60 Years ago... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Pacifier · 08-06-2005, 11:00 AM

at least 120 000 people died instantly in the nuclear explosion at Hiroshima.
They died for the stupidity of their own nation and the desire of the USA to show the world and Russia in particular what new toy they have.

60years ago:

today:

streak_56 · 08-06-2005, 11:19 AM

That's a really good shot of Hiroshima. As horrible as that day was, I think the whole world was shocked by what happened. One of those "turning points" you always hear about.

canuckguy · 08-06-2005, 11:33 AM

I read a really good book written by a doctor who survived this terrible event, gave me a much better understanding of what it would have been like to survive that day, and to try and cope afterward. hopefully that last time we see nukes involved with anything besides electricity.

Pip · 08-06-2005, 01:37 PM

Hiroshima and Nagasaki tells a lot about mankind. Both that we are such assholes that we can drop atomic bombs on hundreds of thousands of ourselves, and that we have such grit that we can rise from the ashes and get back to buisness as usual. When I first heard about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a kid I thought those places were now dead empty wastelands. Imagine my joy and amazement when I learned that they were real living cities, as normal as can be.
I like to think on the second part more than the first, but on a day like today... I've been having cold shivers all day.

uncle phil · 08-06-2005, 01:57 PM

if you study history at all with regard to WWII, you'll realize that it had to be done at the time it was done...

Marvelous Marv · 08-06-2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

if you study history at all with regard to WWII, you'll realize that it had to be done at the time it was done...

Thank you. To elaborate, it was well known that had the surrender not taken place, the cost would have been around 500,000 Allied lives, and millions of Japanese would also have died, whether by military action, starvation, exposure to elements, or what-have-you.

To say otherwise is to deny history.

Rodney · 08-06-2005, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Thank you. To elaborate, it was well known that had the surrender not taken place, the cost would have been around 500,000 Allied lives, and millions of Japanese would also have died, whether by military action, starvation, exposure to elements, or what-have-you.

To say otherwise is to deny history.

Mmmm, well, history is a fluid thing. It's sometimes what the winners say, or the leaders of the winners say. I'm not specifically endorsing this article, a commentary from the LA Times, but it shows a different point of view -- that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were _not_ necessary.

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...0,760322.story

The Myths of Hiroshima
By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin
The Los Angeles Times

Friday 05 August 2005

Sixty years ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate.

The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 - just five days after the Nagasaki bombing - Radio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the US terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even "saving" a million lives that might have been lost if the US had been required to invade mainland Japan.

This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed them as a necessary act in a just war.

But although patriotically correct, the exhibit and the narrative on which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only that the bombs "caused many tens of thousands of deaths" and that Hiroshima was "a definite military target."

Americans were also told that use of the bombs "led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands." But it's not that straightforward. As Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has shown definitively in his new book, "Racing the Enemy" - and many other historians have long argued - it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, that provided the final "shock" that led to Japan's capitulation.

The Enola Gay exhibit also repeated such outright lies as the assertion that "special leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities" warning civilians to evacuate. The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed.

The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary. A million lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson.

The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on "an essentially defeated enemy." President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary of State James Byrnes, quite plainly used it primarily to prevent the Soviets from sharing in the occupation of Japan. And they used it on Aug. 6 even though they had agreed among themselves as they returned home from the Potsdam Conference on Aug. 3 that the Japanese were looking for peace.

These unpleasant historical facts were censored from the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit, an action that should trouble every American. When a government substitutes an officially sanctioned view for publicly debated history, democracy is diminished.

Today, in the post-9/11 era, it is critically important that the US face the truth about the atomic bomb. For one thing, the myths surrounding Hiroshima have made it possible for our defense establishment to argue that atomic bombs are legitimate weapons that belong in a democracy's arsenal. But if, as Oppenheimer said, "they are weapons of aggression, of surprise and of terror," how can a democracy rely on such weapons?

Oppenheimer understood very soon after Hiroshima that these weapons would ultimately threaten our very survival.

Presciently, he even warned us against what is now our worst national nightmare - and Osama bin Laden's frequently voiced dream - an atomic suitcase bomb smuggled into an American city: "Of course it could be done," Oppenheimer told a Senate committee, "and people could destroy New York."

Ironically, Hiroshima's myths are now motivating our enemies to attack us with the very weapon we invented. Bin Laden repeatedly refers to Hiroshima in his rambling speeches. It was, he believes, the atomic bombings that shocked the Japanese imperial government into an early surrender - and, he says, he is planning an atomic attack on the US that will similarly shock us into retreating from the Mideast.

Finally, Hiroshima's myths have gradually given rise to an American unilateralism born of atomic arrogance.

Oppenheimer warned against this "sleazy sense of omnipotence." He observed that "if you approach the problem and say, 'We know what is right and we would like to use the atomic bomb to persuade you to agree with us,' then you are in a very weak position and you will not succeed.... You will find yourselves attempting by force of arms to prevent a disaster."

Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin are coauthors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, published earlier this year by Knopf.

uncle phil · 08-06-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodney

Mmmm, well, history is a fluid thing. It's sometimes what the winners say, or the leaders of the winners say. I'm not specifically endorsing this article, a commentary from the LA Times, but it shows a different point of view -- that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were _not_ necessary.

and pearl harbor was a figment of our imagination? where the hell do these people come from? not necessary, my achin' ass...

JumpinJesus · 08-06-2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Thank you. To elaborate, it was well known that had the surrender not taken place, the cost would have been around 500,000 Allied lives, and millions of Japanese would also have died, whether by military action, starvation, exposure to elements, or what-have-you.

To say otherwise is to deny history.

While I am not in a position to second guess history or the decisions made during war, I have to disagree with your last statement. I know those were the estimates given regarding the possible outcomes of an all-out invasion, but one cannot prove that this would have been the outcome simply because it never took place. It is impossible to state as fact an event that never occurred. I'm not trying to argue; I just can't see how one can say that it is to deny history to not believe that millions would have died during an invasion.

One of the theories I most agree with about the reasoning behind the dropping of the bomb goes something like this:

The war in Europe was at an end. While we were busy forking over large amounts of the winnings to the Soviet Union, we still had Japan to deal with. It was certain the the Soviets were about to "help" us defeat Japan. Had that taken place, Japan could very well have ended up the same way Germany and the rest of Eastern Europe ended up: under Soviet control. Truman was not about to let this happen and have the Soviets get a stronger foothold in the Pacific, so the decision to drop the bombs was made: partly to ensure a quick victory before the Soviets could gather their strength.

Now, there are other theories out there, and I'm sure many of them are just as valid, but this is the one that makes the most sense to me.

Other than that, I think this was one of the darkest moments of human history.

Ustwo · 08-06-2005, 03:58 PM

My grandfather was in transport after fighting on Iwo Jima and set to invade Japan.

I'm very pleased we dropped those two bombs. I did extensive research on this due to my family connection and the above LA Times article shows typical after the fact self loathing of those who do not understand the situation we faced.

Its also typical for the America hating LA Times and I'll leave it at that.

Elphaba · 08-06-2005, 04:50 PM

Ustwo, new documents have been revealed from the archives of the former Soviet Union and they are being addressed by news sources in addition to the LA Times. Rodney is quite correct in stating that "history" is written by the winners.

Pacifier · 08-06-2005, 06:22 PM

the claim that 500.00 have been saved is not a fact. It is the same old BS that the some people in the US are telling. The US is unable to deal with its own errors and moralic failures, it tries to deny them with repeating a mantra ("500 000" were saved" or "thats not tortur but mere highschool pranks").

To claim the 500 000 gues is a fact is BS

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. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) [13]; Major General Curtis LeMay [14]; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet [15].

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_...f_atomic_bombs

Salomon · 08-06-2005, 06:44 PM

It is interesting. Look at Japan 60 years later. One of the worlds great cultures. Would it have been possible without Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

OFKU0 · 08-06-2005, 07:14 PM

I'm very disappointed with the lack of t.v, print etc,..exposure of the event given the massive significance of the day, which was lost on every form of multimedia too the point of gross ignorance. Very sad. That day changed the world and it is the fucking third story on CNN, right after the Space Shuttle and the pimple that is on Katie Holmes' ass.

How does anyone learn from history when life moments don't take precident over Judge Judy?

AVoiceOfReason · 08-06-2005, 07:20 PM

With the benefit of hindsight, we can question whether the bomb should have been dropped on those two cites. But at the time, Truman had just come out of the Battle for Okinawa, losing over 10,000 military men. How could he, as the leader of our country, NOT use the weapons at his disposal to end the war as quickly as possible? How could he tell the soldiers wounded and the family members of those killed that he held back for fear of the geopolitical consequences?

For me, the wonder is not that it was used a couple of times in 1945, but rather that it's not been used since--Korea, Vietnam and Iraq by us, Afghanistan by the Soviets, and so on. It's a weapon--a horrible one that does much collateral damage, but a weapon nonetheless.

StanT · 08-06-2005, 07:31 PM

My father was a paratrooper enroute to make an assault on Japan. He was 19 years old and scheduled to be in the first wave. I know how I feel about the bomb.

Instead he served in the occupation forces. It's something he never talks about. He wants nothing to do with American Legion or VFW. I'm really not sure what he experienced there, I don't ever expect to find out.

Ustwo · 08-06-2005, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Ustwo, new documents have been revealed from the archives of the former Soviet Union and they are being addressed by news sources in addition to the LA Times. Rodney is quite correct in stating that "history" is written by the winners.

History is written by the winners, and the winners wrote that history with their blood from Hawaii to Okinawa. No more of it was to be spilled on Japanese soil if it could be helped. Hell while everyone talks about Hiroshima, it wasn't even close to the most deadly bombing in Japan, just the most dramatic.

Bill O'Rights · 08-06-2005, 10:16 PM

I spent eight years in the United States Air Force, all of it in the Strategic Air Command. I am a member of the American Legion. I mention this only to qualify that my patriotism, even though I refuse to display magnetic ribbons on my car, is not to be questioned.

