Janey

Sounds familiar in that the Soviet Union excercised identical methodology in their incorporation of Europe post WWII. They were now a superpower, with a doctrine that was obviously vastly superior morally to the West. Thousands upon thousands fed the mill with their lives with (sometimes enforced) fanaticism in order to create a 'preemptive strike" capability against their ex-allies.

I thought that this was obvious. hmmm.

Do you want me to go on about Mao and his cultural revolution?

A movie inaccurate??? Say it ain't so! What do you take me for? Even recent examples of movies demonstrate extreme historical inaccuracies (take Revenge of the Sith for example ).

My intent was to illustrate using an example quote from popular culture the attitude portrayed that the Geneva convention or the Queensbury rules for all their intent on civilizing human conflict, can be tossed aside when it comes to brass tacks.

(edit): inane comment removed - i calmed down a bit)

Ustwo

I saved your innane comment because it wasn't innane.

I am a bit defensive because of the number of people who would be more than willing to equate the current US policy to the dicators of WWII.



So yea I'm a bit defensive

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Janey

lol. ok, I didn't mean to offend.

at any rate, that equation is a bit of a stretch, i don't see how it even canbe attempted.

Now, I can believe though, that your government can be lobbied, influenced and subtley directed by special interest groups. I know that this can be the case because EVEN the vaunted Canadian goverment is susceptible. It's just our influence is insignificant compared to yours.

politicophile

It is easy to sit here, 60 years after the fact, and say that dropping the bombs was unnecessary. Without our temporal vantage, however, the issue becomes much more complex. Truman had the weight of well over 200,000 dead Americans on his conscience when he made the decision to end a war that had consumed lives at a horrific rate for 3 1/2 years. It is hardly reasonable to expect a man in those circumstances to avoid using the most effective weapon in his arsenal because there might possibly be fewer total people killed if he didn't drop the bombs. I would imagine he was thinking mostly of American lives that would be saved. Surely, none of us would say that the bombs didn't save the lives of Allied soldiers? Killing the enemy isn't seen as a drawback when your nation is fighting a world war.

I have never understood the villification of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They weren't the deadliest bombings of civilians in WWII. I can only conclude that the nuclear critics have never heard of Dresden. The only special thing about Hiroshima was that we dropped one bomb instead of thousands. You're just arguing against technological efficiency, not against death tolls because, as I alluded to, Dresden was the site of the largest number of civilian casualties from a bombing campaign, not Hiroshima.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Pacifier

Why are you so certain?

Again:

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"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.[18]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Bodyhammer86

20/20 hindsight is always a wonderful thing isn't it? This survey was conducted after the war ended, how were we supposed to know any of this information prior to the war's end?

__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

Pacifier

yes, but how can you still claim an invasion would have costed X-thousands of american lives?
How can you still claim that it would have costed X-thousand americans lives if you didn't tried?
That claim is just a "what if", highly speculative, but it is always presented as "fact".

This is not about what should have done instead, but also how to view and value the events afterwards.


And again:
Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. [12] The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings.

I question your justification. IMO the "we saved lives" claim is wrong, there would have been multiple other option to save lives wothout dropping the bombs, also both bombs were dropped in quick succession which also makes the claim unbelievable. The biggest reason for the bomb was to show the Russians the finger.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

viejo gringo

I didn't have to study history to know it was necessary---

I was alive and well, and scared as hell, because my dad was
in the next batch to go..there were a lot of windows with gold
stars in them....

and even as a kid, I new it had to be done...to many neighbors
did not come home..VG

TM875

You know what? Dropping the bomb on Japan put a halt to the future use of nuclear weapons. It could have been New York, or London, or even Berlin that might have been subjected to a nuclear attack. It would have happened, eventually. The US gets criticized just because we did it first. If we didn't scare the bear, then the bear might just have ate us first.

You know what? It's just another casualty of war. So, a bunch of Japanese died. It could have been a bunch of Americans dying if Japan or Russia perfected the technology first. If the bomb wasn't used during WWII, then it could have been a bunch of Russians dying, or Turks, or Chinese, for all we know.

What I'm saying is that lives would have been lost eventually, regardless. People who lived on an island in the Pacific just happened to be the casulties. But lives are lives, after all. No one nation or group of people is better than another. However, the fact that it was used gives no one the right to cast stones at the US. We tried a technology which we did not know all of the consequences of. The past is over - let's be happy that nuclear weapons were never used again, as of yet.

