Eisenhower and MacArthur (remember them, the Generals during WWII?) both agreed that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unecessary.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
The U.S. only had two bombs. Would they have continued to destroy cities until the Japanese surrendered??? What's the goal of war??? Should the Allies have stopped their European efforts at Germany's border and said that's enough??
That's a non logical argument. The US already were bombing japan, the question was : why were the a-bombs used? The answer is not so clear since you obviously seem to think they did not know what effect the bombs would have on the japanese government. And no the allies should not have stopped, and yes we are all grateful for their courag. And no I cannot judge the feelings of vengeance and payback looking back 60 years, I'm just saying things weren't so clear at that time.
Comparing 9/11 to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is apples and oranges. They're not even close to each other. Last time I checked, we weren't in a declared war with those fundamentalist wackos who flew jets into buildings. But, we were at war with Japan. Not. The. Same.
The motives of the attacks were definitely not the same. But the victims were.
You're right about one thing, though: Dropping those bombs did end the war. It was a hardcore motherfucker move, but it accomplished the goal. It sucks for the Japanese that nobody believed they would surrender, but if you want to assign blame, assign it to their leadership, not ours. I guess you want Americans to tell you we're ashamed?
No, you can do or say whatever you want. I just think it's sick you think they deserved to die.
Good luck. It wasn't the high point of our nation's existence, but it sure as hell wasn't turning a blind eye to Nazism. Man, it must be nice to live in Belgium. While its citizens were being railroaded by Hitler and his goons, U.S. and other Allied troops were dying to save them. People in Belgium don't have to deal with people criticizing them for winning the worst war the world has ever seen. They sat back and took it up the ass from the Germans but their hands are blood-free.
Your ignorance is beyond belief. Both my grandfathers fought in WWII, one of them died because of a gun shot wound. Fuck your American ethnocentrism. Many Belgian people died fighting in WWII, we also had a great resistance movement, which helped countless British and American pilots escape, they gave them food (which was scarce), they harboured them and kept them out of the hands of the nazis. Just watch Last Best Hope, that's one example. And every country had its own resistance movement, which all played a part in winning the war.
You just keep believing the American fairy tales how the Americans single-handedly won the war and how the allied forces, and occupied countries sat back and did nothing.
edit: here's the trailer of Last Best Hope in case you want to watch it, which I doubt because it isn't the American ethnocentric bullshit propaganda you are used to. Go talk to that pilot and tell him what you told me.
http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=11405
'There is ample evidence that the Japanese government was willing to surrender months before Aug. 6 if only it could keep its emperor. Much of this evidence is given in Alperovitz's book and much in Dennis D. Wainstock, The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996). Wainstock (pp. 22-23) tells of many attempts by the Japanese to clarify the terms and to make clear their willingness to surrender if they could only keep their emperor untouched. For example, on April 7, 1945, acting Foreign Minister Shigemitsu Mamoru asked Swedish Ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." Shigemitsu emphasized that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge passed the message on to the U.S. government, but Secretary of State Edward Stettinius told the U.S. ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of this matter."[10]
So the Japanese government tried another route. On May 7, 1945, Masutard Inoue, counselor of the Japanese legation in Portugal, approached an agent of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Inoue asked the agent to contact the U.S. embassy and "find out exactly what they plan to do in the Far East." He expressed his fear that Japan would be smashed, and he emphasized, "there can be no unconditional surrender." The agent passed the message on, but nothing came of it.
Three times is a charm, goes the saying. But not for the hapless Japanese. On May 10, 1945, Gen. Onodera, Japan's military representative in Sweden, tried to get a member of Sweden's royal family to approach the Allies for a settlement. He emphasized also that Japan's government would not accept unconditional surrender and must be allowed to "save face." The U.S. government urged Sweden's government to let the matter drop.
But if you can't at first surrender, try, try again. On July 12, with almost four weeks to go before the horrible blast, Kojiro Kitamura, a representative of the Yokohama Specie Bank in Switzerland, told Per Jacobson, a Swedish adviser to the Bank for International Settlements, that he wanted to contact U.S. representatives and that the only condition Japan insisted on was that it keep its emperor. "He was acting with the consent of Shunichi Kase, the Japanese minister to Switzerland, and General Kiyotomi Okamoto, chief of Japanese European intelligence, and they were in direct contact with Tokyo."[11] On July 14, Jacobson met in Wiesbaden, Germany with OSS representative Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA) and relayed the message that Japan's main demand was "retention of the Emperor." Dulles passed the information to Stimson, but Stimson refused to act on it.
