The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki-Worth it?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Blax_Hydralisk
Well, was it? In that case, did the ends justify the means?

Kid Kurdy
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Well, was it? In that case, did the ends justify the means?
Difficult to say, but I feel sorry for all the innocent men, women and children who were killed by the two bombs.

Darth Macabre
Well, Operation Downfall would have probably eliminated a lot more Japanese, maybe even to the brink of destruction, so it honestly depends. Was it worth it at the time? Yes. Is it worth it again? No.

BobbyD
Was it worth it? No.

The Japanese didn't surrender, and at the point where we were asking them for such, they weren't even a factor anymore.

...could have packed up, went home and ignored them at that point, and it wouldn't have mattered.

Kinneary
<.< The Japanese did surrender. And in order to defeat Japan, we would have had to launch a land assault, which would have cost a lot of American lives. Had we just left, they would have built up again and continued their empire.

Not saying whether it was worth it or not, just saying you're wrong.

Captain REX
If we had packed up and left, BobbyD, the Japanese would have just taken advantage of our decision and rebuilt their armies and retaken their lands. It would not have ended World War II, and may have elongated it further.

Utrigita
Originally posted by Captain REX
If we had packed up and left, BobbyD, the Japanese would have just taken advantage of our decision and rebuilt their armies and retaken their lands. It would not have ended World War II, and may have elongated it further.

It still doesn't justify the need for a Nuclear Assault on innocents.

IMO We are actually looking at the situation which (along with alot of other factors) helped trigger the Cold War.

Lord Melkor
I heard that actual full-scale invasion would have taken more casualties.

Ushgarak
The term 'nuclear assault on innocents' in the context you are trying to use it is meaningless.

We are talking at a point of the war where massed bomb raids by the US were literally flattening Japanese cities one by one, causing far more casualities than the atom bombs did. The war was already way past the point where civilians were going to be let off and nothing about Hiroshima or Nagasaki changed that.

The only other meaning, then, is the problems of radioactive fallout. This issue was not known to exist at the time. It was only afterwards that this became clear, and it affected those who had been near the US testing sites too, as demonstration of that ignorance- people were sent in to the test blasts immediately afterwards to look at the result, almost certainly fatally.

All the Americans thought they had was a very big bomb. They had been causing the same devastation for ages with large amounts of smaller bombs; their use was to show just how much more efficient such bombing was going to be. But make no mistake- cities were already being wiped out. It is a hideous error of perspective to see this as some kind of moral turning point. This simply does not stand up to any close examination.

So, as to the other issue- did it truly end the war early, or was it needless slaughter?

We will never know. I say that very strongly. We can look at interviews and testimonies from those involved at the time and all we ever get is a mixed message. We see Americans involved at the time being certain that it was necessary to do this to avoid a land invasion, and we see Japanese saying they would never have surrendered even with the atom bombs were it not for the decision of the Emperor to give in, which only came about because of those bombs.

But equally we see prominent American commentators, closely involved with the process, saying that they had every opportunity to get the Japanese to surrender first but decided to use the bombs anyway to impress the Russians, and meanwhile this is echoed by Japanese representatives from the peace party who said it was entirely unnecessary, as the Emperor was about to surrender anyway.

We will never know who was right; this is simply one of the big 'What ifs' of history.

Lord Melkor
Perhaps in a way it was good that those bombs were used, because the consequences made people more wary of nuclear weaponry?

Bicnarok

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Kinneary
<.< The Japanese did surrender.

They did indeed.

And no, in my opinion it was not justified.

Ushgarak

Tortoise Herder
Ok than, I wonder how many of you have actually STUDIED the alternative to dropping the bomb.

The alternative was Operation Downfall. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Operation Downfall was the planned amphibious invasion of the home islands of the Empire of Japan, and it would have been the second largest military front into and of itself (second only to the titanic clash against Hitlerite Germany and its allies in Europe), and the factors would have eclipsed the bomb damage to a DISGUSTING degree.

Want proof?

To start with, has anyone looked at the casualty lists for Omaha? With over half the first waves being wiped out by German forces? Remember the last time you saw Saving Private Ryan's beachlanding scene or played one of the Wargames and saw row after row of Americans cut down by artillery and interlocking machine gun fire?

Keep that in mind here.

The differences between those two are this:

1. When we had landed in Normandy, a continuous series of dupes, misinformation, and tricks coupled with a real strategic uncertainty meant that the Germans were literally covering pretty much each and every step of shore from Norway to Yugoslavia with forces, which stretched them out and made a breakthrough easier. This was NOT the case in Japan.

Both sides recognized that the home islands would limit the places where forces could hope to be landed in any number to a relative handful. Thus, the Japanese put literally everything they had into defending those areas. And believe me, though the Imperial War chest had been depleted heavily by roughly a full decade of active war, they still had A LOT of tricks up their sleeves. A LOT. And due to the heavy concentration of firepower, it would likely have put the Channel Wall to absolute shame in terms of density.

2. In the invasion of Europe, in spite of the fact that the Germans had by far more manpower in arms than Japan, the German regulars surrendered at rates that were quite rapid, and Germany did not have much to replace those losses due to the half-assed and dollar-short way they armed the populace as Volksturm, or people's milita.

In Japan, the Japanese were not merely fighting a political war but also a holy war. It was dishonorable to allow the "foreigners" to capture you and this is evident in pretty damn every account given of Japanese forces during the War. And if you think that "samurai spirit" had died in the least, you are dead wrong. Even worse, the Japanese regime had been handing out cheap weapons to the populace, and children barely old enough to walk and elderly barely capable of doing so drilled constantly with Bamboo spears that they were provided. Those unable to fight were literally rigged to explode.

The goal of the Imperial Junta was to turn the entire populace of Japan itself into a military force to resist the foreigners and preserve the honor of the emperor. And they came damn near close enough in the limited time they had to arming the entire populace. Estimates guess that over 86% of the population of Japan was armed by the Japanese War Ministry by the time of the surrender. And the civilians were just as fanatical as the military.

3. Contrary to scenes of German fighters shooting down helpless LVTs like ducks in a pond, the German Luftwaffe was on the verge of collapse, as Germany pitted all its reserves into the fight as soon as they were made. This meant that they had no reserves to commit at a time when the Western Allies had complete and total aerial dominance over most of Western Europe.

In contrast, Japan HAD kept reserves of planes. And they had been rigging them to use them as the first "smart bombs." The Japanese had also grown quite experienced in their use of suicide tactics, as well. This is shown in the sharp ramp-up of losses taken by the supporting ships in Okinawa in comparison to in the normal Pacific campaigns to that point. Combine that with the fact that the Western Allies would have not been able to shut down the Emperor's Air Forces over the entire airspace. Some were going to get through. And those that did would kill an estimated 1.78 Allied soldiers for each pilot that contacted. Do the math.

4. For those who scream bloody murder about "bloody murder of the civilian Japanese," you seem to forget about another slaughter of innocent civilians that would have been ramped up had the Emperor not tossed the towel in.

The Russians had, in Operation August Storm in Manchuria, broken the back of the Kwangtung Army, the Main Japanese army in mainland Asia, though at shocking costs. The Kwangtung had then begun to retreat both into Korea, where they were rounded up by both Western Allied and Soviet forces at the 38th Parallel. However, some had retreated to the Chinese coastline, which was still held by Japan. The Kwangtung would have been caught between two massive armies, those of China and the Soviets, and have been in a hopeless situation. And this would likely have led to an orgy of rape and murder that bypassed much of the Kwangtung's previous atrocities by almost all sources. And that in and of itself would be an accomplishment given that army's dismal regard for human rights at that point and all times prior.

THe Kwangtung would have eventually been torn apart and destroyed, but not before taking hundreds of thousands of civilians down with them.

How strange most of you ***** about civilian casualties while ignoring those deaths that were prevented.


Estimated Western Allied losses in Downfall were anywhere from 400,000-800,000. Japanese predicted casualties numbered in the millions for both regular military and civilians conscripted, and I WILL go so far to say that such losses might literally have wiped out the native Japanese, with few survivors. This is what Allied command prepared for, and what they were prepared to accept if it meant finally crushing the defiant Japanese.

But wait, you say, could the Western Allies not starve them out? Technically yes, but that would take YEARS, a constant blockade, and the deaths of more millions of Japanese (let me remind you that food shortages had ALREADY set in on the home islands by 1943, and this war 1945.) So waiting was not a practical solution.

But there was another factor involved. In an apocalyptic fight to the last between the Western Allies and the entire people of Japan, guess who benefits the most? The answer, to the ignorant, would be Stalinist Russia.

The Soviets had invaded Manchuria in August Storm, and had millions of troops on the ground in Manchuria waiting for the OK for invasion. So if the Western Allies were repulsed, than the Russians would step in with dreams of conquest. If the Western Allies would have had to been brutal in any Japanese Campaign, than the Soviets would have been far worse, as these people had NEVER stayed away from committing atrocities against their own people, and from committing ethnic cleansing on a wide scale. If the Western Allies might have killed off most of the populace due to the sheer fanatic defense, than the Russians might have gone and done the whole way and wiped the native Japanese OUT PERIOD.

And than, Stalin would turn Japan into a hardpoint of Communist tyranny in the Far East, a lighthouse projecting Soviet ambition and aims into Asia, to the detriment of Freedom and safety for both Asia as well as Canada and the United States.

And even if Stalin did not invade, the invasion would have bloodied us badly. Imagine loosing 400,000-800,000 veteran, well-trained and equipped troops from all the branches, alongside their gear and support vehicles, and you can see how weakened we would have been.

Historically, only four months after the historical collapse of Japan, the Russians invaded parts of Central Europe that were held by the Western Allies, but they were forced back by them after suffering encirclement and collapse in Leizpig. This was the only truly direct confrontation of the Cold War, and it helped convince the Russian leadership that they could not best us directly and forced them to wait it out, which helped to eventually collapse their system with a minimum of human losses.