__________________
"I've made only one mistake in my life. But I made it over and over and over. That was saying 'yes' when I meant 'no'. Forgive me."

hulk

Oh, come on. You can do better than that.

What do you think led hundreds of thousands of English, Australians and Americans into the grinder in WW2? It sure as hell wasn't common sense.

Look here. China had fourteen MILLION civilian deaths. The Japanese were no less savage than the Nazis. Do you think they'd have surrendered without an utter show of force like the nuke?

It took troops marching on a flattened Berlin to convince the Nazis to surrender, and they didn't have a long-held ideal that their leader was divine, unlike the Japanese. To suggest that their military would just lay down their arms without utter defeat imminent is almost ludicrous.

I question your ethics. You really put the value on those that died as nothing but a show of force to the Russians? You realize, I hope, without their hope WW2 would have been lost to us, and the US did know that, believe it or not.

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

Vincentt

I got back from Hiroshima today, it really is stunning to see the peace park, ground zero, and the A-Dome.

Something many people seem to forget about Japan... is that during world war II it wasn't just a small island.. Japan had expanded by quite a bit. And were rather ruthless about it.

nukes are horrid, but so is any war. Dying by a bomb, bullet, or nuke...

To say "U.S. shouldn't have nuked Japan" is the same as saying "Japan should have never attacked china".

Of course no one should ever kill anyone.

__________________
.

Ustwo

No. They are two totally different things.

Saying the US shouldn't have nuked Japan is the same as saying the British shouldn't have bombed Berlin. It is the difference between the aggressor and the defender.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

tecoyah

Moved to politics.....Also inevitable

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Lebell

Hmph.

Welcome to Politics

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unfortunate, but after studying the events of the time I concluded awhile ago that it was preferable to the alternative.

I sleep well at night regarding this bit of American history.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

hulk

...Which is the exact same thing as Japan attacking China. A difference between the aggressor and the defender.

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

Marvelous Marv

Pretty much. You guys started the war by invading other countries.


Let me sum this up for you: You guys invade other countries, ally yourself with torturers, "experiment" on how long it takes a human to freeze/burn to death, inject dye into twins' eyes for the fun of it, and then tell us we're "inhumane" because we didn't want to send our exhausted soldiers into a Quagmire (capital "Q" intentional)?


Look up "Operation Cherry Blossom." That's the failed plan of the Japanese to drop plague bacteria on the US west coast.


Until you can convince me that the Japanese had a way to make sure it would not infect civilians, I won't lose any sleep over the atomic bombings.

Marvelous Marv

You need to give it a rest. Preferably while doing some research.

Here's a history lesson I was involved with awhile back. I challenge you to find a factual error in it.

The Japanese also used biological warfare against the Chinese. Some of it was directed against villages suspected of helping the American fliers in the Doolittle raid over Tokyo. In areas that might have served as landing areas for the bombers, the Japanese plowed up every Chinese airfield within 20,000 square miles, and massacred 250,000 civilians. We now know that Japanese aviators sprayed fleas carrying plague over large metropolitan areas like Shanghai, and that flasks containing cholera, dysentery, typhoid, plague, and anthrax were tossed into rivers, wells, reservoirs, and houses. The Japanese also mixed food with deadly germs to affect Chinese civilians and military. Cakes laced with typhoid were left in areas full of hungry peasants, and bread containing disease germs was given to POWs before they were freed. The final death count was almost 4 million, with all but 400,000 being civilians. Millions more perished from starvation and disease caused by Japanese looting, bombing, and medical experimentation. If those deaths are added to the final count, the Japanese killed more than 19 million Chinese people in its nine-year war with China.

This will give you some idea of the [evil] enemy we were fighting, and why it was decided that the atomic bomb would save more lives than it destroyed. A land invasion of Japan would cost at least a million American lives, by most estimates. Japanese citizens were being armed, and had the same views of honor and death as did the soldiers. They would fight to the death. (As late as 1977, Japanese pilots were found on Pacific islands, unaware that the war was over and still fighting it.)
In his history of World War II, Winston Churchill wrote of the decision,
"Up to this moment we had shaped our ideas towards an assault upon the homeland of Japan by terrific air bombing and by the invasion of very large armies. We had contemplated the desperate resistance of the Japanese fighting to the death with Samurai devotion, not only in pitched battles, but in every cave and dugout. I had in my mind the spectacle of Okinawa island, where many thousands of Japanese, rather than surrender, had drawn up in line and destroyed themselves by hand-grenades after their leaders had solemnly performed the rite of hara-kiri. To quell the Japanese resistance man by man and conquer the country yard by yard might well require the loss of a million American lives and half that number of British-or more if we could get them there. . ."