Interestingly, Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy drafted a proposed surrender demand for the Committee of Three (Grew, Stimson, and Navy Secretary James Forrestal.) Their draft was part of Article 12 of the Potsdam Declaration, in which the Allies specified the conditions for Japan's surrender. Under their wording, Japan's government would have been allowed to keep its emperor as part of a "constitutional monarchy." Truman, though, who was influenced by his newly appointed Secretary of State James Byrnes on the ship over to the Potsdam Conference, changed the language of the surrender demand to drop the reference to keeping the emperor.
The bitter irony, of course, is that Truman ultimately allowed Japan to keep its emperor. Had this condition been dropped earlier, there would have been no need for the atom bomb. Rather than let Japan's government "save face," Truman destroyed almost 200,000 faces.
Why did this happen? Why did Truman persist in refusing to clarify what unconditional surrender meant? Alperovitz speculates, with evidence that some will find convincing and others won't, that the reason was to send a signal to Joseph Stalin that the U.S. government was willing to use some pretty vicious methods to dominate in the postwar world. My own view is that Truman and Byrnes wanted vengeance, plain and simple, and cared little about the loss of innocent lives. Let's face it: dropping an atom bomb on two non-militarily strategic cities was not different in principle from fire-bombing Tokyo or Dresden.
Unconditional Surrender is pretty easy to understand...us red-neck Southerners understood it at the end of the American Civil War...does that mean we were smarter than the Japanese. This info stated that the Japanese were looking to avoid the ONLY terms being offered to the Axis powers....Unconditional Surrender...it's pretty easy to understand. Remember the Japanese were negotiating an end to the oil crisis in December of 1941 while the fleet was enroute to Pearl...really trustworthy group.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
No, it doesn't. Unless you think of other people as less than yourself.
Valid question...you're at war...who's innocents are more valuable??
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Unconditional Surrender is pretty easy to understand...us red-neck Southerners understood it at the end of the American Civil War...does that mean we were smarter than the Japanese. This info stated that the Japanese were looking to avoid the ONLY terms being offered to the Axis powers....Unconditional Surrender...it's pretty easy to understand. Remember the Japanese were negotiating an end to the oil crisis in December of 1941 while the fleet was enroute to Pearl...really trustworthy group.
You can muddy the water all you like in an attempt to cling on to your baseless argument. The fact still stands, however, that the only condition the Japanese were asking for was that they keep their emperor. Not really a great reason to murder 200,000 civilians. And the fact is, the Japanese were permitted to keep their emperor in the end anyway.
Vietnam muddies into Cambodia as well and is the prime catalyst for the Khmer rouge atrocity...some nice work there for Kissinger and Nixon...I must say.. Add in a dash of East Timor massacre on top as frosting. Nixon gets immediately pardoned after resigning...but those underneath him get fitted with orange jumpsuits and iron bars. Kissinger, a blatant war criminal, the Dick Cheney of his time goes on to provide political advisor services to this day and more recently is appointed to the 9/11 commission in spite of... Hows that for dem apples?
It's all in national interests mind you...blowback (cough terrorism) is akin to a cat playing with it's food before it gets devoured. Those stupid poor people never know what hit them.
In for a penny, in for a fortune.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Valid question...you're at war...who's innocents are more valuable??
They're equally valuable. You are not at war with innocent people, you're not at war with children, you're not at war with the people who fight for the same things, you're not at war with the people who want peace. How can you say these people are less valuable or their deaths less tragic?
I'm curious as to why Japan would even want to keep an emperor that got them in that mess to begin with? I mean, it's like "We're gonna surrender, but we'd like to keep our bad decision-making leader".
Maybe someone can explain to me what the real rationale behind keeping him in power was.
You can muddy the water all you like in an attempt to cling on to your baseless argument. The fact still stands, however, that the only condition the Japanese were asking for was that they keep their emperor. Not really a great reason to murder 200,000 civilians. And the fact is, the Japanese were permitted to keep their emperor in the end anyway.