DO you think that we could have done the same if we denuded the European formations and funding for Europe to feed its troops into a bloody Pacific meatgrinder? Than you are wrong.

Instead, Truman choose to kill hundreds of thousands to save MILLIONS, and the results of those two bombs are still seen.

Japan was spared occupation of even in part by the Soviets, and thus the Western Allies had full ability to turn the country into a modern Democracy. It served as a bastion of Freedom in the Cold War, challenging Chinese and North Korean forces in Korea and trying to (though failing) do the same against the bloodthirsty regimes of men like Ho Chi Mihn in Vietnam and Pol Pot in Cambodia during the Indochinese Wars.

These islands are a vibrant country and land, rather than a massive graveyard. There are still issues with the Japanese, make no mistake (see Yasukuni Shrine), but it is a far cry from an abandoned no-man's land.

You people forget this.

In the robes of the "moral correctness" you choose to wear, you fail to realize that by condemning the bomb, you are ENDORSING two paths that would have killed MILLIONS and destroyed the nation of Japan as we know it.

And for that, one can only curse you.

jaden101
from the sole point of learning the nuclear lesson the hard way (which would inevitible) then it was beneficial to learn it when weapons were at their weakest as they were then...

it is likely that the results from the bombing of hiroshimi and nagasaki have prevented further use of more powerful nuclear weapons in the following decades

in short...it was better to learn the lesson then than say, during the cuban missle crisis

i know this is a simplistic view but looking on it with hindsight and ignoring the alternatives at the time...it is valid

besides...you only need to look at Dresden to see that the non nuclear alternatives at the time were just as horrific

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
The alternative was Operation Downfall. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

You state that this is the alternative as a fact, but it is not, it is speculation.

Yes, I have studied it, but this basic error by you leads me to suspect that when you did you did not pay as close attention as you might. For someone who just sermonised as much as you did, that is a very bad thing.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest the Japanese were about to surrender anyway as the Emperor was persuaded of the need to by civilian bombing, which I had already mentioned if you had bothered to check before blithering on like you did. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria also seems to have been a decisive factor.

The possible post-war partitioning of Japan as being a reason to use the bomb is a view I have some sympathy for, but that's about all you say that really makes any sense, and even then only if you could establish that only the Bomb prevented this, which you cannot. Once more, you can only speculate.

Again, I repeat- we do not know. There is no way you can state with certainty that the alternative would have been worse.

All of this being the case, your cursing of people is contemptible and pathetic.

Incidentlaly the Japanese airforce was finished in mainland Japan. The bombings of the country were almost entirely unopposed. Your commentary about the Red Army at Leipzig appears to be gibberish as well.

Tortoise Herder
Ugshank, have you EVER READ ANYTHING about the Japanese military in history? It would appear that you have not, or you would not respond in such a damned stupid way.

As to the Red Army's abortive invasion of our zones in Central Europe, which you believe is "[email protected]" than I must say that you have never seen T-34 Plain near Leizpig, where Red Polish tankers made a suicidal charge into the teeth of Canadian and Belgian anti-tank guns, and (obviously, if you have ever seen the site) failed. You have also not read the excellent if-a-bit-biased "The Heat Before the Cold: The Unsung Confrontation between the West and the East" by Richard Q. Fettel, which I would recommend, if you can find it (it is rather rare).

But than again, you obviously know next to nothing about what the bloody thread is ACTUALLY ABOUT, so why should I expect you to know something like the Elbe River Campaign?

For starters, you think that "there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Japanese were about to surrender anyway" is quite possibly the most idiotic and foolish thing I have EVER heard on this subject. If you had ANY DAMNED IDEA ON THE TEACHINGS OF THE SHINTO-BUDDHIST MIX THAT JAPAN HAS, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE SPEWED THAT BS.

To explain, in the practice of Japanese religion prior to the surrender, the Emperor of Japan was a man of divinity, with his lineage traced all the way through the centuries to Izanagi and Izanami, two deities summoned into existence by the first god, and were tasked with creating the first land in the world, which (long story short) they did, and sent their children to the islands to populate them. Amongst their children are the ancestor of the Emperors and Empresses to the present day, or so the story goes.

Thus, the Emperor is of divine blood, and is the manifestation of a god on Earth. Sound familiar? It should, as it was quite similar to the Divine Rights of Kings ideology based out of Europe, with the difference being that while Europe's monarchs ran afoul of a growing population with their intolerance for reform, the Japanese Imperials were intelligent enough to keep the masses loyal through some limited reforms.

To put this bluntly: to resist the Emperor or refuse to recognize the Emperor is simultaneously both treason (betrayal of the Earthly sovereign) and Blasphemy (betrayal of the Divine), and is quite possibly the most serious crime a mortal can commit, or so goes the story.

Now, in pre-Meiji times, these ideas were not worth the paper they were written on, as the real power rested with the Shogun of Japan (which roughly translates to: Great commander who defeats the eastern barbarians, and is a military rank) who could more or less play the Emperor's strings like some church harp if he so pleased.

However, the Emperor Muhsuhito was not willing to go along with that script, and the arrival of Commandore Perry in Nagasaki gave him the excuse he needed to retake the limelight. In the Boshun War, he defeated the Shogunate and established a regime on the basis of a constitution (based on what passed for the Prussian "constitution"wink that focused political power on the Emperor's throne. It also stated in no uncertain terms that the Emperor was of divine extraction and a symbol of the gods on Earth.

This effectively makes the Emperor both the political and spiritual head of Japan, to those of you (coughcoughtUshgarakcoughcough) who cannot comprehend anything about Japan's pre-surrender history without having it spelled out for you.

And, even worse from the Allied perspective, was Bushido. The Bushido code's beginnings are shrouded in mystery, but it is obvious from writings that one can access that it has been around since at least 712 AD, where it appears in what is the oldest Japanese tome in known existence. It is something akin to the Chivalry of Europe, but far stronger and further lasting (at least as an established code) than its European cousin. You must understand that Bushido, while covering everything from funeral rites to childrearing, has a heavy emphasis on death, and on dying a "good" one with one's honor intact. Another thing you have to know is that the Bushido code views capture as a VERY dishonorable thing to happen, and something that is to be prevented. You must ALSO understand that another major tenant of Bushido is loyalty to one's superiors. And THIS is easily mollified to the idea that one must unflaggingly support one's spiritual and political leader. And in Japan, that would be the Emperor as head both of the practical power of Japan but also of the religious head of Japan. And that would manifest itself in the fanatic efforts of the Japanese, both civilian and military, against the Allies, and the barbaric damage they inflicted in their wake.

And THAT is why Eisenhower's rose-colored reports on Japan are VERY inaccurate. Eisenhower served in EUROPE, and his analysis of the situation is like treating Japan as a European nation of the time, akin to Romania, Hungary, Russia, Portugal, or Spain, in both doctrine and strategy. And sadly, many people have followed this model of looking at WWII era Japan, including apparently Ushgarak.

But to anybody who has studied this period of Japan, you know why that goes down the [email protected] immediately. To those of you who do NOT know, let me sum this up.

Europe has not had this sort of warrior code imprinted onto the entire populace in any sort of scale since the last Medieval knight either hung up his gear or was shot off his horse with an arquebus. Certainly, some groups did indeed fight ferociously, and many to the last man (especially those who knew they would be turned over and hung for warcrimes anyway, like the SS), but these were spontaneous events and largely without pattern.

The only Axis nations that really fought on even when it became unbelievably obvious what the endgame would be were Germany itself, Hungary (due to hatred of the Romanians and the knowledge about what would happen to Transylvania again), and the NDH of Croatia (due to the fact that they would have been shot anyway.)

In the Orient, it was NOT like that. There are thousands of accounts of Japanese forces dying to the last man in all arms of the military, frequently in ways that could have been avoided. POWs were a VERY small fraction of the overall losses.

In Europe, when a nation let a city/airfield/base/town/port be bombed without retaliation, it was almost certainly because said nation had no planes in the area, being either destroyed, captured, knocked out by mechanical problems, or too far away to do anything. The Axis LITERALLY pitched everything they had into battle to the point where they kept to reserves, in accordance with their doctrine on airpower. There are far more reports than you would think of Axis pilots in Europe attempting to intercept Allied bombers accompanied full escorts with literally anything they could get flying and loaded with some weapons, up to and INCLUDING modified civilian planes and antiquated WWI fliers.

However, Japan had developed a relatively unique doctrine in mid-WWII on the uses and nature of the reserve. You naively point out that the Allies bombed major Japanese cities unopposed from the air. This is true, but it does NOT mean that the Japanese had no aircraft, as you stupidly conclude. It just meant that they were of a far different type than you would think.

If you have EVER seen a kamikaze plane, you will see why none of them were scrambled to intercept bombers even when they were technically in range. That is because they have literally been gutted. These were modified planes that more often then not had the very bare minimum for takeoff and flying, and more than one of them had no landing gear or parachute holder ( for obvious reasons.) It was not uncommon to see all weapons taken out off the plane. Why? The answer is simple: explosives. The planes had been gutted to have the maximum possible room for explosives, and thus get more bang for their buck. So, the reason this rather large reserve of aircraft did not engage the around-the-clock bombing of Japan is because they would not have been of any use (save if one managed to crash into a B-17 or B-29 by chance) and would more likely have meant that the plane and pilot would have been lost prematurely. So, in summary, you see B-17s going about routinely bombing Tokyo and you claim that Japan has no aerial reserve, when in reality those gunless planes and their pilots are waiting for the right time, when the Allies more to disgorge on the sacred soil of Japan in their lumbering seafaring iron behemoths, for them to swing out and take the target of their pick.

