Question about Hiroshima and Nagasaki

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Dustin51 wrote:

Dont know if anyone covered this, dont feel like reading through all the posts but agree these were horrible acts. I read something one time that said that the Japanese were trying to negotiate with us for week prior to their surrender. They knew what was coming and they wanted to surrender but we ignored them because Truman wanted Russia to know what we could do them.

I dont buy that. The Russians werent stupid. They knew what a nuke could do. All the US would have had to do was film a nuke going off in the desert to prove we had them. What would be the point of dropping it on a city? I seriously doubt Truman was so depraved and bloodthirsty that he just preferred to vaporize a city when a simple detonation in a remote area would suffice just as well.

Solat13

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

First of all don't talk down to me. I don't like it and its pissing me off.

Second a lot of Jewish people still have resentment towards Germans. Chinese and Japanese hate each other. My girlfriend is Armenian and she and all of her family HATES the Turks for the genocide of 1914. So time doesn't heal all wounds.

Germany doesn't hate us because a lot the people are still feeling guilty for allowing the Holocaust to happen. The people either deny it happened or don't talk about that time period at all. I wrote a paper on it in college a few years back and its amazing how much guilt still exists in Germany for allowing the Nazi's to take power. So time hasn't healed that wound either.

Third the bombings may not have been justified because of the long term effects but we didn't know the long term effects until we dropped the bomb. We were still researching the sucker in the 1950's years after dropping it for the first time. Still a full scale invasion of Japan would have led to Civilian Deaths as well as US soldiers death. Young men who joined after our country was attacked by Japan. So if you want me to lose sleep at night over what we did in Hiroshima or Nagasoki I won't. It was a horrible tragedy, but it wouldn't have happened had Japan not involved us in the war.

And Lastly I'm not brainwashed because I don't believe the US is always wrong. I love my country enough to know that we are right as much as we are wrong. You sound more brainwashed with your Anti America Propaganda then I ever will. Especially how you have to correct people that Russia would have won the war without us. Would Russia have fought to save the innocent Asians dying at the hands of the Japanese? I think not. Also its debatable if Russia could have defeated the Nazi's but there was no question that the Nazi's were done after the US got involved. So that means we had an effect on the outcome.

WWII was a WORLD WAR. Russia defended there border successfully but imo could care less if the rest of Europe fell to the Nazi's. The US involved themselves in all aspects of the World War so yes I think we deserve the credit we give ourselves for the outcome. The credit that is openly shared with Russians and the UK btw in any history book.

Much of family still hates the Japanese for the atrocities they committed in WW2. I'm half-Filipino with a lot of family there and my grandfather still has the scars from being tortured by the Japanese as they tried to get info from him about positions where the Filipino army was stationed. He was a colonel and at the end of the war he was one of the highest ranking Filipino officers who served under MacArthur and became friends with him. My grandmother escaped before her village was taken over by the Japanese and she told me about her friends being raped and her neighbor's infant being killed after a Japanese soldier throw it up in the air to "catch" it on his bayonet.

The Japanese thought of Filipinos as inferior and not part of the Master Asian Race. So I'm sorry if I don't feel bad about the use of the atomic bomb being used on them.

pjalive21

does Pearl Harbor ring any bells???

oh yeah thats right just like everything else in American history it was made up, like 9/11, it was done by the government

tybird

Dustin51 wrote:

Dont know if anyone covered this, dont feel like reading through all the posts but agree these were horrible acts. I read something one time that said that the Japanese were trying to negotiate with us for week prior to their surrender. They knew what was coming and they wanted to surrender but we ignored them because Truman wanted Russia to know what we could do them.

It's called delaying tactics....any terms for surrender had been set by the Allies (U.S., Great Britain and the Soviet Union) at the Yalta Conference (Yalta should be right, I occasionally get the conferences screwed up). The terms were simple. Unconditional Surrender was the only terms accepted by the Allies, not just the U.S. Germany accepted those terms...what made the Japanese so special that they could negotiate out of them?

MLC2006

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Yeah, and our government had NOTHING to do with it, right? :rolleyes: jesus.

nope, the US government had nothing whatsoever to do with provoking an attack from Japan at a time that the US was at peace. :rolleyes: allah.

even flow?

A lot of good info and banter in this thread. After reading all the numbers of deaths per nation, why the hell does one race still want money and guilt from everybody else on this planet!!!

As for the bombs? As has been pointed out, war is hell and it is win at any cost when it is a real war. Something some coutries like to pretend they have every 10 years or so.

Collin

PJ_Saluki wrote:

If you're going to quote me, quote the entire thought.

I said I don't care because it came down to a choice: Nuke the Japanese or lose hundreds of thousands of troops in a full-scale invasion. Apparently you don't get that the Japanese were not going to surrender if we stepped foot on their islands. They were going to fight to the death.

You don't care because it came down to a choice? You don't care that over 200,000 innocent people died because it came down to a choice. I'm sorry but that's fucked up no matter how you put it or try to twist it.