Okay....The Nazis didn't get to stay in power, the fascists were removed from power in Italy...and the Japanese want special treatment. :rolleyes: Like they deserved special treatment???
Unconditional Surrender should be fairly easy to understand. Your argument for special treatment of the Japanese is far more baseless than my argument.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
They're equally valuable. You are not at war with innocent people, you're not at war with children, you're not at war with the people who fight for the same things, you're not at war with the people who want peace. How can you say these people are less valuable or their deaths less tragic?
Look up the definition of "Total War." Despite whatever feel-good goody good feelings you want to have...that was the situation. It was practiced in Europe...it was practiced in the Pacific...by all sides. It was even used to free such countries as Belgium. There were no laser-guided bombs or missiles in that era.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
I'm curious as to why Japan would even want to keep an emperor that got them in that mess to begin with? I mean, it's like "We're gonna surrender, but we'd like to keep our bad decision-making leader".
Maybe someone can explain to me what the real rationale behind keeping him in power was.
It was a cultural thing...in some ways the emperor had almost god-like status in the culture. It was as if he was almost the basis for the entire culture.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Look up the definition of "Total War." Despite whatever feel-good goody good feelings you want to have...that was the situation. It was practiced in Europe...it was practiced in the Pacific...by all sides. It was even used to free such countries as Belgium. There were no laser-guided bombs or missiles in that era.
I know it was a total war situation, I know what total war is. What did you expect, that I'd look up total war and say, "oh it was total war, yeah you're totally right, I don't give a fuck about the people that died?"
Whether it was a bomb dropped by the Americans in order to "save the world", or the 9/11 attacks or a stray bullet, whether it was an accident or total war, I still think it's sad innocent people died, I still feel sympathy for the families of the victims and I still think their deaths should not be forgotten and definitely not be trivialised. And I think any innocent death is a mistake that should always be regretted and always remembered no matter how "justified" or necessary that death may have been.
You sacrifice thousands of people, kill them so you can be free and you forget about them, instead of remembering them. They died so you and I could live. But to you they don't mean a thing. They're less valuable, some don't even care they died and even think they deserved it. Mock me all you want but you really should be ashamed that you have so little respect for life. My grandfather fought and died in WWII. He fought against people who regarded other people as less valauble, as lesser beings, he fought so his children and their children could live in peace, in a world where people are treated equally. And perhaps innocent people need to die in order to achieve that, but the least you can do is honour them and remember them. Because if you don't, because if you look at the deaths of thousands of innocent people and look away again, not even giving a damn you are dangerously close to what our grandfathers fought against.
It was a cultural thing...in some ways the emperor had almost god-like status in the culture. It was as if he was almost the basis for the entire culture.
Okay, to me he should of had to step down because he was in the wrong, so I don't understand why he wasn't whereas the other axis leaders were.
I know it was a total war situation, I know what total war is. What did you expect, that I'd look up total war and say, "oh it was total war, yeah you're totally right, I don't give a fuck about the people that died?"
Whether it was a bomb dropped by the Americans in order to "save the world", or the 9/11 attacks or a stray bullet, whether it was an accident or total war, I still think it's sad innocent people died, I still feel sympathy for the families of the victims and I still think their deaths should not be forgotten and definitely not be trivialised. And I think any innocent death is a mistake that should always be regretted and always remembered no matter how "justified" or necessary that death may have been.
You sacrifice thousands of people, kill them so you can be free and you forget about them, instead of remembering them. They died so you and I could live. But to you they don't mean a thing. They're less valuable, some don't even care they died and even think they deserved it. Mock me all you want but you really should be ashamed that you have so little respect for life. My grandfather fought and died in WWII. He fought against people who regarded other people as less valauble, as lesser beings, he fought so his children and their children could live in peace, in a world where people are treated equally. And perhaps innocent people need to die in order to achieve that, but the least you can do is honour them and remember them. Because if you don't, because if you look at the deaths of thousands of innocent people and look away again, not even giving a damn you are dangerously close to what our grandfathers fought against.
very well said.
I was always under the impression that the bomb just melted/vaporized stuff. I saw lost cities of the underworld on history channel (I think that was the show...about the factories underground and how the people working in them survived) a few weeks back and the show was bout the bombing of hiroshima and what exactly happened. detonation, damage, etc....it was much worse than I thought. lets all pray/hope/make damn sure this never happens again.
