Trouble on London Bridge

rgambs

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Allie, the atomic bomb saved millions of lives. Those who disagree must study how the Japanese fought. 

Dude, I feel that your information is coming only from the American perspective. You are kind of towing the party line here. Also, there is absolutely NO way to know if it saved millions of lives either way, FYI. I have a major problem with you acting like that is a fact and not only a possibility or an opinion, especially if all you're basing it on is the very black and white American interpretation of how the Japanese fought and what they would have done if the war kept going. I say this as one who is fully aware of what you are talking about in this context. I know the principles that the Japanese held when it came to war, and that war in particular. I also am fully aware of the atrocities the Japanese committed in China. But your ideas still seem very one-sided and discount the fact that the Japanese are complicated human beings who also swam through politics, fears, doubts, scandals, compromise, just like Americans. They were not actually singular-minded robots with a singular purpose, as the American military wanted everyone to believe during that war in order to build as much fear as possible, and then forever after in order to make sure their nuclear attack is viewed as completely justified ... Not that I really blame you for your ideas on this. The American education system feeds that information to Americans the second it starts teaching WWII history to them. I am not saying it's all wrong, but I am saying that there is a whole other side to this story, and you don't seem to have been told that one.

I agree with this.
It is incredibly common for enemies of America to be boiled down to a propaganda poster of themselves.
The "saved millions" line is a propaganda line that is based on some huge assumptions.  
There is also the question of why the inevitably brutal invasion of the mainland was necessary at all.  The situation at the end of the war was not the situation that began the war, it doesn't seem like the leaders of America were changing their perspectives on the war, only adjusting their tactics within the war.

mcgruff10

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Allie, the atomic bomb saved millions of lives. Those who disagree must study how the Japanese fought. 

Dude, I feel that your information is coming only from the American perspective. You are kind of towing the party line here. Also, there is absolutely NO way to know if it saved millions of lives either way, FYI. I have a major problem with you acting like that is a fact and not only a possibility or an opinion, especially if all you're basing it on is the very black and white American interpretation of how the Japanese fought and what they would have done if the war kept going. I say this as one who is fully aware of what you are talking about in this context. I know the principles that the Japanese held when it came to war, and that war in particular. I also am fully aware of the atrocities the Japanese committed in China. But your ideas still seem very one-sided and discount the fact that the Japanese are complicated human beings who also swam through politics, fears, doubts, scandals, compromise, just like Americans. They were not actually singular-minded robots with a singular purpose, as the American military wanted everyone to believe during that war in order to build as much fear as possible, and then forever after in order to make sure their nuclear attack is viewed as completely justified ... Not that I really blame you for your ideas on this. The American education system feeds that information to Americans the second it starts teaching WWII history to them. I am not saying it's all wrong, but I am saying that there is a whole other side to this story, and you don't seem to have been told that one.

I agree with this.
It is incredibly common for enemies of America to be boiled down to a propaganda poster of themselves.
The "saved millions" line is a propaganda line that is based on some huge assumptions.  
There is also the question of why the inevitably brutal invasion of the mainland was necessary at all.  The situation at the end of the war was not the situation that began the war, it doesn't seem like the leaders of America were changing their perspectives on the war, only adjusting their tactics within the war.

So how do you end the war if you so dont invade the homeland?
and the save millions are based on what assumptions? Examine the survival rate of Japanese on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. You are telling me they wouldn't have fought just as hard defending the homeland?
and propaganda works both ways.  

my2hands

So if they are ferocious and fearless fighters who will never surrender... why would dropping a bomb make them surrender?

50% of their country had already been laid to waste with massive casualties... with missions flying night & day

It's like the magical immigrant that is too lazy to work, but is taking all of our jobs? Can't have it both ways, so which way is it?

mcgruff10

my2hands said:

So if they are ferocious and fearless fighters who will never surrender... why would dropping a bomb make them surrender?

50% of their country had already been laid to waste with massive casualties... with missions flying night & day

It's like the magical immigrant that is too lazy to work, but is taking all of our jobs? Can't have it both ways, so which way is it?

Just because how destructive the atomic bomb was.  Literally one bomb could decimate an entire city.  
Heck they didn't even surrender after the first bomb was dropped...

rgambs

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Allie, the atomic bomb saved millions of lives. Those who disagree must study how the Japanese fought. 