Also, I guess you would have rather me make the argument that the bombings were "something that had to be done (there's no way any of us can know what would've happened if they hadn't dropped the bombs)" so you could play the "but we didn't know if there was another way" card.

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but making that argument is some 21st century bullshit.

No, I'm saying no one knows. Just that, you don't know and I don't know.

Also, there are people (I think Eisenhower was one of them) who said the bombings were not necessary, that Japan was already defeated. So, I definitely wouldn't say that argument is 21st century bullshit.

But the point is we don't know. You say there was no other way, other people say there might as well have been another way.

The people who were pulling the strings in Japan were sick fucks who believed they were the master race and destined to rule the world. Their people bought into it when things were going well, but once they started to get their asses kicked we should forget all the horrible war crimes their armies committed? Nope, not going to happen.

So you bomb 200,000 innocent people as punishment for the horrible war crimes :rolleyes: That makes sense.

Dropping those bombs did a couple of things: First, it defeated the Japanese both physically and mentally (and mentally was the most important part); second, it let the world know that we had a weapon that would totally flatten them if they tried to extend the war in some sort of mad land grab.

That it did. It also killed 200,000 innocent people, which you don't care about because they, innocent as they were, deserved it somehow. It mutilated children and made thousands of people ill. There are more than 400,000 people who have died because of the bombs.

War is disgusting and evil. Innocent people die. Horrible decisions must be made.

I wonder how you feel when someone says they don't give a damn about the people who died on 9/11. It wasn't their grandmother and terrible things happen in war. And don't tell me it's different.

Looking back on it and criticizing the U.S. for wanting to stop the worst war the world had ever seen by dropping bombs on cities that were factory towns for the Japanese war machine is a pathetic attempt at saying you -- a person who benefitted from the bombs -- are above those folks. You're smarter and more compassionate. You are more human.

ONly problem is, you're discounting the experiences of those people. You're trying to take your sensibilities as a 21st century who has never experienced those horrors and ascribe them to the people who were involved. History, at least non-revisionist history, doesn't work that way.

If taking into account the concerns of WWII leaders makes me disgusting, it's a label I wear proudly.

No, I took into account the concerns of WWII leaders as well. You said they deserved to die. Innocent people. And that's what I find disgusting.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

Saturnal wrote:

All very accurate information...

...and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with America carrying out a massive slaughter of civilians.

That's life, dude, what can I say...it's full of unfairness

sound familiar????

lalalalaaaaaaaa

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

That's life, dude, what can I say...it's full of unfairness

sound familiar????

lol...it still has nothing to do with those bombings

tybird

Collin wrote:

Also, there are people (I think Eisenhower was one of them) who said the bombings were not necessary, that Japan was already defeated. So, I definitely wouldn't say that argument is 21st century bullshit.

But the point is we don't know. You say there was no other way, other people say there might as well have been another way.

It doesn't matter what Eisenhower thought...it wasn't his theater of the war..he didn't have to fight the Japanese. Maybe he wanted to???? It mattered more what people like MacArthur or Halsey thought...they were the ones dodging Japanese bullets and the "Divine Wind."

Most of the argument is 21st century bullshit revisionist history...you can't take what we know 60 years after the fact and act like the people of that time knew the same information...it doesn't work that way...you can't interject 21st century judgments and ideas into people's actions six decades gone.

The only other plan outside of the bombs and an invasion was prolonged aerial bombardment of the home islands....I have read some estimates from this plan, and it would have probably killed more Japanese through famine than the bombs did through their magic. Choose your poison...atomic radiation or starving to death.

I most admit that my reasons for thanking God that the bombs quickly ended the war is selfish....my maternal Grandfather did not have to drop bombs over a besieged Japan like he did over Nazis in North Africa and Italy. If the war stretched beyond what it did....he would have been in harm's way again.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

tybird wrote:

It doesn't matter what Eisenhower thought...it wasn't his theater of the war..he didn't have to fight the Japanese. Maybe he wanted to???? It mattered more what people like MacArthur or Halsey thought...they were the ones dodging Japanese bullets and the "Divine Wind."

Most of the argument is 21st century bullshit revisionist history...you can't take what we know 60 years after the fact and act like the people of that time knew the same information...it doesn't work that way...you can't interject 21st century judgments and ideas into people's actions six decades gone.

The only other plan outside of the bombs and an invasion was prolonged aerial bombardment of the home islands....I have read some estimates from this plan, and it would have probably killed more Japanese through famine than the bombs did through their magic. Choose your poison...atomic radiation or starving to death.

I most admit that my reasons for thanking God that the bombs quickly ended the war is selfish....my maternal Grandfather did not have to drop bombs over a besieged Japan like he did over Nazis in North Africa and Italy. If the war stretched beyond what it did....he would have been in harm's way again.

and i have a feeling your grandfather......

would like to take some of americas youth....

who have that....

"anti america attitude"

and smack them right upside their fucking heads.....

Collin

tybird wrote:

Most of the argument is 21st century bullshit revisionist history...you can't take what we know 60 years after the fact and act like the people of that time knew the same information...it doesn't work that way...you can't interject 21st century judgments and ideas into people's actions six decades gone.

