This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Soviet attack trumped A-bomb role

Status
Not open for further replies.

Elizabeth van Kampen

先輩
Rest in Peace
Joined
1 Nov 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
39
Hello friends,

Since 4 to 5 days this title "Soviet attack trumped A-bomb role"
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100816a4.html

keeps turning around in my head. May I tell you why?

As some of you know; I grew up in Indonesia, I have been in a Japanese prison camp during the Japanese military occupation of the island Java.
I know that most of the people who were there and still alive today will tell you that the A-bombs saved their lifes. I personally never said this for I found the idea that so many innocent people died for my freedom a satisfying thought.

May I dare to believe that the Russian army saved my life the 9th of August 1945?
May I whisper: "Thank you Russia?"

Thanks a lot for reading me.

Elizabeth van Kampen
 
Using A-bombs is the same crime against humanity as gas chambers. Thanks to the US esteem Japanese changed their historical status from agrressors and war criminals into martyrs and victims of a war crime.
The Soviets did what they were supposed to do- to beat Japanese war criminals as they did with German war criminals. The war over. Mils of lives were saved, yours insluded. Yes, you can say "Thank you, Russia."
 
Thanks a lot Let's Talk,
I have visited Nagasaki in October 2000. I prefer to thank the Russian soldiers than the Nagasaki victims.
It must never happen again.
I like your "name" Let's talk!! It is always the best thing to do talking and listen of course.
 
Elizabeth van Kampen said:
I know that most of the people who were there and still alive today will tell you that the A-bombs saved their lifes. I personally never said this for I found the idea that so many innocent people died for my freedom a satisfying thought.
Click to expand...

Its sad no matter how you look at it - many innocent people died on both sides before the war ended. Had it continued more soldiers would have been sent to kill more civilians, who would be ordered to throw away their lives for their country, if they didn't die of starvation first. Japan got off lightly compared to many other countries and it received a large amount of support and aid from allied countries immediately after the war.
 
Part of the reason the bombs were dropped was not only to prevent a mainland invasion of Japan, swiftly end the war (thereby saving American lives), but to also swiftly end the war so the Soviet Union would not have a say in what post war Japan would look like.

Had the Soviets not be ready to invade Japan would the bombs still have been dropped? Probably, but we cannot know for sure, so I guess if you would like to be able to thank the Soviet Union in some fashion you can. In any case I am glad they did not have a say in post war Japan. Japan is so great today, I would hate to think what Communism and the Soviets would have done to it.
 
I think the use of Nuclear weapons were justified.

Had the US not used them, millions of Japanese would have perished in a American and Soviet invasion. If you think the Atom Bomb is horrific, read Anthony Beevor's Berlin 1945 on how what the Soviet army does to areas it "liberates." The Soviet killed hundreds of thousands of German civillians; they raped, pillaged, tortured, starved and murdered. Japan would be FAR FAR worse than anything on both sides. You had civil defence corps organized for ALL japanese citizens. Hundreds of thousands were trained in the use of bamboo spears and expect to run in a human wave against American positions. You had children trained to strap bombs on their backs and crawl under tanks. A hundred thousand dead, versus ten to fifteen million dead (one million allied casualties, and ten times that for the Japanese.)

The reason why I have very little sympathy is how militarized Japanese culture was. This wasn't a equivocal or moral society. It was highly committed to the Emperor, the military dictatorship and possessed racist views towards other races. This was a dictatorship that waged a brutal war against the Chinese and believed it would win a war until the nuclear bombs. Even after the first bomb Anami wanted to fight on, thinking they would still persevere.
 
So you guys think that bombing two cities full of people was good to save Hundreds of lives ?
And by the way Elizabeth van Kampen,Do you know what was your country doing in Indonesia (if you are form holland) ????
 
Hezam did you actually read what I posted or just ignored it so you could post your predetermined opinion?
 
Hezam said:
So you guys think that bombing two cities full of people was good to save Hundreds of lives ?
And by the way Elizabeth van Kampen,Do you know what was your country doing in Indonesia (if you are form holland) ????
Click to expand...


Hundreds??? are you joking? Try saving MILLIONS of lives, for the sacrifice of two cities.