All that's sacred, comes from youth....dedications, naive and true.
I know it was a total war situation, I know what total war is. What did you expect, that I'd look up total war and say, "oh it was total war, yeah you're totally right, I don't give a fuck about the people that died?"
Whether it was a bomb dropped by the Americans in order to "save the world", or the 9/11 attacks or a stray bullet, whether it was an accident or total war, I still think it's sad innocent people died, I still feel sympathy for the families of the victims and I still think their deaths should not be forgotten and definitely not be trivialised. And I think any innocent death is a mistake that should always be regretted and always remembered no matter how "justified" or necessary that death may have been.
You sacrifice thousands of people, kill them so you can be free and you forget about them, instead of remembering them. They died so you and I could live. But to you they don't mean a thing. They're less valuable, some don't even care they died and even think they deserved it. Mock me all you want but you really should be ashamed that you have so little respect for life. My grandfather fought and died in WWII. He fought against people who regarded other people as less valauble, as lesser beings, he fought so his children and their children could live in peace, in a world where people are treated equally. And perhaps innocent people need to die in order to achieve that, but the least you can do is honour them and remember them. Because if you don't, because if you look at the deaths of thousands of innocent people and look away again, not even giving a damn you are dangerously close to what our grandfathers fought against.
I never said that I don't give a damn about the death of innocents. Innocents die every second of every day. War is a condition of our species, and many other species also wage battle over territory, food and mates. It happens regardless of my feelings towards it. The second that Japan, Italy, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (don't forget about Poland and Finland) began to invade their neighbors in the late 1930's....innocent people were going to die, and leaders of many nations were going to have to make life or death decisions. That was the reality. Were you going to let innocent people die in your nation or were you going to do something about it first?? What if that doing something about it first involves killing innocents not of your nation?? What do you do??? People, probably innocent, are going to die no matter what your decision. That was the reality. No 21st century "peace and love" philosophy is going to change the reality of 1939-1945.
Why must there be special consideration for the victims of the Atomic bombs?? Are they more valuable than those who lost their lives at Pearl Harbor?? Are they more valuable than those who lost their lives at St. Petersburg or Stalingrad?? How about those innocents in Nanking?? How about the Ethiopians who lost their lives in the Italian invasion?? How about the Poles who were invaded by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union?? How about the innocents who died in Dresden?? How about the innocents who lost their lives during the Battle of Britain?? What makes the Japanese who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki more valuable??
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
The motives of the attacks were definitely not the same. But the victims were.
No, you can do or say whatever you want. I just think it's sick you think they deserved to die.
Your ignorance is beyond belief. Both my grandfathers fought in WWII, one of them died because of a gun shot wound. Fuck your American ethnocentrism. Many Belgian people died fighting in WWII, we also had a great resistance movement, which helped countless British and American pilots escape, they gave them food (which was scarce), they harboured them and kept them out of the hands of the nazis. Just watch Last Best Hope, that's one example. And every country had its own resistance movement, which all played a part in winning the war.
You just keep believing the American fairy tales how the Americans single-handedly won the war and how the allied forces, and occupied countries sat back and did nothing.
edit: here's the trailer of Last Best Hope in case you want to watch it, which I doubt because it isn't the American ethnocentric bullshit propaganda you are used to. Go talk to that pilot and tell him what you told me.
So what were they going to do? Turn the people fighting for their freedom into the the Nazis? Look, I respect the sacrifice your family made in the war. My "American ethnocentrism" gave credit to Allied troops. Props to the Resistance fighters. You'd be considered pussies if your forefathers didn't fight the Nazis.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
Okay....The Nazis didn't get to stay in power, the fascists were removed from power in Italy...and the Japanese want special treatment. :rolleyes: Like they deserved special treatment???
Unconditional Surrender should be fairly easy to understand. Your argument for special treatment of the Japanese is far more baseless than my argument.
If by 'special treatment' you mean the Japanese getting to keep their Emperor, then they did get special treatment. So what's your point?
Why must there be special consideration for the victims of the Atomic bombs?? Are they more valuable than those who lost their lives at Pearl Harbor?? Are they more valuable than those who lost their lives at St. Petersburg or Stalingrad?? How about those innocents in Nanking?? How about the Ethiopians who lost their lives in the Italian invasion?? How about the Poles who were invaded by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union?? How about the innocents who died in Dresden?? How about the innocents who lost their lives during the Battle of Britain?? What makes the Japanese who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki more valuable??