Dude, I feel that your information is coming only from the American perspective. You are kind of towing the party line here. Also, there is absolutely NO way to know if it saved millions of lives either way, FYI. I have a major problem with you acting like that is a fact and not only a possibility or an opinion, especially if all you're basing it on is the very black and white American interpretation of how the Japanese fought and what they would have done if the war kept going. I say this as one who is fully aware of what you are talking about in this context. I know the principles that the Japanese held when it came to war, and that war in particular. I also am fully aware of the atrocities the Japanese committed in China. But your ideas still seem very one-sided and discount the fact that the Japanese are complicated human beings who also swam through politics, fears, doubts, scandals, compromise, just like Americans. They were not actually singular-minded robots with a singular purpose, as the American military wanted everyone to believe during that war in order to build as much fear as possible, and then forever after in order to make sure their nuclear attack is viewed as completely justified ... Not that I really blame you for your ideas on this. The American education system feeds that information to Americans the second it starts teaching WWII history to them. I am not saying it's all wrong, but I am saying that there is a whole other side to this story, and you don't seem to have been told that one.

I agree with this.
It is incredibly common for enemies of America to be boiled down to a propaganda poster of themselves.
The "saved millions" line is a propaganda line that is based on some huge assumptions.  
There is also the question of why the inevitably brutal invasion of the mainland was necessary at all.  The situation at the end of the war was not the situation that began the war, it doesn't seem like the leaders of America were changing their perspectives on the war, only adjusting their tactics within the war.

So how do you end the war if you so dont invade the homeland?
and the save millions are based on what assumptions? Examine the survival rate of Japanese on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. You are telling me they wouldn't have fought just as hard defending the homeland?
and propaganda works both ways.  

I haven't come across much Japanese propaganda so I'm not sure how it works on me.
I just like to challenge assumptions and our own propaganda.
How do you end the war?  Why does the war need "ended"?

Japan's military capabilities at the time were freaking decimated, they were already beat.  As someone who seems to have the upper hand in historical knowledge, you should know that.
The only reason we needed to pound them the way we did is to get them to accept terms of surrender that were, frankly, fucking ridiculous. 
We literally stripped them of their sovereign rule.
What country would accept that?
They attacked our land one time, and the rest of the war they defended their territories (viciously) and our response is that their sovereign rule must be eliminated??  That's not reasonable.
The homeland didn't need invaded, it is only the macho military attitude of America that made it a necessity.  

rgambs

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html

rgambs

Read the link, it's all there.
I know you love history, and I know you are fascinated by the Great Wars.
This is a perspective that you should be excited to read.

rgambs

It's an interesting representative of history in general, in that sources from after an important event will always paint a different picture, those pictures will be tinted with justification.
It's important to look at the data from the time of an event, not the analysis after the event.

The historical record on Japan's state in the early summer of '45 is clear, they were on the utter brink of collapse in every way.
Move a few days later to the post-nuke data and suddenly the focus is on Japan's strengths and capabilities, the threats they posed.  That's the tint of justification.

rgambs

All of that being said, what would the Cold War have looked like without that awesome display of power and it's consequences?
Hard to Imagine, but it doesn't seem ridiculous to me to imagine that a true Nuclear War may have had a greater chance of occuring.

mcgruff10

rgambs said:

All of that being said, what would the Cold War have looked like without that awesome display of power and it's consequences?
Hard to Imagine, but it doesn't seem ridiculous to me to imagine that a true Nuclear War may have had a greater chance of occuring.

One thing I always wondered to myself was (and of course there is no right answer), do you think nuclear weapons helped in deterring a world war 3?  I mean we came so so close during the cuban missile crisis but in the end no one wanted to end the world that day.  

rgambs

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

All of that being said, what would the Cold War have looked like without that awesome display of power and it's consequences?
Hard to Imagine, but it doesn't seem ridiculous to me to imagine that a true Nuclear War may have had a greater chance of occuring.

One thing I always wondered to myself was (and of course there is no right answer), do you think nuclear weapons helped in deterring a world war 3?  I mean we came so so close during the cuban missile crisis but in the end no one wanted to end the world that day.  

I think you have to conclude that it played a part in the deterrence, how large a part is hard to say.

mcgruff10

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Allie, the atomic bomb saved millions of lives. Those who disagree must study how the Japanese fought. 

Dude, I feel that your information is coming only from the American perspective. You are kind of towing the party line here. Also, there is absolutely NO way to know if it saved millions of lives either way, FYI. I have a major problem with you acting like that is a fact and not only a possibility or an opinion, especially if all you're basing it on is the very black and white American interpretation of how the Japanese fought and what they would have done if the war kept going. I say this as one who is fully aware of what you are talking about in this context. I know the principles that the Japanese held when it came to war, and that war in particular. I also am fully aware of the atrocities the Japanese committed in China. But your ideas still seem very one-sided and discount the fact that the Japanese are complicated human beings who also swam through politics, fears, doubts, scandals, compromise, just like Americans. They were not actually singular-minded robots with a singular purpose, as the American military wanted everyone to believe during that war in order to build as much fear as possible, and then forever after in order to make sure their nuclear attack is viewed as completely justified ... Not that I really blame you for your ideas on this. The American education system feeds that information to Americans the second it starts teaching WWII history to them. I am not saying it's all wrong, but I am saying that there is a whole other side to this story, and you don't seem to have been told that one.