This whole debate is a question about whether or not Japan would have surrendered without the A-bombs, and from what I have researched the war mostly likely would have continued into 1946 possibly. And even if it would have been a quick mainland invasion.. the invasion date was set to be November 1st, and from August to November Japan would have been continued to be firebombed anyway probably resulting in just as many causalities as the two A-bomb caused anyway. And then the mainland fight would have resulted in exactly what noyhauser is talking about.

And then even in another scenario where Japan would have been submitted into surrender through firebombing.. say sometime in September or October, the Soviets would have gained a foothold by then and we would probably have an East (communist) Japan, and West (capitalist) Japan. Just like a few other countries we know of. I do not think the world would be the same.. I just cannot imagine life without all the innovations and improvements of things post war Japan has brought us.
 
Hezam, you know I think you're an interesting fella. However, it would be a huge boon to you were you to consider reading the main thread post, and the following replies to it. I mean that. It would apparently even answer your own questions for you.

Hezam said:
So you guys think that bombing two cities full of people was good to save Hundreds of lives ?
And by the way Elizabeth van Kampen,Do you know what was your country doing in Indonesia (if you are form holland) ????
Click to expand...

Elizabeth van Kampen said:
As some of you know; I grew up in Indonesia, I have been in a Japanese prison camp during the Japanese military occupation of the island Java.
Click to expand...

Okay, that answered that.

Hezam said:
(if you are form holland) ????
Click to expand...

A quick reminder...

Elizabeth van Kampen said:
I grew up in Indonesia
Click to expand...

Okay, we have that settled now. Goody.

Hezam said:
So you guys think that bombing two cities full of people was good to save (MILLIONS) of lives ?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that the deaths of over 300,000(give or take, this includes those who died from radiation) Japanese military personal and civilians was worth it. I understand American guilt over the bombings all too well, but when my great aunt who lost family at Nagasaki says the bombings were necessary, well, it's a little hard to argue with her. You know what I mean?

By the way, I absolutely refuse to post the death count from Japan's actions all over Asia again. 300,000(+/-) dead by atomic bombing compared to the over 10,000,000 innocent people butchered, tortured, and experimented on by the Japanese military throughout Asia during WWII? I think Japan got off very easily, but y'all can carry the weight of the past on your shoulders all you want.
 
Hezam said:
So you guys think that bombing two cities full of people was good to save Hundreds of lives ?
Click to expand...

You think only two cities full of people were bombed?

And it was not hundreds but millions of people who were saved - military and civilian on both sides.

It's called the lesser of two evils, and when the options are stacked like that you really want the lesser evil.
 
Hezam said:
So you guys think that bombing two cities full of people was good to save Hundreds of lives ?
And by the way Elizabeth van Kampen,Do you know what was your country doing in Indonesia (if you are form holland) ????
Click to expand...

Hello Hezam,

I grew up in Indonesia because my father worked for a Dutch firm in Indonesia.
I know that it is not my home country but nevertheless I shall always love that beautiful country and its very kind people.

My point was: Soviet attack trumped A-bomb role.
That is something so bitter, so sad. History can be very cruel when one dares to look back.
None of us can turn back to 1945. I was a teenager then no more than a 14 year old schoolgirl.
Today I think: but why didn't they do this or that? Why, or why not?
 
hmm,people above you sound right,Sorry that i thought you a dutch soldier x_x
Since it's millions of people saved then the bomb was the last choice...but still it's one of the biggest crimes in the history,Both sides are wrong.

Sorry Elizabeth.
 
More Japanese were killed in conventional fire-bombing (~500,000 in Tokyo alone) than from the A-bombs.

It's universally sad, but all nations resorted to total war in WW II -- meaning the bombing of innocent civilians. Germany did it in Spain and Japan in China long before the US did the same.
 

That's something I can't argue with, RolandtheHeadless. It is indeed universally sad. If I could give my life to stop people from dying from all the horrible human-inflicted ways we do, it would be something I wouldn't think twice about it. All the hundreds of thousands of people who died before their time, what would their contributions to our species have been? It makes me so sad thinking about it.

Hezam, your anti-American government stance on almost all issues has lead me to ask you the following. Is it because it was a tremendous loss of life, or because Americans/Allied Forces did it?
 