This debate is asking: Was the dropping of the two atomic bombs necessary. So far you haven't managed to provide any evidence that it was. Two atomic bombs were dropped on non-military postions and over 200,000 civilians were killed in an instant. The dropping of the bombs was a symbolic act that had no military necessity whatsoever, and which helped to define America's position in the world for the next 60 years.
Because you've not managed to provide any argument as to why the dropping of the bombs was necessary, you now resort to simply asking "What makes the Japanese who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki more valuable??"
In other words, you couldn't really give a toss about the subject, and are now just arguing for the sake of it.
I never said that I don't give a damn about the death of innocents. Innocents die every second of every day. War is a condition of our species, and many other species also wage battle over territory, food and mates. It happens regardless of my feelings towards it. The second that Japan, Italy, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (don't forget about Poland and Finland) began to invade their neighbors in the late 1930's....innocent people were going to die, and leaders of many nations were going to have to make life or death decisions. That was the reality. Were you going to let innocent people die in your nation or were you going to do something about it first?? What if that doing something about it first involves killing innocents not of your nation?? What do you do??? People, probably innocent, are going to die no matter what your decision. That was the reality. No 21st century "peace and love" philosophy is going to change the reality of 1939-1945.
Why must there be special consideration for the victims of the Atomic bombs?? Are they more valuable than those who lost their lives at Pearl Harbor?? Are they more valuable than those who lost their lives at St. Petersburg or Stalingrad?? How about those innocents in Nanking?? How about the Ethiopians who lost their lives in the Italian invasion?? How about the Poles who were invaded by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union?? How about the innocents who died in Dresden?? How about the innocents who lost their lives during the Battle of Britain?? What makes the Japanese who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki more valuable??
Did I say there should be special consideration of the Japanese victims? No, I said all of them were equally valuable, just look back and you can read it for yourself. This is a thread about the bombings in Japan. Not about Pearl Harbor, not St. Petersburg or Stalingrad. In threads about those events, I'd say the exact same thing: it's important to remember the people that died.
Wasn't it you that said the value of those people was subjective, and it depended on point of view?
No 21st century "peace and love" philosophy is going to change the reality of 1939-1945.
No, of course not. But remembering what happened, remembering all the innocent people that died might remind us all of how fucked up war is and people might try a little harder to love each other, they might try harder to find peaceful solutions. Because whether you're a nazi, fascist, communist, American, a hippie... no one wants to see their loved ones die, no one. So mock my 21st century ideas of "peace and love", I'll stick to them. And I'll feel sorry for the innocent people that died and I will try my very best to be peaceful and not to resort to violence. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
This debate is asking: Was the dropping of the two atomic bombs necessary. So far you haven't managed to provide any evidence that it was. Two atomic bombs were dropped on non-military postions and over 200,000 civilians were killed in an instant. The dropping of the bombs was a symbolic act that had no military necessity whatsoever, and which helped to define America's position in the world for the next 60 years.
Because you've not managed to provide any argument as to why the dropping of the bombs was necessary, you now resort to simply asking "What makes the Japanese who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki more valuable??"
In other words, you couldn't really give a toss about the subject, and are now just arguing for the sake of it.
...and I believe that your argument is very weak...you have paraded out rumors and after the fact reports by agencies that had a stake in the continued funding of the military...or quotes by people neither not involved or experienced in the matter (Ike) or by people who were seeking their own credit for the end of the war (MacArthur and LeMay..both of these gentlemen possessed monstrous egos).
I have never veered from my belief that the bombs were necessary. Your weak argument has not wavered my belief any. The entire Japanese population that was outside of a crib or a death bed was being actively trained to kill American soldiers...they were not going to surrender prior to the atomic bombs. You have presented no concrete proof of that they were considering surrender other mentions in post-war interviews by minor governmental representatives.
The argument regarding the value of innocents is a side argument started by your little Belgian friend.
You are the one who has no stake in the argument being non-American or Japanese. The bombs ended the war against Japan.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Did I say there should be special consideration of the Japanese victims? No, I said all of them were equally valuable, just look back and you can read it for yourself. This is a thread about the bombings in Japan. Not about Pearl Harbor, not St. Petersburg or Stalingrad. In threads about those events, I'd say the exact same thing: it's important to remember the people that died.