Tortoise Herder
You dismiss the bloody estimates as mere predictions, like some Star Wars geeks (myself included) guessing what Emperor and King George Lucaszia I of Lucasarts decrees is canon next. This is false. These estimates were drawn up based on the most through and reliable intelligence that we and our allies had, and were drawn up by men who had been fighting the Emperor for around three years, and were VERY familiar with their foe and his strategy. This was not simple guesswork, but complicated, miles-on-miles of estimation and data-gathering, and goes to show how formidable a foe we had in the Empire.

So, with it inherently obvious that the Japanese were not going to surrender, that the estimates were not a group of geriatrics playing poker on Sunday, and that the Japanese were more than ready for much of what we could throw at them, you still say that "I cannot possibly know" that the future of Japan would have been better had we not dropped those two bombs on Japan.

And for once, I shall agree with you. Why? Because I am mortal, and none who inhabit this mortal coil can hope to see the tides and falls of fate and destiny.

However, being unable to see exactly does not mean I am banned from making an informed, educated guess based on solid research and investigation. And, taking into account the cultural, religious, and political factors that would have made the Japanese fight to the point of extinction ALA Paraguay, the possibility of even larger losses to Western Allied soldiers and equipment than the-already-far-too-high number in history, given the possibility of extinction for the native Japanese as a peoples in this battle, given the fact that the doomed Kwantung Army could have gone on a rampage in the meantime, and given the fact that our weakness might have led the already-too-far expanse of Soviet power reach even further, I can say that it is almost certain that it would have been worse if we had not dropped the bomb.

There is the chance that some miracle would have happened, that a coup would have overthrown the Imperial Junta with the new government asking for unconditional peace. However, this was unlikely to the extreme given how heavily Japan was commited in this war. The only peace the Imperial regime would have accepted would have been with many of their conquered territories returned, their conquests in China intact, and the Emperor's divinity unscratched. And this would have been unacceptable, for it would have merely laid the groundwork for further bloodshed, as our inability to crush
Imperial Germany led to the rise of Nazi Germany.


So yes, I must say that I, in conclusion, say that the reason Japan remains anywhere near the prosperity that it is is due to the fact that we DID use the bomb. We forced the Imperial regime to surrender, and thus we brought it to become a lantern of freedom in a region that saw the juggernauts of Communism in China and Russia attempt to expand their hold. Thus, I must say that I reject your conclusions, which I find uninformed and naive, and say that I do not believe that the world would have been as good a place as it is today without the bomb.

And for that, I can only give thanks that we chose to do so, and in doing so brought a new democracy into the world, one untainted by the years of division, unease, mutual suspicion, and underdevelopment brought about by the partition of Germany and in particular by Soviet influence.

And the people of Japan, who live and die in a vibrant land rather than a desolate, war-torn graveyard, must be thankful too.

Ushgarak
Yes, I do know what I am talking about, and unlike you I do not childishly lose my temper as you have simply because I have set out clear and simple ripostes to the nonsense you have posted.

Now, you can regurgitate all that stuff about 'not surrendering' all that you like., You can try and tell me all you like that it is stone cold certain fact that they would not have done. You can try and say over and over that I have not read or researched on the matter.

It doesn't matter how often you do all that, because you are still entirely wrong- you are still trying to pass off your personal opinion as definite fact, and very little is more dangerous or more contemptible in historical analysis.

There is a VERY great deal of evidence that says they were ready to surrender, despite this complete myth that you are trying to propogate that it was DEFINITELY impossible.

We have direct witness testimony from Japanese cabinet members at the time saying that surrender negotiations were already inplace. We have direct witness testimony from senior Japanese military officers stating that, honour or otherwise, the ONLY important aspect for the surrender was whether the Emperor backed it. It didn't matter about the small bombs or the big bombs, just the Emperor's opinion. And so to twin with that, we have, again, direct testimony saying that the conventional bombing campaign was about to convince the Emperor, and Russian intervention even more so.

Meanwhile, we have direct testimony from American politicans and senior military officers involved that they knew that the possibility of surrender was there, but the bomb was dropped anyway to scare the Russians. Even bloody General Macarthur said it was not at all necessary to have dropped it, that they were already surrendering anyway, and he was hardly an accomodating man. Admiral Nimitz said the same. Truman's Chief of Staff said the same. All of these views are first hand, and far more expert than you. Nevermind Eisenhower. This is directly from the people who were there, fighting Japan, and including those IN Japan.

So that's what I have- direct first hand testimony contradicting your account. What have you got? Your personal attempts to anlayse Japanese culture at the time, which I submit are very basic and not really taking the reality of the situation into account. It's the same sort of view that said Japanese soliders would never surrender in battle. They still did.

As far as any validity or currency is concerned, your position is bankrupt, whilst mine is backed.

You are trying to ignore all of this, to cut it out. That is the attitude of a fool. This whole area something that has been in serious debate, from the moment the bomb dropped in '45, through massive amounts of varying historical analyses since, all the way into the modern day including recent works by the likes of Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. You want to ignpre that debate in favour of just overlaying your own world view.

So all the rest you say is just noise without meaning. You claim certainty- you are simply wrong. Again. We'll never know if it was necessary or not. You cannot state it for sure either way. You seem to have a desperate need to have your narrow view of the situation taken as undeniable fact... that's very depressing to see, and also rather pitiful.

And in the meantime we can mention how the kamikaze programme was a strategic failure and most were simply shot out of the sky, and that we have no reason to think that any tiny dwindling amount of those left could have done anything even if they had not been destroyed on the ground, which they would have been, and we can also mention how you are still not talking about anything significant or historically valuable at Leipzig- sounds like the work of a crackpot to me.

Try not to wear such astonishing blinkers in future. Such self-deception is shaming. If you weant to live in a fantasy world where you can be certain that only the use of the Bomb made Japanese surrender possible, feel free. But to believe such a tenuous view comes with an inherent risk- that people will disagree with you, and do so with very relevant facts and points, and that you may end up looking pretty silly as a result, and have to resort to trying to character-assassinate the person who disagrees with you to try and assert your own confidence. What a shame.

chithappens
When I get a chance I'm going to respond to this whole thing with Japan and what it follows. That guy is soooooo culturally bias. I can't believe a wanna be history buff is that damn deluded.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Well, was it? In that case, did the ends justify the means? Not worth it. Funny though.

Tortoise Herder
OK than, I am back, and I must say that I have yet another few posts of swill to clean up.

First thing is first, Ushgarak, I REFUSE to take your pathetic attempt to divert my attention to the Elbe River invasion UNTIL, and not one second before, you have found and read The Heat Before the Cold by the rather good Mr. Fettel. Until then, I refuse to hear one word of your whining. But there are other things to discuss in the meantime.

The fact of the matter is that I am, apparently, the only person who knows that there are different types of surrender and what those differences are. Ushgarak tries to pathetically pin this sort of thing on me, while at the same time forgetting that I HAD ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS, ALBEIT BRIEFLY, ON ONE OF MY PREVIOUS POSTS! See the latter part of the fifth paragraph on my third post, to those of you who can scroll back. Whoever, for the benefit of people (and I use that term EXTREMELY loosely) like Ushgarak, who cannot tax their minds around the complex idea of READING THE ENTIRE POST before commenting, I will sum this up this way (in nice big letters so that Ushgarak can read at least part of them).

WHAT THE JAPANESE WERE OFFERING AS TERMS FOR THEIR "SURRENDER" WAS NOT EFFECTIVE!

The Japanese were only offering to "surrender" if they could keep their military operational, avoid tribunals for all but a few small fish (out of a sea of barracudas who burned Eastern China down with their Three Alls policy, butchered around the Pacific Rim, and freely terrorized civilians in ways even MORE heinous than our carpet bombing), keep Manchuria and several of their conquests on the Chinese Seaboard, and allow the continuation of the Emperor's "Divinity."

Now, those of you who know military and political history more than as some useless talking points will know what this was likely to cause. To those who do NOT, let me spell it out for you: The Imperial regime would be filled with the same sludge as before the war, the Japanese army and navy could be rearmed and reforged, and, possibly most importantly, it would allow the JAPANESE TO CLAIM THEY HAD WON!

Now, some might ask how someone standing in a sea of their own dead can claim victory, and why it is important, but it is. The Japanese would claim that, after appalling losses, they had achieved victory over the West and their "Chinese mercenaries" in that they had kept their conquests in China and the possibility of regrouping a force that could hope to expand those conquests after maybe a decade or so.

This was unacceptable on so many levels, from political to home front to military. It would NOT create even the semblance of a lasting peace more than a year, and we would eventually have to clash again with a Japanese army that had grown in experience, equipment, and training as well as having the benefit of hindsight, barring the idea that somehow Hirohito's heir was someone akin to Gandhi or that the Imperial Junta would be overthrown.

So, no. We did not accept Hitler's offers of ceasefire due to the fact that they would merely lead us into conflict with him in the future or allow the Soviets the full bounty of Central Europe, and we could not, would not accept the same from Japan.

We pushed for what is called Unconditional Surrender. Now, to some people who may have trouble with so many letters, let me sum this up for you. Unconditional Surrender is the practice of the defender to submit without conditions (hence Unconditionally) to the victor. It was a far cry from the "surrender" the Japanese were pushing for that had so many limits it was unfit to be considered a peace, let alone a surrender.

It would allow us to try and execute the Junta and its underlings that had burned and raped the Pacific Rim dry for around a decade, it would allow us to restructure Japan out of its feudalistic authoritarian state into a democratic nation, and it would put to rest the idea of a Japanese Imperialist army rampaging around the Pacific in the decades to follow.

See the difference, or do I have to draw an e'ffing picture with crayons for you lot?