Although I concede the possibility that ulterior motives were at work when Little Boy and Fat Man were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I choose to believe that it was done in an effort to expedite the end of the war, thereby saving untold Japanese and American lives. Given that we are certainly capable of such subterfuge...that may be naive on my part, but that is what I believe.

What I know is that the world was so horrified, by what it saw 60 years ago, that it has never again gone nuclear. We have come close. More times, and closer than, most of you want to know. But, we've not done it since. To me, that makes the sacrifice of those two cities worth it. I know...that's easy for me to say. I was born 17 years after the bombs dropped. I lost no reletives in the bombings. I'm not even of Japanese descent. But I do know that that the memory of those mushroom clouds, and the unholy destruction of two cities, has kept fingers, although perilously poised, from pressing that horrible button...again.

All of that said...wouldn't it be better to celebrate how Hiroshima and Nagasaki have risen, like the proverbial pheonix from the ashes, than to bash 60 year old political motives?

soccerchamp76 · 08-06-2005, 10:55 PM

The reason atomic weapons have not been used since then is because now many countries possess these devastating weapons. Even the smaller atomic bombs in stockpiles currently are larger than the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That also doesn't figure in the thermonuclear bombs that countries possess. Using a nuclear or thermonuclear (hydrogen fusion bomb, f.y.i.) now would potentially create nuclear war.

In addition, the dropping of the bomb brought us into the atomic age and it is a good reason they have not been used since 1945.

pocon1 · 08-07-2005, 02:47 AM

nothing to say

mystmarimatt · 08-07-2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocon1

Also, the so-called "rules of combat" have changed. The Germans thought nothing of bombing the hell out of London for a couple of years. They also used Big Bertha to shell Paris in WWI. We bombed the snot out of Germany at that time too. Now, you accidently wipe out a few hundred civilians in the middle of a city that we are at WAR with, and everyone throws a hissy fit. I see nothing wrong with using the best tools at hand to win a war. The Japanese attacked us in their arrogance thinking that a preeemptive strike would cow us and keep us out of the Pacific. HA! Maybe the Japanese should apologize again for bayoneting american pows and for beheading our soldiers.

A few hundred civilians? Try more along the lines of 120,000 People, from both bombings. And, the death doll arising from the effects of radiation account for a far greater number of deaths.

And you might want to reread your history book if you believe the attack on Pearl Harbor was an attempt to cow us in to submission. In actuality, the US and Britain had been crippling the Japanese war effort on account of a fuel boycott they had implemented against Japan in retaliation for their invasion of China. The attack was an attempt to weaken and neutralize our naval powers in the Pacific, so that the Japanese could secure needed pacific fuel sources in order to continue the war effort. Yet, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku even admitted the attack bought them but a year's time with which to wreak havoc before the US retaliated. They also knew full-well that FDR was itching for a fight. "Cowing us" never even crossed their minds.

From all of the research I've done in to the topic, I really fail to see a need for us to drop the bomb. Some of the better information has already been brought up, however, I won't waste space by rehashing it. History is full of people inventing numbers and facts in order to justify some action or another, and even so, it's hard to look at such a horrific event objectively, yet, we ought to try our best to do so.

meembo · 08-07-2005, 03:43 PM

I don't think that hindsight would change the decision Truman made. The US had the weapon and used it to minimize casulties. Only one side had the weapon, and the eventual outcome was a virtual certainty.

That makes the bombing a very rational and human thing to do. The arena of war isn't awash with morality and compassion -- a brutal end made the end come much sooner. The Japanese were weakened, but they were not about to capitulate. I think an invasion was inevitable without the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the bombs prevented that from happening.

The article from the LA Times states "...the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing ... provided the final "shock" that led to Japan's capitulation." This assertion is very narrowly true, but it also ignores the impact of the bombing. The bombing brought several circumstances to the doorstep of the Japanese that together were impossible to surmount. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided the necessary momentum for that to happen.

meembo · 08-07-2005, 04:05 PM

I also wanted to add that I see Oppenheimer's conscience as a most appropriate brake to any impulse to see the bomb as anything but a last resort. His part was primarily to invent the machine, not to determine how it was used. I can't imagine the burden he carried from seeing the bomb killing hundreds of thousands of people.

I object to Pacifier's portrayal of the situation as ..."They died for the stupidity of their own nation and the desire of the USA to show the world and Russia in particular what new toy they have." The bombs ended a bloody war. The Japanese were fighting for what they assumed to be their very existence. The defense of their country and empire was fanatical. In this discussion as a German, Pacifier has a unique responsibility for at least disclaiming what the belligerent government of his forefathers did to emboil the world (and a very isolationist USA) in a second world war. I defend my country as a liberator and a peacemaker in World War II. I have plenty of criticism of my country in the present tense, but IMHO Germans and Japanese historians cannot take enough blame for what happened to their countries in the 1940s.