Wasn't it you that said the value of those people was subjective, and it depended on point of view?
No, of course not. But remembering what happened, remembering all the innocent people that died might remind us all of how fucked up war is and people might try a little harder to love each other, they might try harder to find peaceful solutions. Because whether you're a nazi, fascist, communist, American, a hippie... no one wants to see their loved ones die, no one. So mock my 21st century ideas of "peace and love", I'll stick to them. And I'll feel sorry for the innocent people that died and I will try my very best to be peaceful and not to resort to violence. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Maybe you should worry more about all the innocent people who died in the Belgian Congo?? :rolleyes:
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
...and I believe that your argument is very weak...you have paraded out rumors and after the fact reports by agencies that had a stake in the continued funding of the military...or quotes by people neither not involved or experienced in the matter (Ike) or by people who were seeking their own credit for the end of the war (MacArthur and LeMay..both of these gentlemen possessed monstrous egos).
So now you're argument rests on your assumption that MacArthur and LeMay 'possessed monstrous egos?' And Eisenhower was 'not involved or experienced in the matter'??
As if the military was ever 'not' going to receieve continued funding? Seriously, what the fuck are you on about?
You really are like a dog with a bone. Why not just admit that you're wrong and get over it?
And what about these other characters that have been quoted? How about these 3 Fleet Admirals quoted below? Were they merely all egoists? I suppose the only person that you base your non-argument on is Tibbets - the pilot of the Enola Gay.
You rmind me of Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper from the movie Dr Strangelove. I hope you're never placed in a position of power anywhere.
'Fleet Admiral Leahy, for instance, the chief of staff to the president and a friend of Truman's, thought the atom bomb unnecessary. Furthermore, he wrote, "in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and chief of Naval Operations, thought the war could be ended well before a planned November 1945 naval invasion. And in a public speech on Oct. 5, 1945, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, said, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war."
Many Army leaders had similar views. Author Norman Cousins writes of Gen. Douglas MacArthur:
"[H]e saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
...The entire Japanese population that was outside of a crib or a death bed was being actively trained to kill American soldiers.
Even if this were true, it's still irrelevant. As I've already shown, Japan was already seeking to surrender, and the Japanese military was on it's knees as a result of the B29's. . No ground invasion was necessary.
So now you're argument rests on your assumption that MacArthur and LeMay 'possessed monstrous egos?' And Eisenhower was 'not involved or experienced in the matter'??
As if the military was ever 'not' going to receieve continued funding? Seriously, what the fuck are you on about?
You really are like a dog with a bone. Why not just admit that you're wrong and get over it?
And what about these other characters that have been quoted? How about these 3 Fleet Admirals quoted below? Were they merely all egoists? I suppose the only person that you base your non-argument on is Tibbets - the pilot of the Enola Gay.
You rmind me of Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper from the movie Dr Strangelove. I hope you're never placed in a position of power anywhere.
'Fleet Admiral Leahy, for instance, the chief of staff to the president and a friend of Truman's, thought the atom bomb unnecessary. Furthermore, he wrote, "in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and chief of Naval Operations, thought the war could be ended well before a planned November 1945 naval invasion. And in a public speech on Oct. 5, 1945, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, said, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war."
Many Army leaders had similar views. Author Norman Cousins writes of Gen. Douglas MacArthur:
"[H]e saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Even if this were true, it's still irrelevant. As I've already shown, Japan was already seeking to surrender, and the Japanese military was on it's knees as a result of the B29's. . No ground invasion was necessary.
You are the dog with a bone....Japan was not going to surrender prior to the bombs. You have no proof of that because no proof exists. MacArthur, LeMay and Eisenhower all ran for either president or vice president....they were politicians at the end scrambling for either public funding or votes.
Maybe Germany would have surrendered earlier if we allowed them to keep the Nazi party in power?? That's basically your argument against Unconditional Surrender.
Why don't you get over it and go pick a argument you can win for a change.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Maybe Germany would have surrendered earlier if we allowed them to keep the Nazi party in power?? That's basically your argument against Unconditional Surrender.
But we did allow Japan to keep the Emperor. Explain that!
