worded request. This is where I wish I didn't hate emoticons. Imagine a bunch of LOLZ right about here.

 

[ArmandV]

My knowledge about the rebuttal wasn't due to my homeschooling, it was from the Internet. There's comments on YouTube, posts on Yahoo answers from people who try to diminish the severity of the bombs by bringing up Nanking, among other things. That's what I meant.

It is my recommendation that you search out other sources for your knowledge outside of the Internet. You can't believe everything that's posted.

 

[OoTmaster]

Caleb89sw your local library is bound to have tons of books on WWII. If you look into specific topics, it won't take too long and you will get information with sources, which are much more credible than a random person on the internet.

 

[caleb89sw]

Yeah. I've rented a couple of them. My problem isn't a lack of knowledge, it's more of a moral issue. Is it morally correct to defend Japan knowing the various things that the army did, including things like Pearl Harbor? Is it morally correct to defend America knowing what they did with the A-bombs? It's a very complex issue and it is clear to me, even from this board, that there are many different points of view from different people. Therefore it is difficult to reach a solid conclusion about all this.

 

[Mike Cash]

The Imperial Japanese Army, so far as I am aware, had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.

 

[OoTmaster]

It is hard to determine morality in war situations. The only thing I can think of that stipulates what is or is not moral in war is the Geneva Convention. I don't know of any other things that deal with protecting things during war time. If anyone here knows of anything else please include that information. Anyways I think one thing that you have to consider when talking about morality is intent. Because while it is not moral to just go out and kill a person it is moral to do so during war time to protect other people. So while killing thousands of people may not sound moral the intent and the result of the action usually determines whether or not the action was considered moral. Morality is a very deep and complex issue when it deals with war.

 

[Mike Cash]

And certainly one should avoid the vapid "two wrongs make a right" approach.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

If I recall history correctly, there were about 100,000 people killed at Hiroshima and 80,000 at Nagasaki.

During one 24-hour period of fire-bombing of Tokyo, 500,000 people were killed.

As an American, part of me is ashamed of these figures. But in a total world war, I don't know what else we could have done. There were mass casualties on all sides, the worst of which were suffered by the Soviets. War really is Hell.

---------- Post added at 17:15 ---------- Previous post was at 17:09 ----------

"But I will try and add some things and explain in a way that may seem more germane to you. Sympathy is not garnered just because of the type of bomb, although there is relevance. Other types of bombs don't render survivors as radioactive untouchables."

Once your clothing is disposed of and the radioactive dust is washed away, you aren't untouchable. People don't become radioactive, though they may die weeks or months later from massive cell damage, or develop cancer even years later.

 

[alecgraham]

It's still remarkable that people can't comprehend that a similar effect could have been achieved by dropping the bombs 5 km off shore. Some would have still died, and there would have been after effects, but it would have been a display of power, rather than a brute use of one.

It's an interesting exercise to come up with creative ways that we may have ended the war with less death and destruction, but you're doing it more than sixty years after the war's end, and after having grown up comfortably in North America, perhaps a direct result of the A-bomb.

I have always agreed with what Roland said most recently: it would have been unwise for the U.S. to drop the bomb offshore. It's not like they had a supply of these things in case the first "warning shot" didn't work.

I would add that things would be different if the U.S., or any country, had both started the war and used the A-bomb. Japan was one of two nations that caused WWII in the first place. The U.S. helped stop it. To some extent, the death of all those innocent Japanese civilians is the fault of the Japanese government. That's in addition to the unbelievably brutal acts they committed in China and other countries.

 

[Mike Cash]

Perversely, at least as far as the postwar period is concerned, the atomic bombings were a tremendous moral boon to Japan as they immediately and with ferocious tenacity used it to latch onto History's Ultimate Victim status, facilitating a "poor-us-nasty-you" stance that at least in their own eyes served to obviate any need to reflect on their own role and deeds in the war's beginning and execution.

I wish it had never happened, if for no other reason than we to this day have to hear Hiroshima and Nagasaki annually climb up on their moral high ground soap box and lecture the world. Which wouldn't be so bad if Japan's collective memory didn't give the appearance of thinking those are the only two events of WWII.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Mark, I knew you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between snottily worded imperatives and a politely worded request. This is where I wish I didn't hate emoticons. Imagine a bunch of LOLZ right about here.

If you have a point, I am afraid I don't know what it is.

 

[Mike Cash]

I'm not surprised.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

The USSR didn't declare war on Japan until August 8, 1945, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, so your theory is bunk.

That is probably one of the crappiest rebuttals I have ever heard...ever. A short time line of events. Bombing of Hiroshima Aug 6. Soviet declaration of war Aug 9. (Japan time, which is what counts, not Aug 8). Bombing of Nanking Aug 9 (same day as the Soviets declare war.) Japan officially decides to surrender Aug 10. South Sakhalin Offensive Aug 11. Soviet Seisin landings Aug 13. The Emperor calls it quits by radio Aug 15. The ceasefire between Japan and the western allies does not actually begin until Aug 18, the day of the last aerial combat between Japanese fighters and American bombers. Formal surrender papers finally signed Sept 2.