TM875 · 08-07-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocon1

Reality check here. First of all, the Japanese were not exactly the nicest people to be involved with in combat. They murdered Chinese civilians by the millions (look up the Rape of Nanjing). They thought that kamikaze attacks were fantastic, and the entire country believed in them. They also thought their emperor was divine, and we know that people willing to die for their god are assholes. Also, the so-called "rules of combat" have changed. The Germans thought nothing of bombing the hell out of London for a couple of years. They also used Big Bertha to shell Paris in WWI. We bombed the snot out of Germany at that time too. Now, you accidently wipe out a few hundred civilians in the middle of a city that we are at WAR with, and everyone throws a hissy fit. I see nothing wrong with using the best tools at hand to win a war. The Japanese attacked us in their arrogance thinking that a preeemptive strike would cow us and keep us out of the Pacific. HA! Maybe the Japanese should apologize again for bayoneting american pows and for beheading our soldiers. Also for Pokemon.

I agree totally. Remember, we were at WAR with the Japanese. They were our enemy - their country was our enemy - their people were our enemy. We destroyed them, which is something that they would have done without a second though to us.

I only regret that we didn't follow George S. Patton's advice and invade / bomb the Soviets. It would have saved us a lot of trouble in the future.

n0nsensical · 08-07-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mystmarimatt

A few hundred civilians? Try more along the lines of 120,000 People, from both bombings. And, the death doll arising from the effects of radiation account for a far greater number of deaths.

He didn't mean that's how many people died from the atomic bombs. He meant that NOW as in, in the present day, if you kill some civilians in a war, it's a huge controversy, but at that time little would have been thought of it. That was the whole point.

I think it says something that the controversy over the bombing is not much of an issue in Japan or to the Japanese people. On the other hand, China and Korea bitch nonstop about the atrocities of the Japanese military. Draw your own conclusions. I'm not afraid of criticising the US government, but in this case, I think some of the critics need to look at this from a more realistic perspective of the times. The modern social stigma against nuclear weapons didn't exist (and these bombings certainly had a role in its formation); they were just powerful weapons that could quickly end the war, and I can't blame the leaders for taking advantage of them.

IANAH (I am not a historian, though I did take a class titled Japanese History), but from my armchair general's point of view, I find it unlikely that the Soviet declaration of war alone without the bombs would have caused Japan to surrender, and maybe it wouldn't have cost x number of lives, but if Japan refused to surrender, it certainly would have cost some fraction of x greater than 0 and possibly just as many or more Japanese lives as in the bombings.

Cross-Over · 08-07-2005, 05:19 PM

Top Japanese officials were deadlocked on the decision of whether to surrender or continue the war after the two bombings. The emperor was asked to make the final decision as a sort of "tie-breaker", eventually leading to the Japanese citizens first hearing their emperor’s voice.

Was that atomic bomb necessary?

In my humble opinion, I have no idea. I do know that many in this thread underestimate the Japanese when they say that they were already close to being defeated prior to the bombings.

pocon1 · 08-07-2005, 06:35 PM

nothing to say

Bagezio2 · 08-07-2005, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I spent eight years in the United States Air Force, all of it in the Strategic Air Command. I am a member of the American Legion. I mention this only to qualify that my patriotism, even though I refuse to display magnetic ribbons on my car, is not to be questioned.

Although I concede the possibility that ulterior motives were at work when Little Boy and Fat Man were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I choose to believe that it was done in an effort to expedite the end of the war, thereby saving untold Japanese and American lives. Given that we are certainly capable of such subterfuge...that may be naive on my part, but that is what I believe.

What I know is that the world was so horrified, by what it saw 60 years ago, that it has never again gone nuclear. We have come close. More times, and closer than, most of you want to know. But, we've not done it since. To me, that makes the sacrifice of those two cities worth it. I know...that's easy for me to say. I was born 17 years after the bombs dropped. I lost no reletives in the bombings. I'm not even of Japanese descent. But I do know that that the memory of those mushroom clouds, and the unholy destruction of two cities, has kept fingers, although perilously poised, from pressing that horrible button...again.

All of that said...wouldn't it be better to celebrate how Hiroshima and Nagasaki have risen, like the proverbial pheonix from the ashes, than to bash 60 year old political motives?

i totally agree with you. I Know this may sound bad, but it is a good thing that those bombs were dropped back then. That event DID prevent current world leaders from dropping those types of bombs in the future because they saw the destruction it caused. Now, I do not know anything about world populations from the 1940's untill present time, but I think that it is safe to say that there are more people around then back then. And had they not dropped the bomb then, what was to stop us from dropping them on russia during the cold war? or vice-versa? or from dropping them in afghanistan after 9\11? Im sure that they eventually would have been dropped somewhere, and the death toll would have been MUCH higher than it was in Japan.

ratbastid · 08-07-2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodney

(quoting the LA Times)
These unpleasant historical facts were censored from the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit, an action that should trouble every American. When a government substitutes an officially sanctioned view for publicly debated history, democracy is diminished.

I know a man who has in his posession all the materials censored from that 1995 exhibit. It includes VERY graphic photography and documentation of the devastation the bombs caused on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was stuff the government evidently didn't want the US public to see--but I don't understand why not. The point of dropping the bomb was to horrify people out of ever using it again, solidifying its MAD-doctrine role as the ultimate deterrant. Why not own up to the damage it caused and rally people behind an Auchwitz-style "never again" slogan? Wouldn't that have been just as politically useful as the denial that was thrown up instead?