There are those who say that dropping the atomic bombs was unnecessary, that Japan needed only to be blockaded and starved into submission, or that air power alone could destroy the Japanese power of resistance. The American Chiefs of Staff rejected these ideas. Even though the Japanese homeland was in chaos and on the verge of collapse, power still lay almost entirely in the hands of a military clique determined to commit the nation to mass suicide rather than accept defeat. When he learned of the atomic bomb, Churchill saw the weapon as so "supernatural" that its use might provide the Japanese with an excuse to surrender while saving their honor (and thus many Japanese lives). They wouldn't have to commit themselves to fighting to the death of the last man. In addition, we wouldn't need the help of the Russians. The final decision rested with President Truman, and Churchill said, ". . . I never doubted what it would be, nor have I ever doubted since that he was right. There was unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around our table; nor did I ever hear the slightest suggestion that we should do otherwise."

On July 26, 1945, a document giving Japan an ultimatum was published. It was from the President of the United States, the president of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The document contained the sentence: "The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese forces, and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland." The document called for Japan's unconditional surrender; the alternative was "complete and utter destruction."

Japan rejected the terms, and plans were made to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (military targets). Every chance was given to the inhabitants. Many Japanese cities were warned by leaflets of upcoming bombing raids which were then carried out as stated. We did what we said we were going to do. By the time of the last warning on August 5, a million and a half leaflets had been dropped every day since July 27, along with 3 million copies of the ultimatum. (Contrast this to Pearl Harbor, where war was declared six hours AFTER the torpedoes were launched.)

The terms of surrender were accepted by the Japanese emperor on August 14, and the Allied fleets entered Tokyo Bay. On the morning of September 2, 1945, the formal surrender was signed on the U.S. battleship Missouri.

Pacifier

LOL thats priceless. So germans have no right, not now and not in the furure to critizise anyone because our atrocities in the past?

Just for your information. I never assisted in the invation of another nation.

Once again one atrocity doesn't jusitfy another. If you're wife gets raped you don't have the right to rape the other guys wife too.

another "unimportant guy" who thought the bomb was unneccecary:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act? 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.
Eisenhower, Dwight D. The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-56. Garden City: Doubleday.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

tecoyah

Much as many German citizens regret the actions of past government action during wartime, So do Americans...but this does not change the Fact thet the actions occured. War is a nasty business, with the goal of destroying an enemy as quickly as possible with as little loss to yourself as possible. In this the United States was successful, hopefully the world learned a valuable lesson from this action......as it was inevitable (in my opinion) once the technology was created.
I was not there....and must rely on the opinions of others to evaluate the need to use these weapons, but I can still regret that they were used at all, and I do. This does not in any way change history. We can blame Hitler, Einstein, or the Pilot that flew the Bomb.....which will accomplish nothing. Just as blaming an entire people for the past is counter productive.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

hulk

Rape isn't quite war. To end a global conflict through the demonstration of an unstoppable power is another thing altogether. The US could have well nuked Japan to a slagpile. They could have hit a majorly populated area, a capital city. Instead, they chose largely industrial targets, to not only cripple Japan's war machine but to minimalise civilian casualties.

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

Marvelous Marv

Of course you do--it just makes you look silly!

It resembles a situation in which a mugger attacks a karate expert, and then whines that his intended victim defended himself too roughly.


It would be highly beneficial to you if you talked to some of the people who did the "invating," before they pass away.

I never said I did, but I believe I have the right to do whatever is necessary to make him stop.



I'm sure you can find people who think it wasn't necessary. Can you find any who can explain why, if Japan was so ready to surrender, that they didn't do so after Hiroshima?

More to follow when I have a little more time.

Charlatan

Justified or not... it is entirely besides the point.

Why rehash the intentions of military leaders made 60 years ago? The fact is it was a tragedy. The bombing of Dresden and Tokyo (and the fire storms that followed seem to me to be much more horrific in nature since they were committed with conventional explosives).

For me, Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain important bench marks NOT because the US did the bombing (it really doesn't matter who did it in the end) but rather because these two bombings gave us a *very* clear picture of the devestation that can be had from nukes.

If these bombings, as horrible as they were, had not taken place I think there would have been a rush for the US, Russia, or someother nation to use one... just because they could.