How in blue blazes do you construe all that to mean the bombings of Hiroshima is what made Japan throw in the towel?? Because it came first?? Well the lost of Okinawa came even before that! What is your explanation for this?

Look, it is often said that the Japanese would fight and die to the last man, woman and child defending the emperor. Back in March, in one night, more than 80000 were killed by firebombing. That is the SAME number as in the Nagasaki nuke! Osaka, Kobe and Nagoya were also firebombed. But the Japanese did not surrender despite all that loss of life! But now you are telling me that Hiroshima was game over? Even though it was really the same old mass death they had already been experiencing?

No. The Japanese saw the emperor was in danger if the Soviets invaded, and they were in the process of invading and the Japanese knew this. Hell, the emperor himself no doubt knew this! His only chance was surrender to the western allies! And lo and behold, he got on the radio to do just that!

 

[ArmandV]

The International Dateline is in the mid-Pacific, so Japan and the USSR would be on the same date.

Also, the USSR was made aware of the A-Bomb (not specifically, but enough to know we had something to end the war), so their jumping in after the Hiroshima bombing was, to say the least, quite opportunistic on their part.

There's a big difference between conventional bombs & firebombs and the atomic bomb. The Japanese saw that two cities were destroyed in one blast each and forced the Emperor's hand in surrendering. The Japanese did not surrender due to Hiroshima alone, they finally did so after Nagasaki.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It has been estimated that the casualties, if an invasion were to take place, would be in the MILLIONS. The a-bombs swiftly ended the war and limited the casualty numbers to the thousands.

I swear to GOD, people can shovel $#!T onto this debate faster than the truth can be verified and printed here! I hope everyone is aware that any damned fool can invent a face-saving mound of made-up-on-the spot-horse-$#!T faster than anyone but a top expert can dust off documents of fact to show you.

And that estimate that ArmandV later touts as a "fact" is one such mound of horse$#!T somebody made up. The estimate of casualties in the event of an invasion is based on two absolute absurdities. Absurdity one is that invasion was the only other option. Bullocks! There was also the option of a blockade. Hell, there was even the option of just waiting! The Japanese were spent. That is why all that talk of bamboo spears started. As if an army of women with bamboo spears were a real threat to Americans armed with Garand rifles and Pershing tanks!

The second absurdity is that the estimate of casualties was based on the land area of Okinawa and the casualties of the Battle of Okinawa. Some genius in the field of deception of idiots just took those numbers and inflated them to fit the land area of Japan's mainland islands! Its like saying 5 liquor stores were robbed in Los Angeles last year. Then asking the question "How many liquor stores will be robbed in California next year?" DOES NOT COMPUTE! You can't get an answer from cobbling together that $#!T!

But it makes some people feel better to just believe it all, as totally absurd as it is!

I might be American, but I never got a vote on the atomic bombings. Neither did anyone in my family. Neither did you or anyone in your family. I feel no shame or guilt over the atomic bombings. Why should I? Why should you? None of us who were not involved should. But somehow, some people do feel shame and they bury it with all the horsecrap they can scape up.

Please, check your nationalism at the door! There is no need to protect America's rep here. Just tell the truth!

War is hell for all sides including civilians. As far as targeting civilians, I suggest you look into what the Japanese did to the people of the Philippines, particlularly the atrocities in the POW camps, Manila Massacre and the Bataan Death March for starters.

Blatant obfuscation! Two wrongs still don't make a right! There is ZERO need to bring that stuff up since the perpetrators of those massacres were NOT killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Mostly innocent men, women, children and babies were killed!

The Japanese were fanatical during the war. Take a look at their actions in Okinawa. They committed suicide rather than surrender. They fought fiercely, using that (and other examples), the Roosevelt and Truman administrations saw that an invasion would be bloody for both sides. The a-bombs prevented that.

The A-bombs changed nothing of a foregone conclusion!

 

[ArmandV]

Perversely, at least as far as the postwar period is concerned, the atomic bombings were a tremendous moral boon to Japan as they immediately and with ferocious tenacity used it to latch onto History's Ultimate Victim status, facilitating a "poor-us-nasty-you" stance that at least in their own eyes served to obviate any need to reflect on their own role and deeds in the war's beginning and execution.

I wish it had never happened, if for no other reason than we to this day have to hear Hiroshima and Nagasaki annually climb up on their moral high ground soap box and lecture the world. Which wouldn't be so bad if Japan's collective memory didn't give the appearance of thinking those are the only two events of WWII.

Sooner or later, we'll be seeing Obama (or Biden or one of his other lackeys) run over there to apologize. We'll see a major hornet's nest explode when that happens.

---------- Post added at 22:45 ---------- Previous post was at 22:37 ----------

I swear to GOD, people can shovel $#!T onto this debate faster than the truth can be verified and printed here! I hope everyone is aware that any damned fool can invent a face-saving mound of made-up-on-the spot-horse-$#!T faster than anyone but a top expert can dust off documents of fact to show you.

What are your qualifications that makes you an expert on World War II history, eh?