And secondly, to the person attempting to claim I am anti-Asian, you will have to see myself and my friends to understand how miserably stupid you look right now. Is it so hard to believe that a nation/people's culture will affect their fighting? If you think not, than get the h*ll off the board and go to whatever the historical equivalent of Supershadow is.

And thirdly, it is not like the Japanese were the only people to fight to the point of dissolution as a whole. To those who doubt that, I have but five words. War of the Triple Alliance. Google them in, and you WILL see why I briefly mentioned Paraguay previously.

And thirdly, to Ushgarak and his self-deluded idea that the Japanese were begging to surrender (ignoring for a moment how pathetically weak said "surrender" was), let me put it this way. Let us assume that, for a few seconds, we will do an Ushgarak and throw away the facts and believe that the Japanese are protesting against their Emperor, likening their Emperor and the Junta to Hi--- err, I mean Kaiser, hosting stand-ins, calling Japan "Qingist", burning Japanese Imperial Flags, and in general trying to force a peace.

Than WHY DID THEY NOT CAPITULATE UNCONDITIONALLY AFTER HIROSHIMA? That is one thing that must have "slipped your mind," given the fact that the news of Hiroshima was known to the Japanese public, and we in fact waited three days to give the Imperial cabinet enough time to overcome any technical problems in said surrender, disarm, right their wills etc.etc.etc, and yet THEY DID NOT.

Thus, thanks to the Japanese refusal to capitulate even AFTER Hiroshima, we were forced to nuke Nagasaki. Those deaths in the second bombing can be primarily laid at the door of the Japanese regime for their refusal to capitulate after Hiroshima. And guess WHAT? Do you know how eager for peace the Japanese were after Nagasaki? They were so "eager" that they sent a large patrol to the Emperor's private residence to find and destroy the surrender broadcast before it was aired, with the only thing preventing them from doing so being a firebombing that cut the power!

And yet you call ME self-delusional!

And, on that note, I will get to my last point for now. In Ushgarak's posts, you will notice that he smears me from here to the actual site of the bombings and back again, with things like "self-delusional", "trying to pass of my opinions as facts", and "wearing blinders", blahblahblah blah blah.

But, in noticing his character hitjobs that do not change the facts one damned iota, notice a few things that are NOT present in his posts.

He does NOT counter the point I presented about the Japanese government arming the populace with weapons for an apocalyptic struggle.

He does NOT counter my point about Operation Downfall save for some [email protected] comment about it being "speculations" (yes, but so was Overlord until it was undertaken and so was Hannibal's March on Rome before he crossed the Alps, and so was Napoleon's trek across aforemented Alps to force Vienna to the peacetable when the Army of Italy was on the verge of mutineering itself out of existence, so it is a moot point.)

He does NOT counter my points about Soviet expansion in the Far East, and as a matter of fact does not mention this massive factor AT ALL save to quote from the arguments about the bomb that it was "only" done to send a message to Moscow (this is partially true, doubtless, but it was also done to prevent that same Moscow from seizing Japan for itself, to negate the losses on both side that an invasion of Japan would cause, and to remove the deaths from starvation that would occur in Japan in any blockade, And to prevent the Kwantung army from rampaging any more than was avoidable. But let's not waste Ushgarak's wonderful virtrol with nasty little FACTS).

He also DOES NOT answer the point that the Japanese were arming and preparing for a suicidal defense against an invasion by the day, and they knew where we were heading, which would cause massive casualties for BOTH sides.

He chooses not to address these points, substituting them instead for a mile of slander that is completely devoid of any academic benefit whatsoever.

And that is because he CANNOT, and hopes that I will not notice his evasions.

The fact is that there is no doubt that the bomb killed massive amounts of people, and that it is a watershed moment. If there was some fifth option to the bomb, the blockade, the useless pen, and the landing barges that could somehow topple the Japanese regime, while at the same time building both a lasting democracy and a peace in the Pacific as stable as historical without leveling two cities, do you think I would not choose it? Do you think anyone would not choose it? Do you think that Truman and his staff would not have chosen it on those fateful days?

And, finally, to those who are so certain of the inhumanity and needlessness of the bomb, than PLEASE tell us how YOU would have handled the situation with Japan in those final days while managing to circumvent the "needless" slaughter of the bomb, the butchery of an invasion, the cost and starvation of a blockade, and the Kwangtung army going on a rampage?

Sure, it looks daunting, but since you all apparently know more than me, than the Allied leaders, than some of the largest and most efficient intelligence services in history, and than the President of the United States himself, I am SURE you can pull it off.

I will be waiting, but will not hold my breath.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Well, was it? In that case, did the ends justify the means?

Yes. It's estimated that ~500,000 American soldiers would have been killed in a land invasion and the subsequent battle. Between that and what actually happened, I think Truman made the best* choice.

*It wasn't a very pleasant ultimatum, but he played the hand he was dealt and made the sacrifice he felt he had to.

chithappens
OMFG I made this long post and deleted it. In short:

To say the Japanese were not going to give up because they are more stubborn because of Bushido code is ethnocentric since one could make that argument for any army.

Made comments on lack on innate belief in humanitarianism and so on.

Maybe later I'll do it again. That took a while. Freak!

Tortoise Herder
OMFG, I made this long post and deleted it.

Newsflash to chithappens: YOU ARE GOING TO NEED AN IN-DEPTH POST IN ORDER TO DEBATE HERE!

Ok than, here I thought you might have something of a clue to the Japanese War Machine and WWII, unlike Ushgarak.

I am apparently wrong.

So, your argument is that Bushido would not make the Japanese fight to the death (except for what are apparently isolated incidents like Iwo Jima, Saipan, Ten-Go, Guadalcanal, Tulagi, Leyte Gulf, Midway, Okinawa........), and that believing that it would affect Japan that way means that you lack "on" (read an) innate belief in humanitarianism. And than you show your intellectual superiority and well-researched arguments by calling me a "freak."

Wonderful, just wonderful. And here I thought that the fish do not jump in the boat.

At least Ushgarak cherry-picked facts and figures or invented ones out of the air, while it looks like that would be too much difficulty for you.

Now, how do I disassemble a nonexistent argument? Well, first-off, you call the "RACIST" card on Bushido, and claim that it could be applied to "Any" army. WTF. Of COURSE you can find cases throughout history where soldiers fought to the last man in many nations, from the "Hot Gates" of antiquity to the Alamo to Chapultapec to the diehard SS who were mopped up in Austria, Germany, and Czechslovakia.

This much is true. However, these cases were primarily isolated incidents or were made by diehard forces trying to save themselves from certain destruction. This is nothing like the Pacific War, where dozens of thousands of Japanese would die almost to the last (if the "almost" was even applicable in that particular case) in order to try to slow down the "foreigners." There is more documentation of this fact then you can shake a stick at, and can be found by using GOOGLE!

Thus, if you cannot do the arduous labor of typing in a few letters and clicking "search," you will neither appreciate nor understand the many,many,many documents, interviews, and books that would quash that unbelievably stupid talking point like a bug.

And as for mentioning humanitarianism, I cannot see the reason for that. You say it like it will suddenly make all the kamikaze figures, civilian mobilization, suicidal tactics, Japanese honor codes, intelligence figures, military plans, and estimates fade away into the air and have everybody say that "how could we have been so blind, all the nonexistant atrocities, last-stands, reserves, documentation, and timetables are all completely BS!"

"We all now know the bomb is inhumane because saying that a people who largely saw themselves as a warrior peoples and made no mystery of it will fight ferociously for a centuries-old code of honor that was heavily impressed into Japan by the education and culture of the Imperial Junta suffers from a lack of humanitarianism! Let us instead all gather around with Tojo, Hitler, Stalin, Chiang, Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, Chavez, Pol Pot, Osama, Assad, Castro, Che, and all the rest of the gang of poor, misunderstood butchers and sing Kumbayaya around the fire!"

And to cap it off, you "threaten" me by saying that "Maybe later I'll do it again." To which I can only say PLEASE DO. I am positively groveling on my knees due to my stupidmoronswhocannotmakeasemiintelligableargument
phobia.

I hope, for your sake, that you have kept a copy of that long post, cause you are gonna need it to salvage something from your previous post.

chithappens
First off, I made a loooooong post and just deleted the tab in between quoting you.

Second, the "freak!" was not calling you a freak. It was a substitute for "****!" for deleting all that crap by mistake.

Third, ethnocentricity is not the same thing as racism, and even racism is not necessarily always a product of hatred. Bushido code about the same as either side of the Crusades, for example.

Fourth, humanitarianism was mentioned as a way of trying to envision what you meant by the "best solution." I have to leave that loose ended for now because I do not have time to go into detail right now.

Don't take the short post as an insult. When I had time I screwed up by deleting the post. I just don't have a chance right now. I should this evening.

Lord Melkor
But Tortoise, wouldn`t the Japanese surrender if Emperor ordered them to, bomb or no bomb?

Tortoise Herder
Yes, they probably would have. However, Hirohito either was unwilling to do so due to either his worries that he would be tried as responsible for the Junta and its actions, or being intimidated by the Junta itself into silence, depending on which version of Hirohito you believe is true (puppet master or puppet). However, Ringleader or Ring-led, the result is more-or-less identical: Hirohito will not or cannot speak up to force the Junta to capitulate to the inevitable.

Thus, this left us none the better, and planned anyway. Thus, we hoped that the Atomic bombs would force Japan to collapse or would at least make Downfall (which was still regarded as inevitable) less bloody (Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd Army, in control of the defense of the whole southern part of the country, and Nagasaki was important to the arms industry and a major port city that was housing much of the remnant of the IJN) which was why we picked cities with mixed military and civilian importance. As you probably know, the Emperor's announcement on the Radio is what forced Japan to bow to the inevitable and surrender, but you do not know how close that came to never being delivered at all.