You can see much of the censored Smithsonian exhibit at http://www.atomicbombmuseum.org.

Pacifier · 08-08-2005, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

I object to Pacifier's portrayal of the situation as ..."They died for the stupidity of their own nation and the desire of the USA to show the world and Russia in particular what new toy they have." The bombs ended a bloody war. The Japanese were fighting for what they assumed to be their very existence. The defense of their country and empire was fanatical. In this discussion as a German, Pacifier has a unique responsibility for at least disclaiming what the belligerent government of his forefathers did to emboil the world (and a very isolationist USA) in a second world war. I defend my country as a liberator and a peacemaker in World War II. I have plenty of criticism of my country in the present tense, but IMHO Germans and Japanese historians cannot take enough blame for what happened to their countries in the 1940s.

So, because I'm a german I have no right to criticise the US?
You see, we germans accept our guilt, well most of us. We accept our mission that history gave us to prevent these things from happening again. We don't glorify our history or deny our errors.
All you americans do is to repeat this mantra of denial, "but we safed lives", which is BS.

Japan would have surrendered without the Bombs, that not the optinion of an "armchair general":

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. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) [13]; Major General Curtis LeMay [14]; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet [15].

Why didn't the US wait for Russia to enter the War? That would have an inpact, without killing 300000 people instantly?
Why did the US drop the second bomb shorty after the first without giving the Japanese time to realise what had happened?

america needs to develop something that is called "vergangenheitsbewältigung" (coming to terms with the past), a german word that describes a critical hindsight of the past.
But america has become a religion with historical dogmas, criticise and you're an unpatriotic heathen.

hulk · 08-08-2005, 03:02 AM

When the Japanese slaughtered an entire army of Australian soldiers who surrendered, when they invaded and raped much of China after they provoked a war with a fake sabotage, when they wouldn't have hesitated to use the same power against their aggressors, that is when use of such weapons is sanctioned.

Without it ending more or less that day in 1945, I highly doubt any less than 150,000 would have died (Pacifier, I don't know where your figure crept up to twice that). That figure is by no means a large amount in WW2, in fact, 100,000 civilians were killed in the firebombings of Tokyo. Much of England and Germany was literally flattened by bombing fleets.

Japan had a strong hold on the pacific islands. It was only a few australian soldiers defending a road through PNG that kept them from invading Australia, that's how close it came. It would have taken years to flush them out had the war continued, with far more losses on all sides. The US had the opportunity to end the war, with almost certain finality. They had no idea at the time the full extent of the collateral damage, as again, it's the only time the nuke was deployed offensively. As for the choice between dropping one or two, well, one would have very probably ended the war. Two? Guaranteed it beyond almost every shadow of a doubt.

Women and children were the most killed, naturally. The men were out fighting the Allies, and if anyone wishes to overlook the war crimes that were undertaken by the Japanese, well, you're not worth my time.

Criticism against something that's wrong is one thing. Against a measure used to end a war, that's another.

Pacifier · 08-08-2005, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulk

(Pacifier, I don't know where your figure crept up to twice that)

According to the city of Hiroshima, as of August 6, 2004, the cumulative death toll of atomic-bomb victims was 237,062

However another report issues a different residential number, speaking of Nagasaki's population which dropped in one split-second from 422,000 to 383,000, thus 39,000 were killed, over 25,000 were injured. Including those who died from radioactive materials causing cancer, the total number of residents killed is believed to be at least 100,000.

Pragma · 08-08-2005, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My grandfather was in transport after fighting on Iwo Jima and set to invade Japan.

I'm very pleased we dropped those two bombs. I did extensive research on this due to my family connection and the above LA Times article shows typical after the fact self loathing of those who do not understand the situation we faced.

Its also typical for the America hating LA Times and I'll leave it at that.

My grandfather was also on a transport en route to Japan as part of the invasion force. He has told me that he was very glad that the bombs were dropped, as the casualties were known among the troops to be enormous in a ground assault on the islands of Japan, as the citizens would have fought for every inch of land.

Now, I'm not saying that killing over a hundred thousand civilians is good, but the loss of life was much less through the use of the atomic bombs than would have been on a ground assault. I agree with your comment about the LA Times - I've read a few other of their articles on historical subjects like this.

ironman · 08-08-2005, 08:21 AM

I't makes me shiver the simple certainty that the same ideas and arguments used by many of the previous posters, are the exact same ones rounding Osama's and gang heads. There's nothing wrong about been patriotic and pride, but one must accept the fact that we are not perfect and that mistakes have been done and horrible things have been done against other nations.
Many talk about religious fanatism as one of the main causes for terrorism and violence in the world, but they fail to see that patriotic fanatism is doing as much harm if not more than the first. I just wish with all my heart that world leaders, the ones that have our lives in their hands, realize that this is not a pissing contest. May God protect us all.

hulk · 08-09-2005, 02:24 AM

The key difference, ironman, is that our ideas and arguments are being used to support an movement against oppression, and the acts of Osama and co do quite the opposite. National pride in being a free democracy and national pride in being powerful in a a crooked oppressive government, if you will. Both the same means to different ends.

ironman · 08-09-2005, 08:19 AM

I rest my case...