Thor said:
Hezam, your anti-American government stance on almost all issues has lead me to ask you the following. Is it because it was a tremendous loss of life, or because Americans/Allied Forces did it?
Click to expand...
As everyone knows,the US is the police man and it has the strongest military so that's why you see my posts focus on the US.
Anyway,Soviet and USA,UE are same when it comes to killing people.
And according to your posts above i think Japan military were like those above once..but i still have a doubt about it.
Any info is appreciated
 
Guys, stay on topic please.. It's about the soviet union and it's role in stoping the war. If you want to talk if it was justified to use the A-bombs, than go to a thread about that.
 
as for opposite side, killing mass enemy people is to save your life..

She thinks that her life is more important than the life of 100,000 people.

Just thank Russian
 
caster51 said:
as for opposite side, killing mass enemy people is to save your life..
She thinks that her life is more important than the life of 100,000 people.
Click to expand...

No you are wrong!! I always found the thought bitter and bad that millions of lifes, also mine, was saved by A-bombs. I know many people who say: "Yes those bombs were horrible but they saved the lifes of millions and millions, also the Japanese lifes"
And I said the thought that so many people had to die in such a horrible manner to save (also) my life is an unbearable thought.

But it was the Soviet military who stopped WWII in the Pacific!! And believe me, that war really had to be stopped.
 
No you are wrong!! I always found the thought bitter and bad that millions of lifes, also mine, was saved by A-bombs
Click to expand...

at least you were alived then.
there is an evisence that you would not saved without A bomd?


But it was the Soviet military who stopped WWII in the Pacific!! And believe me, that war really had to be stopped.
Click to expand...

that was a Just hindsight-based opinion
 
I don't think you can have ANY kind of happy thought about this whole thing. A lot of people died, to save you and whoever is alive from that prison. Yes, you are alive and you got lucky, but don't talk about it because quite frankly, many people died during that time for no reason. A-bomb or not, people died and you are alive. No one deserves to die...

One more thing: Any real person would have said that: "I am alive, but i need to remember those who died around me." That's what you should have said.
 

The Manchurian invasion could have ended the war on its own. The Japanese high command's psyche was always predicated on a final climactic battle on the Japanese home islands. This fit in with the historical narrative based on the invincibility of the Japanese, dating back to the Mongol invasion and the Kamikaze.

From everything I read, the capitulation was not based on strategic considerations than political ones. Losing Manchuria was probably among the top three military defeats suffered by Japan in the entire war, as the Kwantung army was the top Japanese formations. Midway, Philippines sea and the Shipping War were likely more significant.

Yet overall the battles didn't really matter; Japan's military position was already hopeless by the time of the Philippines Sea in 1944. Moreover the USN's Submarine war sunk over 75 percent of Japan's merchant marine. This basically cut off China from the home islands, meaning that the fall of Manchuria had very little effect on Japan's situation's.

The Atomic bombs made the political side particularly apparent. The firebombing raids and the coastal bombardment by battleships certainly damaged morale but it didn't really break it. What the atomic bombs did was to show that the United States could wipe out entire cities with minimal losses. At that point they knew politically they were completely doomed.

Still the Japanese military government was not convinced by a single atomic bomb. Moreover the second bomb and the Manchurian invasion was barely enough to convince the hard-liners to capitulates to the "doves," and Hirohito himself. Manchuria probably pushed it over the edge, but without the bombs it was unlikely that they would have changed course.
 

Of course Pavel!!
But I said " The thought that the A-bombs saved my life is a horrible thought"
To tell you the truth, when I learned that the war was over I didn't hear anything about A-bombs at all. I learned this when we were brought to Holland in 1946 and even then the stories were vague. No televions yet and no Google you see.
I am against all wars!!! I lost my father and my uncle, killed by the Kempeitai.

I wanted to make clear that it is better that a war is ended by an army than by A-bombs, at least in my eyes.
That war had to be ended Pavel, in one way or the other.

Also today too many countries have nuclear weapons. I wish every single country on our earth an intelligent and peaceful President.
 
I don't even want to start imagining what will happen if Iran will have a crazy, blood thirsty president... I just can't imagine the suffer that it is going to bring to the whole world...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

America planned to bomb Mt. Fuji
Replies
16
Views
7K
Ben W Bell
B
U-234 and the atomic bomb
Replies
8
Views
5K
Hachiko
L
Martial Arts impervious to any Attacks
2
Replies
28
Views
7K
Pål
P
K
Atomic Bombs days
Replies
22
Views
4K
kaz
K
Japanese A-bomb
Replies
4
Views
3K
moyashi
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…