Question about Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Collin

tybird wrote:

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?

Sludge Factory

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.

tybird

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

tybird

Collin wrote:

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.

tybird

Sludge Factory wrote:

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.

Collin

tybird wrote:

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.

Sludge Factory

tybird wrote:

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.

PatrickBateman

SilverSeed wrote:

Dude, I saw Karate Kid 2. Apparently all you need is a bunch of people on your side rattling some drums. And the love of a young Japanese girl.

with Peter Cetera on your shoulder

Flannel Shirt

Collin wrote:

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.

tybird

Collin wrote:

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??

PJ_Saluki

Collin wrote:

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

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.

Byrnzie

tybird wrote:

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?

Byrnzie

tybird wrote:

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.

Collin

tybird wrote:

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."

tybird

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

tybird

Collin wrote:

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:

Byrnzie

tybird wrote:

...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."

tybird wrote:

...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.

tybird

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

tybird wrote:

Japan was not going to surrender prior to the bombs. You have no proof of that because no proof exists.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5282194&postcount=150

tybird wrote:

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!

tybird wrote:

Why don't you get over it and go pick a argument you can win for a change.

Yep, I'm always losing arguments here on the M.T. I must be some sort of masochist!

Byrnzie

tybird wrote:

...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.