When Hirohito finally made plans to speak up after Nagasaki, the Junta raided his personal residence in search of the surrender ordinance. There are disputes as to how close they got to actually finding it, but a fortunate event prevented them from getting any closer.

A wave of B-52s firebombed Tokyo that night, and their bombing destroyed/crippled (sources disagree) the electricity provider to downtown Tokyo, which forced the Pickets in charge to cut the search short. The day after, The Emperor officially announced his decision to surrender. It was THAT close. It also shows the lengths to which the Junta were willing to go to continue the fight, and should be noted as such.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by chithappens
First off, I made a loooooong post and just deleted the tab in between quoting you.

Second, the "freak!" was not calling you a freak. It was a substitute for "****!" for deleting all that crap by mistake.

Third, ethnocentricity is not the same thing as racism, and even racism is not necessarily always a product of hatred. Bushido code about the same as either side of the Crusades, for example.

Fourth, humanitarianism was mentioned as a way of trying to envision what you meant by the "best solution." I have to leave that loose ended for now because I do not have time to go into detail right now.

Don't take the short post as an insult. When I had time I screwed up by deleting the post. I just don't have a chance right now. I should this evening.

The Japanese NEVER would've surrendered, ey. Ask any WW2 historian or expert. It was against their religion, and Japanese propaganda of the time said that American G.I.'s barbequed and ate Japanese babies, and they believed it.

Blax_Hydralisk
mmm...

BBQ asian.

chithappens
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Japanese NEVER would've surrendered, ey. Ask any WW2 historian or expert. It was against their religion, and Japanese propaganda of the time said that American G.I.'s barbequed and ate Japanese babies, and they believed it.

There is propaganda in every war. A lot of people say the Spartans would have never surrendered and the such.

Religion and war ALWAYS come hand in hand. It can never be said with certainity that they would not have quit. Any religion with ideas of submission to a single deity would basically say it would be a spit in the face of that particular god to surrender. Democracy and Christianity go hand in hand, for example.

Trust, I get what you are saying, but it seems ethnocentric to say they would not give up because of their god as if no one else AT THAT TIME ALSO were not on the same sort of thing.

All this stuff about the Japanese civilians being armed and ready to fight makes sense regardless of religious beliefs or propaganda - all you need to know is that the Allies are about to surround Japan and kill you all. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN CIVILIAN LIFE INTO ACCOUNT; EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TO DIE. The atomic bomb certainly does not dispute this.

Japan was going to lose certainly, but some of this stuff you are saying is not even about strictly religious beliefs. The East has never had respect for the West and that continues today. Asia saw what happened to Africa (I'm talking BC era, not colonization; although Asians came in from East Africa, but yea...) and have always been careful when dealing with Europeans because they saw them as barbaric; hence, stuff like the Great Wall of China and Chinese mythology that going beyond the wall would lead to all sorts of evils and you could never return after crossing westward beyond the walls.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by chithappens
There is propaganda in every war. A lot of people say the Spartans would have never surrendered and the such.


Yeah, the Spartans never would've surrendered. Ever hear of the Battle of Thermopylae?

The Axis Japanese were just as stubborn. Of the 20,000 Japanese soldiers that defended Iwo Jima, only 216 were captured. In fact, in battles where they lost against US forces, the Japanese had a 92% mortality rate. And these were just individuals. It took TWO atomic bombs to bring Japan to the negotiating table, because the idea that surrender was an abominable, actrocious, pathetic act was so ingrained into them.

Originally posted by chithappens
Religion and war ALWAYS come hand in hand. It can never be said with certainity that they would not have quit. Any religion with ideas of submission to a single deity would basically say it would be a spit in the face of that particular god to surrender. Democracy and Christianity go hand in hand, for example.


No, not really. The German soldiers (who were almost all Christians) had no problem putting their hands up and waiving a white flag.

Originally posted by chithappens
Trust, I get what you are saying, but it seems ethnocentric to say they would not give up because of their god as if no one else AT THAT TIME ALSO were not on the same sort of thing.


Ethnocentric? How?

Actually, Japan was the only country that would do that, porque out of the six main players (USA, UK, USSR, Germany, Italy, Japan), they were the only theocracy.

Originally posted by chithappens

All this stuff about the Japanese civilians being armed and ready to fight makes sense regardless of religious beliefs or propaganda - all you need to know is that the Allies are about to surround Japan and kill you all. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN CIVILIAN LIFE INTO ACCOUNT; EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TO DIE. The atomic bomb certainly does not dispute this.


No it doesn't make sense regardless, because religion and propaganda were the only reason they would take up arms. If I beleived that my backyard was being invaded by a bunch of 7-foot-tall, half-ape, barbaric creatures who wanted to barbeque my children, I sure as hell would shoot them.

Originally posted by chithappens

Japan was going to lose certainly, but some of this stuff you are saying is not even about strictly religious beliefs. The East has never had respect for the West and that continues today. Asia saw what happened to Africa (I'm talking BC era, not colonization; although Asians came in from East Africa, but yea...) and have always been careful when dealing with Europeans because they saw them as barbaric; hence, stuff like the Great Wall of China and Chinese mythology that going beyond the wall would lead to all sorts of evils and you could never return after crossing westward beyond the walls.

The Japanese leaders knew that they could never win a prolonged war against America.

And actually, the Great Wall was designed to keep out Mongolians, who are also Asian.

chithappens
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah, the Spartans never would've surrendered. Ever hear of the Battle of Thermopylae?

The Axis Japanese were just as stubborn. Of the 20,000 Japanese soldiers that defended Iwo Jima, only 216 were captured. In fact, in battles where they lost against US forces, the Japanese had a 92% mortality rate. And these were just individuals. It took TWO atomic bombs to bring Japan to the negotiating table, because the idea that surrender was an abominable, actrocious, pathetic act was so ingrained into them.

No, not really. The German soldiers (who were almost all Christians) had no problem putting their hands up and waiving a white flag.


I'm not arguing against that. It takes beating an army down to a pulp to get them to surrender. Any army will continue to fight if it has a chance. The Germans knew they did not have ANY chance at victory PERIOD once they surrendered. The Spartans, however unlikely it was, convinced themselves they had a chance and they did given certain circumstances.

No one surrenders unless it is utter defeat. The Germans were defeated no matter what they did. What does the Germans being mostly Christian have to do with your point? It would not take away shame of not "standing up for God" and achieving His goals. Besides, the base that most people consider for Germany of WWII is nationalism and that still is saying screw anyone unlike them in belief, appearance or ability.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Ethnocentric? How?

Actually, Japan was the only country that would do that, porque out of the six main players (USA, UK, USSR, Germany, Italy, Japan), they were the only theocracy.


Because no one WOULD WANT TO GIVE UP. If you are in the war (keep this in line with the late 40s) and of the Axis, the grand assumption would be that the ramifications of losing would be catastrophic with the Treaty of Versailles being the precedent. That being said, the loser was liking going to be on the decline for a very long time.

To say that Japanese were only stubborn for religious reasons would be negligent to the complexity of world history.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

No it doesn't make sense regardless, because religion and propaganda were the only reason they would take up arms. If I beleived that my backyard was being invaded by a bunch of 7-foot-tall, half-ape, barbaric creatures who wanted to barbeque my children, I sure as hell would shoot them.


**** the propaganda. If the U.S. lost it's military power and I knew armed soldiers were coming, I would take up mass arms. Who cares about propaganda? All /i need to know is that they are going to try to kill me and my family and friends. Locke's Social Contract goes right out the window.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota


The Japanese leaders knew that they could never win a prolonged war against America.

And actually, the Great Wall was designed to keep out Mongolians, who are also Asian.

I already said that about the Japanese leaders and the Great Wall was not just for the Monogolians - that's unrelated but we can discuss that in PM.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by chithappens
It takes beating an army down to a pulp to get them to surrender.

Not always. See: France and Poland

Originally posted by chithappens
Any army will continue to fight if it has a chance.

Depends on orders, circumstance, mentality and morale.

Originally posted by chithappens
The Germans knew they did not have ANY chance at victory PERIOD once they surrendered.

Well that's an obvious statement. No one has any hope of victory once they surrender. Just like you can't get a raise or a promotion if you quit.

Originally posted by chithappens
The Spartans, however unlikely it was, convinced themselves they had a chance and they did given certain circumstances.


The Spartans, never had a chance in hell and they knew it. They were just following orders, and the Oracle (religion). Thermopylae was a diversion; their goal was to slow down the Persians long enough to give Athens time to evacuate. A defending force of 7,000 can't hold back 180,000 for ever and ever. It's impossible.

They could've withdrew on the third night, but Spartan religious beliefs wouldn't let them.

Originally posted by chithappens
No one surrenders unless it is utter defeat. The Germans were defeated no matter what they did. What does the Germans being mostly Christian have to do with your point? It would not take away shame of not "standing up for God" and achieving His goals. Besides, the base that most people consider for Germany of WWII is nationalism and that still is saying screw anyone unlike them in belief, appearance or ability.


The fact that you said "Religion and war ALWAYS come hand in hand." I disagree with that. Unlike the Japanese, the German soldiers weren't fighting for a god.

Originally posted by chithappens

To say that Japanese were only stubborn for religious reasons would be negligent to the complexity of world history.


No, it would be true. It's against Bushido to surrender. The Germans had no trouble surrendering to American soldiers, because they knew they would be in good hands if they did. The Japanese would rather commit suiced in a banzai charge, harakiri, or by pulling the pin from a grenade and blowing themselves up, than recieving hot square meals and watching American movies every day.

It was apart of their religious text and their brainwashing in boot camp.

Originally posted by chithappens

**** the propaganda. If the U.S. lost it's military power and I knew armed soldiers were coming, I would take up mass arms. Who cares about propaganda? All /i need to know is that they are going to try to kill me and my family and friends. Locke's Social Contract goes right out the window.