Pragma · 08-09-2005, 08:43 AM

I don't think anyone ever said that dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan was "good", but it was better than a ground invasion of the islands. It caused a massive loss of life, yes - but the loss of life would have been greater if the assault had proceeded as planned.

Janey · 08-09-2005, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocon1

Reality check here. First of all, the Japanese were not exactly the nicest people to be involved with in combat. They murdered Chinese civilians by the millions (look up the Rape of Nanjing). They thought that kamikaze attacks were fantastic, and the entire country believed in them. They also thought their emperor was divine, and we know that people willing to die for their god are assholes. Also, the so-called "rules of combat" have changed. The Germans thought nothing of bombing the hell out of London for a couple of years. They also used Big Bertha to shell Paris in WWI. We bombed the snot out of Germany at that time too. Now, you accidently wipe out a few hundred civilians in the middle of a city that we are at WAR with, and everyone throws a hissy fit. I see nothing wrong with using the best tools at hand to win a war. The Japanese attacked us in their arrogance thinking that a preeemptive strike would cow us and keep us out of the Pacific. HA! Maybe the Japanese should apologize again for bayoneting american pows and for beheading our soldiers. Also for Pokemon.

The main thing I agree with is pokemon. Oh, and your statement "I see nothing wrong with using the best tools at hand to win a war". Absolutely. Otherwise, there would be nobody using mustard gas, or enriched uranium shells, or bomblets.

The Japanese did attack you with pre-emptive arrogance (blockade notwithstanding) But they had built up their arrogance because in their national psyche, they were a super power. sounds familiar. They should apologize for the many war time transgressions. But as the colonol said in the Bridge Over the River Kwai: "Those are just stupid rules. This is War!" and thus: two atomic bombs used in quick succession. Ah the best tools at hand, and it was War!

Ustwo · 08-09-2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironman

I't makes me shiver the simple certainty that the same ideas and arguments used by many of the previous posters, are the exact same ones rounding Osama's and gang heads. There's nothing wrong about been patriotic and pride, but one must accept the fact that we are not perfect and that mistakes have been done and horrible things have been done against other nations.
Many talk about religious fanatism as one of the main causes for terrorism and violence in the world, but they fail to see that patriotic fanatism is doing as much harm if not more than the first. I just wish with all my heart that world leaders, the ones that have our lives in their hands, realize that this is not a pissing contest. May God protect us all.

It makes me shiver how fast we forget the past, how quick we are to distort history to suit our feelings, and how we can turn the end of the greatest conflict in all of human history into an analogy about terrorism.

Ustwo · 08-09-2005, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janey

The Japanese did attack you with pre-emptive arrogance (blockade notwithstanding) But they had built up their arrogance because in their national psyche, they were a super power. sounds familiar. They should apologize for the many war time transgressions. But as the colonol said in the Bridge Over the River Kwai: "Those are just stupid rules. This is War!" and thus: two atomic bombs used in quick succession. Ah the best tools at hand, and it was War!

*Sigh*

I most likely shouldn't even bother going there but 'sounds familiar' how?

P.S. Unrelated but Bridge over the River Kwai was the most historically inaccurate war move ever made. Rambo holds more realism.

08-06-2005, 11:00 AM	#1 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	60 Years ago... at least 120 000 people died instantly in the nuclear explosion at Hiroshima. They died for the stupidity of their own nation and the desire of the USA to show the world and Russia in particular what new toy they have. 60years ago: today: __________________ "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

08-06-2005, 01:57 PM	#5 (permalink)
uncle phil comfortably numb... Super Moderator Location: upstate	if you study history at all with regard to WWII, you'll realize that it had to be done at the time it was done... __________________ "We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it.

08-06-2005, 03:58 PM	#10 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	My grandfather was in transport after fighting on Iwo Jima and set to invade Japan. I'm very pleased we dropped those two bombs. I did extensive research on this due to my family connection and the above LA Times article shows typical after the fact self loathing of those who do not understand the situation we faced. Its also typical for the America hating LA Times and I'll leave it at that. __________________ 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.

08-06-2005, 04:50 PM	#11 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Ustwo, new documents have been revealed from the archives of the former Soviet Union and they are being addressed by news sources in addition to the LA Times. Rodney is quite correct in stating that "history" is written by the winners. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

08-06-2005, 06:22 PM	#12 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	the claim that 500.00 have been saved is not a fact. It is the same old BS that the some people in the US are telling. The US is unable to deal with its own errors and moralic failures, it tries to deny them with repeating a mantra ("500 000" were saved" or "thats not tortur but mere highschool pranks"). To claim the 500 000 gues is a fact is BS 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. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) [13]; Major General Curtis LeMay [14]; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet [15]. 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_...f_atomic_bombs __________________ "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

08-06-2005, 11:19 AM	#2 (permalink)
streak_56 who ever said streaking was a bad thing? Location: Calgary	That's a really good shot of Hiroshima. As horrible as that day was, I think the whole world was shocked by what happened. One of those "turning points" you always hear about.