...I have never veered from my belief that the bombs were necessary.
Dr Strangelove
General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war? Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no. General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Comments
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
more
That's a non logical argument. The US already were bombing japan, the question was : why were the a-bombs used? The answer is not so clear since you obviously seem to think they did not know what effect the bombs would have on the japanese government. And no the allies should not have stopped, and yes we are all grateful for their courag. And no I cannot judge the feelings of vengeance and payback looking back 60 years, I'm just saying things weren't so clear at that time.
I honestly think the Japanese recovered well and are/have been contributing significantly for the world, even more than us Americans.
The motives of the attacks were definitely not the same. But the victims were.
No, you can do or say whatever you want. I just think it's sick you think they deserved to die.
Your ignorance is beyond belief. Both my grandfathers fought in WWII, one of them died because of a gun shot wound. Fuck your American ethnocentrism. Many Belgian people died fighting in WWII, we also had a great resistance movement, which helped countless British and American pilots escape, they gave them food (which was scarce), they harboured them and kept them out of the hands of the nazis. Just watch Last Best Hope, that's one example. And every country had its own resistance movement, which all played a part in winning the war.
You just keep believing the American fairy tales how the Americans single-handedly won the war and how the allied forces, and occupied countries sat back and did nothing.
edit: here's the trailer of Last Best Hope in case you want to watch it, which I doubt because it isn't the American ethnocentric bullshit propaganda you are used to. Go talk to that pilot and tell him what you told me.
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=1gGplLk-0mI
naděje umírá poslední
No, it doesn't. Unless you think of other people as less than yourself.
naděje umírá poslední
You can muddy the water all you like in an attempt to cling on to your baseless argument. The fact still stands, however, that the only condition the Japanese were asking for was that they keep their emperor. Not really a great reason to murder 200,000 civilians. And the fact is, the Japanese were permitted to keep their emperor in the end anyway.
It's all in national interests mind you...blowback (cough terrorism) is akin to a cat playing with it's food before it gets devoured. Those stupid poor people never know what hit them.
In for a penny, in for a fortune.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
They're equally valuable. You are not at war with innocent people, you're not at war with children, you're not at war with the people who fight for the same things, you're not at war with the people who want peace. How can you say these people are less valuable or their deaths less tragic?
naděje umírá poslední
Maybe someone can explain to me what the real rationale behind keeping him in power was.
Unconditional Surrender should be fairly easy to understand. Your argument for special treatment of the Japanese is far more baseless than my argument.
I know it was a total war situation, I know what total war is. What did you expect, that I'd look up total war and say, "oh it was total war, yeah you're totally right, I don't give a fuck about the people that died?"
Whether it was a bomb dropped by the Americans in order to "save the world", or the 9/11 attacks or a stray bullet, whether it was an accident or total war, I still think it's sad innocent people died, I still feel sympathy for the families of the victims and I still think their deaths should not be forgotten and definitely not be trivialised. And I think any innocent death is a mistake that should always be regretted and always remembered no matter how "justified" or necessary that death may have been.
You sacrifice thousands of people, kill them so you can be free and you forget about them, instead of remembering them. They died so you and I could live. But to you they don't mean a thing. They're less valuable, some don't even care they died and even think they deserved it. Mock me all you want but you really should be ashamed that you have so little respect for life. My grandfather fought and died in WWII. He fought against people who regarded other people as less valauble, as lesser beings, he fought so his children and their children could live in peace, in a world where people are treated equally. And perhaps innocent people need to die in order to achieve that, but the least you can do is honour them and remember them. Because if you don't, because if you look at the deaths of thousands of innocent people and look away again, not even giving a damn you are dangerously close to what our grandfathers fought against.
naděje umírá poslední
Okay, to me he should of had to step down because he was in the wrong, so I don't understand why he wasn't whereas the other axis leaders were.
with Peter Cetera on your shoulder
I was always under the impression that the bomb just melted/vaporized stuff. I saw lost cities of the underworld on history channel (I think that was the show...about the factories underground and how the people working in them survived) a few weeks back and the show was bout the bombing of hiroshima and what exactly happened. detonation, damage, etc....it was much worse than I thought. lets all pray/hope/make damn sure this never happens again.