Me too. But that's not very comparable to the situation in WW2 Japan. American soldiers didn't behead civillians, or bayonet babies of the countries they occupied. The Japanese did. And Tokyo Rose lied her ass off about American GI's coming to eat Japanese babies, and as a result the people needed to take up arms against Joe*.

*Japanese slang term for GI's.

Originally posted by chithappens

I already said that about the Japanese leaders and the Great Wall was not just for the Monogolians - that's unrelated but we can discuss that in PM.

The Emperor who had it built in 200 BC had it done to keep out the "Northern Barbarians". And guess what country is due north of China?

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Well, was it? In that case, did the ends justify the means?

sure, we were in war. The japanese were well on their way to splitting the atom. Had they had a few more months, they probably would have had a nuke equal to little boy. The most certainly would have utilized their technology. They had no quarrels with provoking a country not involved in the conflict by invading their territory and bombing the shit out of hawaii. This leads me to believe that they would have had no reservations on dropping a nuke or two around the world to enforce their beliefs.
The first drop was comepletly warranted and should never be questioned on a humanitarian level. Warnings were given to the civilians. The second drop however, was nothing more than an attempt for America to show their dominance.

It all worked out for the japs anyway. America rebuilt their shit and eventually gave them the means to exceed as one of the most powerful and successful economies in the world.

Before you ***** about Americans being devils and assholes. Look at our enemy at the time. There were no enemy more ruthless than the japanese. Also consider what America gave the japanese afterwards.

War is shitty, people die babies die and yes...,even puppies die. I suppose the goal os to one day reach a world wide awareness that war is not needed. War is needed though, so this will never be an agreement

Tortoise Herder
Overall, I agree, but that "attempt by America to show their dominance" was IN RESPONSE to Japan's refusal to capitulate after Hiroshima, and even with Nagasaki, the Imperial Junta tried to suppress the Emperor's surrender declaration and fight on anyway. Just a note.

Smasandian
The Japenese would of not surrendered, or if they did, it would of happen near the end of the invasion of Japan.

Soldiers would of died. They dropped the bomb to stop it. I agree with that decisoin. As horrible as it is, you want to protect your boys.

Comparing the Japenese to the Germans is friutless. Most of the Germany that surrendered near D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge were not Germans but Polish, Russian, and etc who had to fight because an SS officer was behind them with a gun.

Near the end on the otherhand, the Germans did surrender, but the war was lost and it was just a matter of time.

Blax_Hydralisk
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Before you ***** about Americans being devils and assholes. Look at our enemy at the time.

I hope, for your sake, this wasn't directed at me.

apoc001
As far as I'm concerned, the bombings were an act of genocide. If you must fight, fight the fighters, not the everyday citizens.

Tortoise Herder
Apoc001, do you realize how stupid you look now?

I have phrased the case out far more often than I would like, but, since you cannot bother reading, I will spell it out as simply as I can for you: THE BOMBINGS WERE QUITE FRANKLY THE LEAST BLOODY WAY WE COULD HAVE REALISTICALLY FORCED A JAPANESE SURRENDER! An invasion would have been a meatgrinder, would have made us very weak in the face of the Soviets, and would have ALSO likely wiped the native Japanese OUT to a VERY large extent.

Do you even know anything about what you are talking about? I am inclined to think not, as you say we should have "Fought the fighters, not the everyday citizens."

NEWSFLASH TO APOC! THE JAPANESE HAD BEEN PREPARING TO USE EACH AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE DAMN ISLAND CHAIN AS EITHER A BAMBOO-PIKE WIELDING RESERVE, OR A LIVING BOMB, BE THEY ADULT, ELDER, CHILD, OR BABY!

Orders and processes to this effect were found throughout the Islands. By the thousands. Evidence that they were putting them into effect can be found both by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, and actual accounts by those old enough to have gone through it themselves.

Also, if you had the slightest idea as to what a "GENOCIDE" really is, you would have not applied it to this case. Since when did the Germans, Soviets, Chinese, or Japanese repeatedly and officially warn their victims and beg them to surrender before doing what thy did?

apoc001
Ok fine. You've made your point. Sorry to upset you. Yes, it's true I hadn't read any of this prior to posting, and I should have. As for the least-bloody theory, it seems to me the incendiary bat method would have worked, too.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by apoc001
Ok fine. You've made your point. Sorry to upset you. Yes, it's true I hadn't read any of this prior to posting, and I should have. As for the least-bloody theory, it seems to me the incendiary bat method would have worked, too.

He hasn't actually made any point, worth anything. Evidently he doesn't even know history.

Japanese surrendered before the bomb was dropped.

No it was not worth it. The effect of atomic bomb can be felt for generations, meaning it didn't just kill people there and then but generations and generations of people.

Tortoise Herder
Lil Bitchiness, you would do well to actually NOT live up to your name frequently, and if you actually bothered to STUDY IN THE LEAST the history you pretend to know.

I do not know many outright stupid, idiotic, and outright retarded claims as the one that the Japanese "surrendered" before the bomb was dropped. NOT A SINGLE PERSON, EVEN OPPONENTS OF THE BOMB, CLAIM THAT JAPAN SURRENDERED BEFORE THE BOMBS!

Your point on the Atomic bomb is obviously correct in the respect that it DID affect several generations. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT A WIDESPREAD EXTINCTION OF THE NATIVES OF THE COUNTRY ITSELF "might" have a larger impact on future generatiosn (or LACK thereof).

As for my points, if you would READ THE F*ING thread before commenting on it, you would come across my arguments. I think that reading two pages is within your modest capabilities, and I do not wish to copy-and-paste everything onto this post.

So, get your @$$ moving and read the thread, and do NOT come back until you have. I await a response.

IHateCaesar
The Japanese surrendered on August 15, 1945
Bombs dropped on August 6, and 9, 1945

YodaIam
It was worth it, the Japanese shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish.

Symmetric Chaos
I assume you mean "wasn't".

YodaIam
You assume wrong.

KidRock
The first bomb was enough.

They did not have to drop the 2nd though.

The first was completely necessary..maybe in a different location though.

Symmetric Chaos
Ah, you were referring to the Japanese. Before that edit it seemed you were saying the US had started something they didn't want to finish.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by KidRock
The first was completely necessary..maybe in a different location though.

The Hiroshima prefecture was a major manufacturing and shipping center that had a lot of soldiers garrisoned there. Reasonable target really.

YodaIam
Yeah I thought so and decided to make it clearer.

The second bomb wasn't needed, they could have ended it without that one.

KidRock
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Hiroshima prefecture was a major manufacturing and shipping center that had a lot of soldiers garrisoned there. Reasonable target really.

Good location then.

I always assumed a lot more civilians then military were killed, so I just assumed. I haven't really read up on it much so I don't know too many details about it.

lord xyz
I can't believe people are asking this.

Holy ****ing no, is the answer.

The Japanese were already proposing surrender, and Truman knew it.

Total ****age.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by lord xyz
I can't believe people are asking this.

Holy ****ing no, is the answer.

The Japanese were already proposing surrender, and Truman knew it.

Total ****age.

I'm pretty sure they started to surrender after Hiroshima. Blowing up Nagasaki was a dick move considering the US dropped the bomb inside the time frame they gave for surrender.

KidRock
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm pretty sure they started to surrender after Hiroshima. Blowing up Nagasaki was a dick move considering the US dropped the bomb inside the time frame they gave for surrender.

I agree.

But they were just trying to intimidate the Soviet Union really.

The Tokyo control operator of the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation noticed that the Hiroshima station had gone off the air. He tried to re-establish his program by using another telephone line, but it too had failed. About twenty minutes later the Tokyo railroad telegraph center realized that the main line telegraph had stopped working just north of Hiroshima. From some small railway stops within 16 kilometers (10 mi) of the city came unofficial and confused reports of a terrible explosion in Hiroshima. All these reports were transmitted to the headquarters of the Japanese General Staff.

Military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred and that no sizeable store of explosives was in Hiroshima at that time. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. It was generally felt at headquarters that nothing serious had taken place and that it was all a rumor.

The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours, while still nearly one hundred miles (160 km) from Hiroshima, he and his pilot saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. A great scar on the land still burning and covered by a heavy cloud of smoke was all that was left. They landed south of the city, and the staff officer, after reporting to Tokyo, immediately began to organize relief measures.

Wow..Imagine being that Officer who first saw Hiroshima. He must have just been in a state of complete disbelief at the destruction.

YodaIam
Originally posted by lord xyz
I can't believe people are asking this.

Holy ****ing no, is the answer.

The Japanese were already proposing surrender, and Truman knew it.

Total ****age.

People are asking because people disagree with you.

Quark_666
Originally posted by lord xyz
I can't believe people are asking this.

Holy ****ing no, is the answer.

The Japanese were already proposing surrender, and Truman knew it.

Total ****age. I tend to agree with you about the bombs. But the story I heard, Truman sent the threats and the Emperor responded, "nuts to you." Surrender wasn't as obvious then as it is now.

And dang...it sure made the government popular...

jaden101
It's not as if the Japanese weren't warned. The LeMay bombing leaflet was dropped over 33 Japanese cities 5 days before the bombing of Hiroshima

This is what it looked like.
http://ww2db.com/images/person_lemay3.jpg


And this is what it said translated into English.

Symmetric Chaos
"unfortunately, bombs have no eyes"

And we don't aim apparently.

inimalist
I don't get it, worth it how?

like, would the world be a better place if the bombs weren't dropped? Was there an aggregate prevention of death by dropping the bomb and ending the war?

It successfully did what the Americans wanted it to do, so if that is the measure we go by, then sure. But, like, without defining who is placing value on the act, its sort of moot.