08-06-2005, 11:33 AM	#3 (permalink)
canuckguy I read your emails. Location: earth	I read a really good book written by a doctor who survived this terrible event, gave me a much better understanding of what it would have been like to survive that day, and to try and cope afterward. hopefully that last time we see nukes involved with anything besides electricity.

08-06-2005, 01:37 PM	#4 (permalink)
Pip Likes Hats Location: Stockholm, Sweden	Hiroshima and Nagasaki tells a lot about mankind. Both that we are such assholes that we can drop atomic bombs on hundreds of thousands of ourselves, and that we have such grit that we can rise from the ashes and get back to buisness as usual. When I first heard about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a kid I thought those places were now dead empty wastelands. Imagine my joy and amazement when I learned that they were real living cities, as normal as can be. I like to think on the second part more than the first, but on a day like today... I've been having cold shivers all day.

08-06-2005, 06:44 PM	#13 (permalink)
Salomon Loser	It is interesting. Look at Japan 60 years later. One of the worlds great cultures. Would it have been possible without Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

08-06-2005, 07:14 PM	#14 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	I'm very disappointed with the lack of t.v, print etc,..exposure of the event given the massive significance of the day, which was lost on every form of multimedia too the point of gross ignorance. Very sad. That day changed the world and it is the fucking third story on CNN, right after the Space Shuttle and the pimple that is on Katie Holmes' ass. How does anyone learn from history when life moments don't take precident over Judge Judy? __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

08-06-2005, 07:20 PM	#15 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	With the benefit of hindsight, we can question whether the bomb should have been dropped on those two cites. But at the time, Truman had just come out of the Battle for Okinawa, losing over 10,000 military men. How could he, as the leader of our country, NOT use the weapons at his disposal to end the war as quickly as possible? How could he tell the soldiers wounded and the family members of those killed that he held back for fear of the geopolitical consequences? For me, the wonder is not that it was used a couple of times in 1945, but rather that it's not been used since--Korea, Vietnam and Iraq by us, Afghanistan by the Soviets, and so on. It's a weapon--a horrible one that does much collateral damage, but a weapon nonetheless. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

08-06-2005, 07:31 PM	#16 (permalink)
StanT © Location: Colorado	My father was a paratrooper enroute to make an assault on Japan. He was 19 years old and scheduled to be in the first wave. I know how I feel about the bomb. Instead he served in the occupation forces. It's something he never talks about. He wants nothing to do with American Legion or VFW. I'm really not sure what he experienced there, I don't ever expect to find out.

08-06-2005, 10:16 PM	#18 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	I spent eight years in the United States Air Force, all of it in the Strategic Air Command. I am a member of the American Legion. I mention this only to qualify that my patriotism, even though I refuse to display magnetic ribbons on my car, is not to be questioned. Although I concede the possibility that ulterior motives were at work when Little Boy and Fat Man were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I choose to believe that it was done in an effort to expedite the end of the war, thereby saving untold Japanese and American lives. Given that we are certainly capable of such subterfuge...that may be naive on my part, but that is what I believe. What I know is that the world was so horrified, by what it saw 60 years ago, that it has never again gone nuclear. We have come close. More times, and closer than, most of you want to know. But, we've not done it since. To me, that makes the sacrifice of those two cities worth it. I know...that's easy for me to say. I was born 17 years after the bombs dropped. I lost no reletives in the bombings. I'm not even of Japanese descent. But I do know that that the memory of those mushroom clouds, and the unholy destruction of two cities, has kept fingers, although perilously poised, from pressing that horrible button...again. All of that said...wouldn't it be better to celebrate how Hiroshima and Nagasaki have risen, like the proverbial pheonix from the ashes, than to bash 60 year old political motives? __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. Last edited by Bill O'Rights; 08-06-2005 at 10:19 PM..

08-06-2005, 10:55 PM	#19 (permalink)
soccerchamp76 Go Cardinals Location: St. Louis/Cincinnati	The reason atomic weapons have not been used since then is because now many countries possess these devastating weapons. Even the smaller atomic bombs in stockpiles currently are larger than the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That also doesn't figure in the thermonuclear bombs that countries possess. Using a nuclear or thermonuclear (hydrogen fusion bomb, f.y.i.) now would potentially create nuclear war. In addition, the dropping of the bomb brought us into the atomic age and it is a good reason they have not been used since 1945. __________________ Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department. Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

08-07-2005, 02:47 AM	#20 (permalink)
pocon1 Banned	nothing to say Last edited by pocon1; 07-06-2008 at 10:00 PM..