I agree with this.
It is incredibly common for enemies of America to be boiled down to a propaganda poster of themselves.
The "saved millions" line is a propaganda line that is based on some huge assumptions.  
There is also the question of why the inevitably brutal invasion of the mainland was necessary at all.  The situation at the end of the war was not the situation that began the war, it doesn't seem like the leaders of America were changing their perspectives on the war, only adjusting their tactics within the war.

So how do you end the war if you so dont invade the homeland?
and the save millions are based on what assumptions? Examine the survival rate of Japanese on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. You are telling me they wouldn't have fought just as hard defending the homeland?
and propaganda works both ways.  

I haven't come across much Japanese propaganda so I'm not sure how it works on me.
I just like to challenge assumptions and our own propaganda.
How do you end the war?  Why does the war need "ended"?

Japan's military capabilities at the time were freaking decimated, they were already beat.  As someone who seems to have the upper hand in historical knowledge, you should know that.
The only reason we needed to pound them the way we did is to get them to accept terms of surrender that were, frankly, fucking ridiculous. 
We literally stripped them of their sovereign rule.
What country would accept that?
They attacked our land one time, and the rest of the war they defended their territories (viciously) and our response is that their sovereign rule must be eliminated??  That's not reasonable.
The homeland didn't need invaded, it is only the macho military attitude of America that made it a necessity.  

Japan's air force was definitely decimated as was their navy, but you had approx 4,000,000 troops occupying the homeland along with millions of civilians ready to give up their lives for their emperor and defend the homeland.
and then you had kamikazes...so it definitely wasn't going to be a cake walk.

pjhawks

PJ_Soul said:

guypjfreak said:

As bad as the bombs were it saved thousands of American soldiers lives.. Maybe even one of yours or your partner or friends.. 

Yeah.... and ended hundreds of thousands of other lives and ruined many more..... I don't think the lives of the Japanese civilians are worth less than the lives of American soldiers (or Canadians). I am only interested in which decision would have killed the fewest people or prevented the most suffering. I am not necessarily convinced that the nukes win by that measure. Also, I can't help wondering what the world would be like if the nukes had never been used in the political sense. That bombing changed the course of history in so many ways.... possibly for the better. Possibly not. I do know that Einstein and many scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project 100% regretted their roles in the advent of nuclear weapons, no matter how the war against Japan might have gone without them.

my dad was in World War II as were some of my Uncles. Yes those lives mean a hell of a lot more to me than Japanese or even Canadians. If nuking them got  my dad home sooner I'm all for it.  and let's also not forget those fuckers attacked us first.

rgambs

pjhawks said:

PJ_Soul said:

guypjfreak said:

As bad as the bombs were it saved thousands of American soldiers lives.. Maybe even one of yours or your partner or friends.. 

Yeah.... and ended hundreds of thousands of other lives and ruined many more..... I don't think the lives of the Japanese civilians are worth less than the lives of American soldiers (or Canadians). I am only interested in which decision would have killed the fewest people or prevented the most suffering. I am not necessarily convinced that the nukes win by that measure. Also, I can't help wondering what the world would be like if the nukes had never been used in the political sense. That bombing changed the course of history in so many ways.... possibly for the better. Possibly not. I do know that Einstein and many scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project 100% regretted their roles in the advent of nuclear weapons, no matter how the war against Japan might have gone without them.

my dad was in World War II as were some of my Uncles. Yes those lives mean a hell of a lot more to me than Japanese or even Canadians. If nuking them got  my dad home sooner I'm all for it.  and let's also not forget those fuckers attacked us first.

Those fuckers had sons and nephews and dads and uncles too.

rgambs

The main difference is that your dad and uncle were able bodied soldiers, the victims of the nuke were civilians, many young, elderly, and infirm.

rgambs

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Allie, the atomic bomb saved millions of lives. Those who disagree must study how the Japanese fought. 

Dude, I feel that your information is coming only from the American perspective. You are kind of towing the party line here. Also, there is absolutely NO way to know if it saved millions of lives either way, FYI. I have a major problem with you acting like that is a fact and not only a possibility or an opinion, especially if all you're basing it on is the very black and white American interpretation of how the Japanese fought and what they would have done if the war kept going. I say this as one who is fully aware of what you are talking about in this context. I know the principles that the Japanese held when it came to war, and that war in particular. I also am fully aware of the atrocities the Japanese committed in China. But your ideas still seem very one-sided and discount the fact that the Japanese are complicated human beings who also swam through politics, fears, doubts, scandals, compromise, just like Americans. They were not actually singular-minded robots with a singular purpose, as the American military wanted everyone to believe during that war in order to build as much fear as possible, and then forever after in order to make sure their nuclear attack is viewed as completely justified ... Not that I really blame you for your ideas on this. The American education system feeds that information to Americans the second it starts teaching WWII history to them. I am not saying it's all wrong, but I am saying that there is a whole other side to this story, and you don't seem to have been told that one.