I don't think Japan was going to win the war anyways, so its highly unlikely that anything in my life would be really different, and I'm sure if you were to ask a Japanese person dying of lymphoma, they might not think it was worth it.

jinXed by JaNx
Considering that the japs were on the brink of creating their own nuke, yeah it was totally worth it. I mean, it did end the war wink Besides, they were given warning.

Wild Shadow
you would think the japs would know not to prod the dragon i mean how many times has that theme bn part of their culture and legends. :P

dadudemon
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Considering that the japs were on the brink of creating their own nuke, yeah it was totally worth it. I mean, it did end the war wink Besides, they were given warning.

It would have been retardedly difficult to end it. There was no way to get the leaders to see reason. All options exhausted.

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but the people on the main islands were training for invastion, as well. As many as were available...were training. Making it turn into a massive civilian war once we got to the main islands.

Darth Jello
The bombings were an act of terrorism. Declassified documents show that Japan was ready to surrender weeks prior to the bombings and were never given sufficient warning and both bombs were dropped on cities, not military targets in order to inflict maximum civilian casualties. The Japanese never had the means nor the knowledge to even begin developing atomic weapons.

I would recommend the documentary White Light, Black Rain to anyone who talks about how "necessary" the bombings were.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Darth Jello
The bombings were an act of terrorism.

Ahem, freedom fighting.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm pretty sure they started to surrender after Hiroshima. Blowing up Nagasaki was a dick move considering the US dropped the bomb inside the time frame they gave for surrender. I was taught the Japanese were going to surrender before the bombing, but the message was in Japanese or some language. The Japanese leader was also going to meet with Truman to come to an agreement.

Anyway, they ignored all of that and dropped the bomb.

Cos we Americans are the ****ing best and no jap is gonna take pearl harbour without atleast losing 2 cities, that'll teach them that we're the biggest and best. America. **** yeah.

Quark_666
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Considering that the japs were on the brink of creating their own nuke, That was Germany, and Japan didn't even research nuclear development until after WWII. Maybe if you hadn't so flippantly thrown that out there to support an argument regarding human life...

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Jello
The bombings were an act of terrorism. Declassified documents show that Japan was ready to surrender weeks prior to the bombings and were never given sufficient warning and both bombs were dropped on cities, not military targets in order to inflict maximum civilian casualties. The Japanese never had the means nor the knowledge to even begin developing atomic weapons.

I would recommend the documentary White Light, Black Rain to anyone who talks about how "necessary" the bombings were.

I never said they were necessary...but I did say all options were exhausted. That's not correct. There is a caveat. Secretary Stimson did acknowledge that the allied forces were so entrenched on unconditional surrender that it would be almost impossible to both appease the Japanese Government, by way of leaving the monarchy in power, and satisfy the allied forces of further incrusions or restrictions...due to he sentiments coming from the monarchy and the fear of a future uprising a la Germany post WWI.

So the goal was, "any concessions which might be attractive to the Japanese, so long as our realistic aims for peace in the Pacific are not adversely affected."

-Sec. Stimson.


He sought to send a formal invitation to peace. This letter would seek that balance while also being timed to occur before Soviet interest became a problem as Germany's surrender taught the US and other allies that Stalin was out for power and blood and it was becoming increasingly dangerous to include them for fear of more "take over" upon defeat of the enemy. The Soviets already expressed an interest in not renewing the neutrality agreement between themselves in Japan and the neutrality agreement would expire in 1946.

The plan, at the time, was to invade Kyushu in November and 5-6 months later, invade Honshu.

So here is the caveat to the decision.

"Why, therefore, was it not possible to issue the warning before a Soviet declaration of war against Japan and rely on that event, together with an intensified air bombardment, to produce the desired result? If together they could not secure Japan's surrender, would there not still be time to use the bomb before the scheduled invasion of Kyushu in November ?"

You see, the Americans wanted to keep the Bomb a secret as long as possible. Doing a demonstration was considered much too risky as detonation was questionable.

In the end, it was more about saving American lives than anything. The final assault to get surrender was going to cost dearly. Sure there were sentiments of surrender, even in the Japanese government, but they did not like the unconditional surrender option. The emperor never saw surrender as an option...much less unconditional surrender. There was also the case of dropping the bombs to demonstrate to Russia to cool it off a bit. There was also using it to show how horrible war was to prevent another WW like the previous two.

When Japan publically stated that the Postdam declarion was to be ignored, the US was forced to try something drastic to prevent the soviets from coming in as they stated that they would join in just two weeks. (It is late July, by now.) The rejection of that declaration only solidified that resolve to remove the miliatary heads, asap. When Russia followed through with it's official declaration of war, Japan STILL did not surrender and this was AFTER the first atomic bomb. AFTER!!!

Truman guarenteed a rain of bombs if surrender was not given. Nothing. August 9th was the next time it was dropped. You'd think they would have surrendered, right? No.

Could we have done a conditional surrender? Yes. Was a conditional surrender in the best interest of the allies? No, due to reprocussions as seen by Germany and an absurdly long list of other items that involved "risk."

Japan was trying to negotiate a mediation between the US and Russia. LOL. A cease fire, huh? A cease fire? It was no guarentee to an end of war.

jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by Darth Jello
The Japanese never had the means nor the knowledge to even begin developing atomic weapons.




Wrong, so very wrong. I love how people claim it was terrorism. You do know that we were engaged in war with Japan, right? laughing out loud Hiroshima, Nagasaki and surrounding cities were given warning five and three days in advance. Do you honestly believe that the Japanese would have had the same compassion to warn America that they were about to drop a Nuke? Let me answer that for you...,Pearl Harbor wink Pearl Harbor was more of a terroristic act than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America was not at war with anyone. Because America stopped supplying the Japs and instead supplie the Allies, them Japs got pissed and declared war on America by dombing the hell out of Pearl Harbor. I'm surprised you didnt know this.

Japan was in deed on the cusp of creating Nuclear arms.

jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by Quark_666
That was Germany, and Japan didn't even research nuclear development until after WWII. Maybe if you hadn't so flippantly thrown that out there to support an argument regarding human life...

no, wrong.


Morales are non existent when war is concerned. I'm not arguing that it wasn't a terrible thing that happened. I'm just saying that it was necessary. Nagasaki may have been a bit extreme but it ended the war and Japan is still an independent country with a booming economy. I mean, it should count for something that instead of taking the country over, America rebuilt it.

I'm just stunned at why people are arguing this. We were at war and any country involved in the axis wouldn't have neglected to level the allies countries with Nuclear arms if they had the capability. They certainly wouldn't have stopped with just two cities.

Maybe you should be blaming Japan for wanting to take over the world lol

inimalist
so because there are monsters we must be also?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I'm just stunned at why people are arguing this. We were at war and any country involved in the axis wouldn't have neglected to level the allies countries with Nuclear arms if they had the capability. They certainly wouldn't have stopped with just two cities.

Mainly because the US would have been much too stubborn. Also, they had at best theoretical nuclear capability, they never really backed their program properly and found producing the fissionable materials extremely difficult. A group of people with engineering degrees can build a nuke, making it into a weapon is dramatically different story.

YodaIam
If it saves the lives of the people who didn't start it hell yeah.

Don't start something if you can't handle the consequences.

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by YodaIam
If it saves the lives of the people who didn't start it hell yeah.

Don't start something if you can't handle the consequences.
Yes, because those people in Nagasaki who had never held a gun started the war.

YodaIam
They're country did. Blame them. Would you have prefered Americans soldiers be wiped out?

Bardock42
Originally posted by YodaIam
They're country did. Blame them. Would you have prefered Americans soldiers be wiped out? How many American soldiers are we talking about? hmm

Quark_666
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by Quark_666
That was Germany, and Japan didn't even research nuclear development until after WWII. no, wrong.


Morales are non existent when war is concerned. I'm not arguing that it wasn't a terrible thing that happened. I'm just saying that it was necessary. Nagasaki may have been a bit extreme but it ended the war and Japan is still an independent country with a booming economy. I mean, it should count for something that instead of taking the country over, America rebuilt it.

I'm just stunned at why people are arguing this. We were at war and any country involved in the axis wouldn't have neglected to level the allies countries with Nuclear arms if they had the capability. They certainly wouldn't have stopped with just two cities.

Maybe you should be blaming Japan for wanting to take over the world lol Are you evading my point? Japan didn't develop nuclear power till after the war.

If you provided a stable source that Japan was developing A-bombs, your point might belong in this discussion. but all I see right now is someone who can't argue his point without twisting history. Nothing I've ever heard suggests that Japan knew nuclear fission existed.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Quark_666
Nothing I've ever heard suggests that Japan knew nuclear fission existed.

Besides their nuclear weapons program? It was called F-Go, however they did give up before the war was over.

The Dark Cloud
War is war. It is part of humanity, and I wish we would quit trying to apply rules to it as they are almost always ignored. War is never supposed to be nice no matter how much modern political correctness tries to make it that way.

Yes the bombing was worth it. There was a conventional firebombing of Toyko just a few days before that killed around 150,000, more than the combined total of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but you never hear about that.

These events happened almost 64 years ago and Japan has recovered quite nicely. To all the naysayers...get over it.

Once again, yes, the bombings were worth it.

Bicnarok

inimalist
Originally posted by YodaIam
They're country did. Blame them. Would you have prefered Americans soldiers be wiped out?

...






wait, you were being rhetorical, right?

EDIT: for serious though, would you be willing to be held personally accountable for the actions of your government?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
There was a conventional firebombing of Toyko just a few days before that killed around 150,000, more than the combined total of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but you never hear about that.


We learned about that. Watched Grave of the Fireflies too.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We learned about that. Watched Grave of the Fireflies too. Damn depressing.