Milan Kundera was right.


This bullshit "we didn't know" rhetoric, this "Wir haben es nicht gewusst" bullshit is not something to hide behind. Face the facts, the US killed more than 200,000 innocent people and more than 400,000 people died because of the bombings.

The question is are you ok with killing innocent people to save other people? Please, think hard about what a 'yes' to that quesion means.

Besides, I think they very well knew plenty of innocent people would be killed. It's not rocket science. Drop a bomb, people die. Drop a bomb on innocent people, innocent people die.

Also, you can't use sixty year old logic to justify what happened sixty years ago. I think we should try to learn from the mistakes we made in the past, not try to look for ways to justify them.

Solat13

Collin wrote:

Milan Kundera was right.


This bullshit "we didn't know" rhetoric, this "Wir haben es nicht gewusst" bullshit is not something to hide behind. Face the facts, the US killed more than 200,000 innocent people and more than 400,000 people died because of the bombings.

The question is are you ok with killing innocent people to save other people? Please, think hard about what a 'yes' to that quesion means.

Besides, I think they very well knew plenty of innocent people would be killed. It's not rocket science. Drop a bomb, people die. Drop a bomb on innocent people, innocent people die.

Also, you can't use sixty year old logic to justify what happened sixty years ago. I think we should try to learn from the mistakes we made in the past, not try to look for ways to justify them.

And that total is 1-2% of the total Innocent Civilian population Japan killed in their Asian Holocaust or about the same number of woman that Japanese forced into prostitution to keep their soldiers happy. And that's not even counting the women they raped.

And to answer your question, I'm perfectly ok with killing innocent people to end a war. Apparently the other side, was perfectly fine with killing millions upon millions of innocent people and chose not to unconditionally surrender and this was the only way to get them to capitulate without a full out land invasion.

Besides WW2 is still going on. Russia, everyone on this board's hero of WW2 declared war on Japan after the US dropped the atomic bombs and took over land around Manchuria from a crippled Japan. After the Allies reached a peace with Japan, Russia and Japan never came to an agreement and still haven't to this day.

rebornFixer

I am sure the point has already been made in this (long) thread (that I don't really wish to read). But from one perspective, a military one, these bombings were, strategically and tactically, the right move to make. The argument is also made that (paradoxically), the bombings saved many Japanese (and Allied) lives by preventing an invasion of the mainland. Given Japanese doctrine of the era, A LOT of Japanese would have died during an invasion, many many more that those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Commy

The US Strategic Bombing Survey had done research during the war, and immediately after. They found,

"Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion."

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.








http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

Collin

Solat13 wrote:

And that total is 1-2% of the total Innocent Civilian population Japan killed in their Asian Holocaust or about the same number of woman that Japanese forced into prostitution to keep their soldiers happy. And that's not even counting the women they raped.

And to answer your question, I'm perfectly ok with killing innocent people to end a war. Apparently the other side, was perfectly fine with killing millions upon millions of innocent people and chose not to unconditionally surrender and this was the only way to get them to capitulate without a full out land invasion.

Besides WW2 is still going on. Russia, everyone on this board's hero of WW2 declared war on Japan after the US dropped the atomic bombs and took over land around Manchuria from a crippled Japan. After the Allies reached a peace with Japan, Russia and Japan never came to an agreement and still haven't to this day.

I'm not defending Japan here. I know what they did. It's horrible.

But in my opinion killing thousands of innocent people and making thousands and thousands more ill is still wrong, sad, disgusting etc.

You say it was the only way, but you don't know that. And neither do I. Anyway, I think I know enough when you said you're ok with killing innocent people. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be ok with it if it were Americans.

And no, WWII is not still going on.

Collin

Another question. One nuke wouldn't have stopped the war (which is apparently still being fought between Japan and Russia)? Was it really necessary to drop another one?

rebornFixer

Commy wrote:

The US Strategic Bombing Survey had done research during the war, and immediately after. They found,

"Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion."

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.








http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

Maybe ... But this is speculation, with the benefit of hindsight being 20/20. Nobody without a time machine and an awful lot of political clout will ever be able to decisively prove that Japan was open to an unconditional surrender, pre-bombing. Maybe elements of the Japanese leadership (the sane ones) were open to the idea ... But would they have carried the day? And BTW, using "air supremacy over Japan" to force a surrender would have still cost many Japanese lives. In fact, conventional bombs can create firestorms that can kill as many people as a low-grade nuke (without the fallout, granted).
I don't know ... There's arguments either way. Like someone else pointed out, we have the "benefit" of analyzing the situation from our "progressive" 21st century viewpoint.

Collin

Commy wrote:

The US Strategic Bombing Survey had done research during the war, and immediately after. They found,

"Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion."

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.









http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

You just hate America, don't you?

rebornFixer

Collin wrote:

Another question. One nuke wouldn't have stopped the war (which is apparently still being fought between Japan and Russia)? Was it really necessary to drop another one?

Yes, I am inclined to agree that one probably would have been enough to force a surrender.