I have studied World War II history since high school (I am over a half-century old and continued studying it). I took university courses on the subject. I have been to both Nagasaki and Hiroshima and went through their museums. I resent your tactless remark that what is posted is "horseshit."

You may disagree with what some of us here post, that's fine and dandy. But you are shooting off your mouth with nothing to back up your positions and are obnoxious to boot. If you want to have a mature discussion, we can have one. Provided you're mature enough to handle it.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

The International Dateline is in the mid-Pacific, so Japan and the USSR would be on the same date.

If its 11p.m Aug 8 Trans-Baikal time (now defunct apparently, but I suppose it was the Irkutsk region of Russia), in Japan, about three time zones over, it will be after midnight Aug 9. The international date line has nothing to do with it.

About the last thing I want to do is drive this debate into a bickering about the date when its an hour to midnight anyway, especially since times zones are screwed up royally. Who gives a crap though? The point is that Japan got atom bombs and a Soviet invasion pretty much simultaneously.

And the primary motivation to forget about the Soviet invasion and blame the end of the war on the A-bombs is nationalistic delusion.

Many Americans have an intense need to believe the bombs ended the war, because without that, it just becomes apparent that the U.S. military and government murdered a bunch of innocent people.

Combine that with indoctrination in school since childhood.

You ever hear of the mass murder of Dakota Indians by mass hanging perpetrated by the U.S. government and military in Mankato Minnesota in 1862? Probably not. Unlike the A-bombings, the brainwashing writers of American history textbooks could just skip over that. They had to come with some excuses for this atrocity.

---------- Post added at 16:12 ---------- Previous post was at 16:06 ----------

But you are shooting off your mouth with nothing to back up your positions

Absurd. Just plain absurd. I have backed up many of my positions with names and dates.

You have regurgitated the American textbook line of 30 years ago sans documents released in the interim.

Obnoxious? You bet! Angry too. I am sick to death of all this denial of simple fact and logic. I get more and more sick of it every year. I am tired of the lies and the attempts at brainwashing. YOU DO NOT KILL BABIES TO END WARS. You want me to back that up with a document?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Somebody got up on the wrong side of bed this morning.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Somebody got up on the wrong side of bed this morning.

I have untied these Gordium knots of lies and obfuscation more times that I care to remember. So yeah, I do sometimes whip out my sword and hack them pieces, cause the lies crawl in on their belly faster than the truth can come walking in with its head held high carrying the necessary burdens of proof.

Let us see ArmandV explain how Operation Downfall could possibly result in a MILLION allied casualites when Japan was just about out of gas, planes, steel, food, just about anything needed to fight a war.

Why would he even quote that figure, but not something like this:

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[43] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[44] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.

Operation Downfall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ArmandV said:

It is my recommendation that you search out other sources for your knowledge outside of the Internet. You can't believe everything that's posted.

You can't believe everything that is written in an American textbook either. The internet is a fine source, as good as any. But all sources are useless if you don't have a brain that can spot the crap.

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:28 ----------

so their jumping in after the Hiroshima bombing was, to say the least, quite opportunistic on their part.

GAHHHH! That mound of turds nearly slipped by me.

It was agreed at Yalta in Feb 1945 that the Soviets would enter the war against Japan within 90 days after the defeat of Germany. German military surrender became effective on May 9 Moscow time (May 8 in Germany, time zones again). 90 days later, August 8 (Soviet time) the Soviets attacked Japan.

Opportunistic?? Do you have any idea how much territory the Soviets could have grabbed if they only attacked a few days sooner?? They kept their word is what they did, down to the DAY!

If they had failed to attack, then what would the narrative be? Oh, those damned Soviets lied to us at Yalta! Yeah, its obvious!

As ever, I had to look this stuff up to make sure of my facts, and make sure the names and dates were straight against someone who just injects some made-up accusations from memory and wonders off. This process is tiring, and that is EXACTLY why the lies and bullcrap so often win!

Making up bullcrap is easy. Downing each and every load is time consuming.

End of World War II in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yalta Conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am extremely grateful to wiki though as it GREATLY eases the burden of double-checking things I already know. Cause you know, one little blunder with a date or a name, and the facts in general be damned, but I will have a pack of wolves at my throat! I almost said Potsdam instead of Yalta for example. You know what would happen if I made that mistake? All truth, PLOP, in the dumpster.

 

[Mike Cash]

Are you this caustic and gratuitously abusive toward others in real life as well? You've done nothing but try to start fights ever since you first showed up here.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Are you this caustic and gratuitously abusive toward others in real life as well? You've done nothing but try to start fights ever since you first showed up here.

Quite a hoot coming from you Mike!

No. Self serving bull is just that, and I have no tolerance for it.

Good luck finding a way that any opinion I have yet posted here benefits me personally or politically. I don't want fights. But I hate bull with a passion.

But if you could explain to me who I have abused and how, well, I would like to see that. What I see is that I abused the bull, not the people, and certainly not the truth.

 

[Mike Cash]

Your helpful and/or civil posts can be counted on one hand with fingers left over.