I agree with this.
It is incredibly common for enemies of America to be boiled down to a propaganda poster of themselves.
The "saved millions" line is a propaganda line that is based on some huge assumptions.  
There is also the question of why the inevitably brutal invasion of the mainland was necessary at all.  The situation at the end of the war was not the situation that began the war, it doesn't seem like the leaders of America were changing their perspectives on the war, only adjusting their tactics within the war.

So how do you end the war if you so dont invade the homeland?
and the save millions are based on what assumptions? Examine the survival rate of Japanese on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. You are telling me they wouldn't have fought just as hard defending the homeland?
and propaganda works both ways.  

I haven't come across much Japanese propaganda so I'm not sure how it works on me.
I just like to challenge assumptions and our own propaganda.
How do you end the war?  Why does the war need "ended"?

Japan's military capabilities at the time were freaking decimated, they were already beat.  As someone who seems to have the upper hand in historical knowledge, you should know that.
The only reason we needed to pound them the way we did is to get them to accept terms of surrender that were, frankly, fucking ridiculous. 
We literally stripped them of their sovereign rule.
What country would accept that?
They attacked our land one time, and the rest of the war they defended their territories (viciously) and our response is that their sovereign rule must be eliminated??  That's not reasonable.
The homeland didn't need invaded, it is only the macho military attitude of America that made it a necessity.  

Japan's air force was definitely decimated as was their navy, but you had approx 4,000,000 troops occupying the homeland along with millions of civilians ready to give up their lives for their emperor and defend the homeland.
and then you had kamikazes...so it definitely wasn't going to be a cake walk.

Again, they were already ready to surrender, all we had to do was let them surrender with dignity.
An invasion was wholly unnecessary.

pjhawks

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJ_Soul said:

guypjfreak said:

As bad as the bombs were it saved thousands of American soldiers lives.. Maybe even one of yours or your partner or friends.. 

Yeah.... and ended hundreds of thousands of other lives and ruined many more..... I don't think the lives of the Japanese civilians are worth less than the lives of American soldiers (or Canadians). I am only interested in which decision would have killed the fewest people or prevented the most suffering. I am not necessarily convinced that the nukes win by that measure. Also, I can't help wondering what the world would be like if the nukes had never been used in the political sense. That bombing changed the course of history in so many ways.... possibly for the better. Possibly not. I do know that Einstein and many scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project 100% regretted their roles in the advent of nuclear weapons, no matter how the war against Japan might have gone without them.

my dad was in World War II as were some of my Uncles. Yes those lives mean a hell of a lot more to me than Japanese or even Canadians. If nuking them got  my dad home sooner I'm all for it.  and let's also not forget those fuckers attacked us first.

Those fuckers had sons and nephews and dads and uncles too.

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJ_Soul said:

guypjfreak said:

As bad as the bombs were it saved thousands of American soldiers lives.. Maybe even one of yours or your partner or friends.. 

Yeah.... and ended hundreds of thousands of other lives and ruined many more..... I don't think the lives of the Japanese civilians are worth less than the lives of American soldiers (or Canadians). I am only interested in which decision would have killed the fewest people or prevented the most suffering. I am not necessarily convinced that the nukes win by that measure. Also, I can't help wondering what the world would be like if the nukes had never been used in the political sense. That bombing changed the course of history in so many ways.... possibly for the better. Possibly not. I do know that Einstein and many scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project 100% regretted their roles in the advent of nuclear weapons, no matter how the war against Japan might have gone without them.

my dad was in World War II as were some of my Uncles. Yes those lives mean a hell of a lot more to me than Japanese or even Canadians. If nuking them got  my dad home sooner I'm all for it.  and let's also not forget those fuckers attacked us first.

Those fuckers had sons and nephews and dads and uncles too.

surely but i wouldn't be here if my dad had been killed by them so excuse me for taking his side. 

oftenreading

Surely the justification for an atrocity like the atomic bombing can't boil down to "if that didn't happen I wouldn't be here, so I see no problem with it".

tbergs

Maybe we need a new topic thread dedicated to the use of the A-bomb in WW2. This thread quit being about London a few pages back.

pjhawks

oftenreading said:

Surely the justification for an atrocity like the atomic bombing can't boil down to "if that didn't happen I wouldn't be here, so I see no problem with it".

no it's not that simple. and we dropped two of them