Sure, they did all sorts of testing and could see that the bombs they were creating were very powerful. But is the gut wrenching images of what these bombs (small by the standards of even a few years later) could do to people.

I am convinced it is one of the main things that kept the "buttons" from being pushed.

Yes. We need to remember the bombings but placing blame on either side of the equation (US or Japan) is a fruitless endeavour.

Learn from past experience and move forward.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Pacifier

yeah, I know its "invading"
and yes I talked to people who lived in that time, I'm a german and have relatives who lived through the war.



Perhaps it took them some time to realise what exactly had happened?
What did the US do in the time between? Why didn't they started negoations again if they were so eager to save lifes?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

highthief

Kwai is an anti-war movie, not a war movie.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Marvelous Marv

This is probably the best possible analysis of the event.

Coppertop

Never forget that Hiroshima, Nagasaki and all the other potential nuclear targets were spared from conventional attacks (while the rest of Japan was being firebombed to hell and back) to further increase the damage and terror caused by these weapons.

It is a fallacy to believe that nuking 100k Japanese civilians or losing 500k American lives were the only two options.

Coppertop

This is what happened.

Ustwo

Of course there were other options. Nuking was the best option. Firebombing was expected and would have accomplished little and destroyed just as much as it had in Tokyo.

This was in fact a psychological slap in the face. We just made your city go 'poof' in a way you don't understand, surrender or have no hope.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Dyze

One bomb would have been totally enough. The other one was just a experminent and therefore a war crime.

__________________
Knowing is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Ustwo

Care to explain your logic a bit more here?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

alansmithee

Of course, because Japan was so quick to surrender after Hiroshima...oh wait.

And besides, wouldn't it make more sense for the FIRST one to be the experiment? You don't usually need to experiment if you have a working model that has been field tested. But please continue, more anti-American hysteria is always good for a laugh.

zen_tom

Is 8 days too slow for you alan?

alansmithee

For an army that (according to some of the propaganda in this thread) was already on the brink of surrender, yes. If surrender is already being considered (IMO a dubious claim) and you just see your enemy annihilate one of your cities with one attack, it doesn't take months of discussion to decide to surrender.

zen_tom

No, it would apparently take about 8 days.

joshbaumgartner

Is there any evidence that Truman knew that Japan was going to surrender 'too soon' and that the second bomb was thus dropped intentionally knowing that it was not necessary to bring about Japanese surrender? If not, than while hind sight may or may not support the idea that one would have still brought about a 1945 surrender, since this is really just conjecture, it doesn't serve to indict any of those who made the call to drop it.

In the end, dropping the bombs saved both Japanese and American lives. While dropping only one, if it had the same effect politically, would have cost even fewer, I think it is far too insensitive to the reality of the time to consider it acceptable to have dropped one, yet criminal to have dropped two. The facts simply don't support such a proposition.

Josh

Marvelous Marv

Or a second nuke.

Potsdam Declaration:

26 July 1945

Hiroshima:

03 August 1945 (Eight days later)

Nagasaki:

06 August 1945

Japanese surrender:

02 September 1945

By the way, the U.S.S. Indianapolis was torpedoed by a Japanese sub, and sank on July 30, 1945. Hundreds of lives were lost, including many who were eaten by sharks, while their buddies floated nearby, powerless to assist.

Exactly how much longer would you have preferred that our soldiers keep dying, when we had the means to prevent it?

daswig

Remember the invasion of Okinawa? Remember the film of local civilians leaping to their deaths off of a cliff with their children in their arms rather than to be captured by the Americans? now imagine that on the scale of an invasion of the home islands...

daswig

Really? Care to cite the law it broke? If it was a war crime, it had to violate a law, yes? So cite it, and the date of that law's enactment.

Marvelous Marv

I'm being a little offbeat by quoting myself, but I should clarify that I pulled the Japanese surrender date off the document itself. V-J Day is tomorrow.

Also, here's a little gem I dug up. I'm not going to the trouble of posting a link unless the volume of discussion in this thread increases, and someone claims it's not true.

Doesn't sound much like they were in the mood to surrender. Especially when Hirohito had to override his generals in order to do so.

Lwang9276

this topic is pretty informational, I learned in history that the Truman had to act before Russia could get a strong foothold in the Pacific and therefore have a claim on postwar Japan. (it was stated earlier, I believe) Also of course to save lives, also Japan just earlier this week apologized to China for their atrocities. (dont know how it's relevant, but yea)