08-07-2005, 03:43 PM	#22 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	I don't think that hindsight would change the decision Truman made. The US had the weapon and used it to minimize casulties. Only one side had the weapon, and the eventual outcome was a virtual certainty. That makes the bombing a very rational and human thing to do. The arena of war isn't awash with morality and compassion -- a brutal end made the end come much sooner. The Japanese were weakened, but they were not about to capitulate. I think an invasion was inevitable without the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the bombs prevented that from happening. The article from the LA Times states "...the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing ... provided the final "shock" that led to Japan's capitulation." This assertion is very narrowly true, but it also ignores the impact of the bombing. The bombing brought several circumstances to the doorstep of the Japanese that together were impossible to surmount. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided the necessary momentum for that to happen. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

08-07-2005, 04:05 PM	#23 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	I also wanted to add that I see Oppenheimer's conscience as a most appropriate brake to any impulse to see the bomb as anything but a last resort. His part was primarily to invent the machine, not to determine how it was used. I can't imagine the burden he carried from seeing the bomb killing hundreds of thousands of people. I object to Pacifier's portrayal of the situation as ..."They died for the stupidity of their own nation and the desire of the USA to show the world and Russia in particular what new toy they have." The bombs ended a bloody war. The Japanese were fighting for what they assumed to be their very existence. The defense of their country and empire was fanatical. In this discussion as a German, Pacifier has a unique responsibility for at least disclaiming what the belligerent government of his forefathers did to emboil the world (and a very isolationist USA) in a second world war. I defend my country as a liberator and a peacemaker in World War II. I have plenty of criticism of my country in the present tense, but IMHO Germans and Japanese historians cannot take enough blame for what happened to their countries in the 1940s. __________________ less I say, smarter I am Last edited by meembo; 08-07-2005 at 04:07 PM..

08-07-2005, 05:19 PM	#26 (permalink)
Cross-Over Psycho	Top Japanese officials were deadlocked on the decision of whether to surrender or continue the war after the two bombings. The emperor was asked to make the final decision as a sort of "tie-breaker", eventually leading to the Japanese citizens first hearing their emperor’s voice. Was that atomic bomb necessary? In my humble opinion, I have no idea. I do know that many in this thread underestimate the Japanese when they say that they were already close to being defeated prior to the bombings.

08-07-2005, 06:35 PM	#27 (permalink)
pocon1 Banned	nothing to say Last edited by pocon1; 07-06-2008 at 10:00 PM..

08-08-2005, 03:02 AM	#31 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	When the Japanese slaughtered an entire army of Australian soldiers who surrendered, when they invaded and raped much of China after they provoked a war with a fake sabotage, when they wouldn't have hesitated to use the same power against their aggressors, that is when use of such weapons is sanctioned. Without it ending more or less that day in 1945, I highly doubt any less than 150,000 would have died (Pacifier, I don't know where your figure crept up to twice that). That figure is by no means a large amount in WW2, in fact, 100,000 civilians were killed in the firebombings of Tokyo. Much of England and Germany was literally flattened by bombing fleets. Japan had a strong hold on the pacific islands. It was only a few australian soldiers defending a road through PNG that kept them from invading Australia, that's how close it came. It would have taken years to flush them out had the war continued, with far more losses on all sides. The US had the opportunity to end the war, with almost certain finality. They had no idea at the time the full extent of the collateral damage, as again, it's the only time the nuke was deployed offensively. As for the choice between dropping one or two, well, one would have very probably ended the war. Two? Guaranteed it beyond almost every shadow of a doubt. Women and children were the most killed, naturally. The men were out fighting the Allies, and if anyone wishes to overlook the war crimes that were undertaken by the Japanese, well, you're not worth my time. Criticism against something that's wrong is one thing. Against a measure used to end a war, that's another. __________________ "'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.

08-08-2005, 08:21 AM	#34 (permalink)
ironman Smithers, release the hounds Location: Guatemala, Guatemala	I't makes me shiver the simple certainty that the same ideas and arguments used by many of the previous posters, are the exact same ones rounding Osama's and gang heads. There's nothing wrong about been patriotic and pride, but one must accept the fact that we are not perfect and that mistakes have been done and horrible things have been done against other nations. Many talk about religious fanatism as one of the main causes for terrorism and violence in the world, but they fail to see that patriotic fanatism is doing as much harm if not more than the first. I just wish with all my heart that world leaders, the ones that have our lives in their hands, realize that this is not a pissing contest. May God protect us all. __________________ If I agreed with you we´d both be wrong

08-09-2005, 02:24 AM	#35 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	The key difference, ironman, is that our ideas and arguments are being used to support an movement against oppression, and the acts of Osama and co do quite the opposite. National pride in being a free democracy and national pride in being powerful in a a crooked oppressive government, if you will. Both the same means to different ends. __________________ "'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.

08-09-2005, 08:19 AM	#36 (permalink)
ironman Smithers, release the hounds Location: Guatemala, Guatemala	I rest my case... __________________ If I agreed with you we´d both be wrong

08-09-2005, 08:43 AM	#37 (permalink)
Pragma I am Winter Born Location: Alexandria, VA	I don't think anyone ever said that dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan was "good", but it was better than a ground invasion of the islands. It caused a massive loss of life, yes - but the loss of life would have been greater if the assault had proceeded as planned.