Why must there be special consideration for the victims of the Atomic bombs?? Are they more valuable than those who lost their lives at Pearl Harbor?? Are they more valuable than those who lost their lives at St. Petersburg or Stalingrad?? How about those innocents in Nanking?? How about the Ethiopians who lost their lives in the Italian invasion?? How about the Poles who were invaded by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union?? How about the innocents who died in Dresden?? How about the innocents who lost their lives during the Battle of Britain?? What makes the Japanese who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki more valuable??
So what were they going to do? Turn the people fighting for their freedom into the the Nazis? Look, I respect the sacrifice your family made in the war. My "American ethnocentrism" gave credit to Allied troops. Props to the Resistance fighters. You'd be considered pussies if your forefathers didn't fight the Nazis.
If by 'special treatment' you mean the Japanese getting to keep their Emperor, then they did get special treatment. So what's your point?
This debate is asking: Was the dropping of the two atomic bombs necessary. So far you haven't managed to provide any evidence that it was. Two atomic bombs were dropped on non-military postions and over 200,000 civilians were killed in an instant. The dropping of the bombs was a symbolic act that had no military necessity whatsoever, and which helped to define America's position in the world for the next 60 years.
Because you've not managed to provide any argument as to why the dropping of the bombs was necessary, you now resort to simply asking "What makes the Japanese who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki more valuable??"
In other words, you couldn't really give a toss about the subject, and are now just arguing for the sake of it.
Did I say there should be special consideration of the Japanese victims? No, I said all of them were equally valuable, just look back and you can read it for yourself. This is a thread about the bombings in Japan. Not about Pearl Harbor, not St. Petersburg or Stalingrad. In threads about those events, I'd say the exact same thing: it's important to remember the people that died.
Wasn't it you that said the value of those people was subjective, and it depended on point of view?
No, of course not. But remembering what happened, remembering all the innocent people that died might remind us all of how fucked up war is and people might try a little harder to love each other, they might try harder to find peaceful solutions. Because whether you're a nazi, fascist, communist, American, a hippie... no one wants to see their loved ones die, no one. So mock my 21st century ideas of "peace and love", I'll stick to them. And I'll feel sorry for the innocent people that died and I will try my very best to be peaceful and not to resort to violence. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
naděje umírá poslední
I have never veered from my belief that the bombs were necessary. Your weak argument has not wavered my belief any. The entire Japanese population that was outside of a crib or a death bed was being actively trained to kill American soldiers...they were not going to surrender prior to the atomic bombs. You have presented no concrete proof of that they were considering surrender other mentions in post-war interviews by minor governmental representatives.
The argument regarding the value of innocents is a side argument started by your little Belgian friend.
You are the one who has no stake in the argument being non-American or Japanese. The bombs ended the war against Japan.
So now you're argument rests on your assumption that MacArthur and LeMay 'possessed monstrous egos?' And Eisenhower was 'not involved or experienced in the matter'??
As if the military was ever 'not' going to receieve continued funding? Seriously, what the fuck are you on about?
You really are like a dog with a bone. Why not just admit that you're wrong and get over it?
And what about these other characters that have been quoted? How about these 3 Fleet Admirals quoted below? Were they merely all egoists? I suppose the only person that you base your non-argument on is Tibbets - the pilot of the Enola Gay.
You rmind me of Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper from the movie Dr Strangelove. I hope you're never placed in a position of power anywhere.
'Fleet Admiral Leahy, for instance, the chief of staff to the president and a friend of Truman's, thought the atom bomb unnecessary. Furthermore, he wrote, "in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and chief of Naval Operations, thought the war could be ended well before a planned November 1945 naval invasion. And in a public speech on Oct. 5, 1945, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, said, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war."
Many Army leaders had similar views. Author Norman Cousins writes of Gen. Douglas MacArthur:
"[H]e saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Even if this were true, it's still irrelevant. As I've already shown, Japan was already seeking to surrender, and the Japanese military was on it's knees as a result of the B29's. . No ground invasion was necessary.
Maybe Germany would have surrendered earlier if we allowed them to keep the Nazi party in power?? That's basically your argument against Unconditional Surrender.
Why don't you get over it and go pick a argument you can win for a change.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5282194&postcount=150
But we did allow Japan to keep the Emperor. Explain that!
Yep, I'm always losing arguments here on the M.T. I must be some sort of masochist!
Dr Strangelove
General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.
General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.