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by YodaIam
They're country did. Blame them. Would you have prefered Americans soldiers be wiped out?
I would have preferred a blockade and bombing raids on military targets along with incitement of insurgencies instead of wholesale slaughter.

dadudemon
I was thinking that in times of war, the best way to minimize YOUR civilian losses is the best way to win the war as long as it doesn't step over into the area of sick and disgusting murdering.

So if it means killing 200,000 of their citizens to save your soldiers lives, it's worth it...because that's what war is about. The fewer of your soldiers and civilians lives lost, the better.

This is "War 101", douchebags.

When Japane basically rejected the Postdam declaration, they sealed their fate.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was thinking that in times of war, the best way to minimize YOUR civilian losses is the best way to win the war as long as it doesn't step over into the area of sick and disgusting murdering.

So if it means killing 200,000 of their citizens to save your soldiers lives, it's worth it...because that's what war is about. The fewer of your soldiers and civilians lives lost, the better.

This is "War 101", douchebags. So...where's the line?

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was thinking that in times of war, the best way to minimize YOUR civilian losses is the best way to win the war as long as it doesn't step over into the area of sick and disgusting murdering.
America was not going to lose civilian lives if they decided to blockade Japan and start military target bombing.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So if it means killing 200,000 of their citizens to save your soldiers lives, it's worth it...because that's what war is about. The fewer of your soldiers and civilians lives lost, the better.
As long as you don't decide to destroy two non-military targets when you still had other options.
Originally posted by dadudemon
When Japane basically rejected the Postdam declaration, they sealed their fate.
No one seals fate. America had a choice, and they chose the route of mass killing.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Bardock42
So...where's the line? \


There is no line in war, nor should there be

RocasAtoll
Yes, that's exactly why we should just nuke Palestine and Pakistan to get those conflicts over with.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Yes, that's exactly why we should just nuke Palestine and Pakistan to get those conflicts over with.

You'll get no argument from me there

Bardock42
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
\


There is no line in war, nor should there be

I'm specifically referring to dadudemon's " the best way to minimize YOUR civilian losses is the best way to win the war as long as it doesn't step over into the area of sick and disgusting murdering."

jaden101
Originally posted by Darth Jello
The bombings were an act of terrorism. Declassified documents show that Japan was ready to surrender weeks prior to the bombings and were never given sufficient warning and both bombs were dropped on cities, not military targets in order to inflict maximum civilian casualties. The Japanese never had the means nor the knowledge to even begin developing atomic weapons.

I would recommend the documentary White Light, Black Rain to anyone who talks about how "necessary" the bombings were.

You ever seen the 1989 Japanese movie "Black Rain"?

It's very good. Some horrible scenes in it though.

jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by Quark_666
no, wrong.


Morales are non existent when war is concerned. I'm not arguing that it wasn't a terrible thing that happened. I'm just saying that it was necessary. Nagasaki may have been a bit extreme but it ended the war and Japan is still an independent country with a booming economy. I mean, it should count for something that instead of taking the country over, America rebuilt it.

I'm just stunned at why people are arguing this. We were at war and any country involved in the axis wouldn't have neglected to level the allies countries with Nuclear arms if they had the capability. They certainly wouldn't have stopped with just two cities.

Maybe you should be blaming Japan for wanting to take over the world lol Are you evading my point? Japan didn't develop nuclear power till after the war.

If you provided a stable source that Japan was developing A-bombs, your point might belong in this discussion. but all I see right now is someone who can't argue his point without twisting history. Nothing I've ever heard suggests that Japan knew nuclear fission existed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said that Japan was manufacturing A-bombs. I merely said that they were very close. I wasn't twisting history in the slightest. There are dozens of of websites collecting the statements from Soldiers. Telling about recovered intelligence showing the schematics of Atomic arms. Here is one link that tells about Japans research and how they detonated their first Atomic bomb just six days after Hiroshima http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=2100

dadudemon
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
America was not going to lose civilian lives if they decided to blockade Japan and start military target bombing.

Correct. They already lost them. At Pearl Harbor. But, an American solider's life is just as important.

And, no, it wasn't definitive that we would not see another Germany situation, which is what the Allies feared out of the Empire.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
As long as you don't decide to destroy two non-military targets when you still had other options.

No, this is wrong. War is war. If it takes 200,00 civilian lives to save 10,000 your own soliders, then so be it. I don't think you understand the concept of war with another nation. You're not in it to have a tea party with the enemy. Your in it to win it with as minimal of a loss as possible.



You pillage their cities, burn their structures to the ground, rape their women, and slaughter their men women children and livestock.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No one seals fate. America had a choice, and they chose the route of mass killing.

You chose your words correctly. Killing would be correct.





Oh, and just in case someone confuses my own personal thoughts, I'm all about peace and love and NOT killing. I don't like war. I certainly understand it...but understanding doesn't mean I have to like it.



Originally posted by Bardock42
So...where's the line?

The line is in the eye of the country's social norms, obviously.





Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm specifically referring to dadudemon's " the best way to minimize YOUR civilian losses is the best way to win the war as long as it doesn't step over into the area of sick and disgusting murdering."

Oh, see. I get it now. I'm referring to, mainly, to torturous murder and "war crimes". To some, "war crimes" is an oxymoron.

Like I said, I don't like any of it, but I understand it. I personally don't think there should EVER be the rape thing or the child slaughter, if it can be helped. But others have and do use that as a pyschological tool and it works well. My "line" is no killing at all. Send the politicians and leaders into a coliseum type of area and let them duke it out. big grin

jaden101
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I would have preferred a blockade and bombing raids on military targets along with incitement of insurgencies instead of wholesale slaughter.

A prolonged blockade of Japan arguably may have cost more Japanese civilian deaths than the Atomic bombs did. Sanctions and blockades always cost untold damage due to lack of access to food and medicine.

YodaIam
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I would have preferred a blockade and bombing raids on military targets along with incitement of insurgencies instead of wholesale slaughter.

Well if it meant the attacked country risking they're lives then hell no. Easier this way.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
When Japane basically rejected the Postdam declaration, they sealed their fate.

Of course for the military the Postdam Declaration was basically diplomatic code for "bend over" and I'm fairly sure that the Allies knew Japan was run by the military.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course for the military the Postdam Declaration was basically diplomatic code for "bend over" and I'm fairly sure that the Allies knew Japan was run by the military.

You sir, are correct. Like I've said a billion times, the Allies (beacuse more than the US actually had input on the bombs being dropped) feared backlash if allowed to just sign a cease fire AFTER they attacked us and China with a similar attitude that Germany just got done having. They feared it would be WWII all over again if the military and Emperor were allowed to stay in.

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, this is wrong. War is war. If it takes 200,00 civilian lives to save 10,000 your own soliders, then so be it. I don't think you understand the concept of war with another nation. You're not in it to have a tea party with the enemy. Your in it to win it with as minimal of a loss as possible.
I understand war very well. That doesn't mean I have to excuse it.
Originally posted by dadudemon

You pillage their cities, burn their structures to the ground, rape their women, and slaughter their men women children and livestock.
And all of those actions prove that those in charge don't deserve their lives or their positions. That may be how war is, but that doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean you should excuse them just because their actions were understandable.
Originally posted by YodaIam
Well if it meant the attacked country risking they're lives then hell no. Easier this way.
Easier doesn't mean the better choice.
Originally posted by jaden101
A prolonged blockade of Japan arguably may have cost more Japanese civilian deaths than the Atomic bombs did. Sanctions and blockades always cost untold damage due to lack of access to food and medicine.
Japan could already feed themselves. Blockading them would have kept them from metal and other essential war materials.

jaden101
Originally posted by RocasAtoll


Japan could already feed themselves. Blockading them would have kept them from metal and other essential war materials.


Actually their invasion of China was predominantly because their increasing population of 70,000,000+ was swiftly running out of land with which to produce food as well as the aquisition of raw materials for their expanding industrial sector.



From

http://www.historyorb.com/asia/japan_economic_expansion.shtml

Japan was also heavily reliant of fish and so blockades may have affected that.

Imports during the war fell to 10% of pre war levels and it is likely that blockades would cut this to 0%

dadudemon
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I understand war very well. That doesn't mean I have to excuse it.

I fully agree with you, here.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And all of those actions prove that those in charge don't deserve their lives or their positions. That may be how war is, but that doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean you should excuse them just because their actions were understandable.

No, they certainly do, if their constituents wanted them in office. big grin (That smartassery made me wish Chillmeistergen were still here. sad )

I agree that things, as measured by my own moral meter stick, that happen in war aren't right...that doesn't make me objectively correct, either

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Easier doesn't mean the better choice..

That depends on your measure of success.

Also, instead of refutting a quip, refute the actual point.

In fact, replace "easier this way" with "minimizes the loss of lives".

dadudemon
Wait wait wait!
I got one, I got one.


Originally posted by Bardock42
So...where's the line?

You snorted it. awesome

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait wait wait!
I got one, I got one.




You snorted it. awesome

Some good old esprit d'escalier, always good. Though little esprit there.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Some good old esprit d'escalier, always good. Though little esprit there.

Could I not say the same of you?

Evil Dead
I think the bombings were worth it for one reason and one reason only. Have any other nations bombed the U.S. since then? that would be no. America's government keeping it's citizens safe at home. Abroad, not so much....at home, snug as a bug.

I'm biased because I live in America and never need worry about another nation dropping bombs in my neighborhood. Point still stands.

jaden101
Originally posted by Evil Dead
America's government keeping it's citizens safe at home. Abroad, not so much....at home, snug as a bug.



Don't know if it slipped passed you unnoticed but there was this thing that happened on September 11th 2001...

Symmetric Chaos
Which was important due to how rare such events are. In Europe 9/11 type things are apparently just a part of the morning routine.

jaden101
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which was important due to how rare such events are. In Europe 9/11 type things are apparently just a part of the morning routine.

True...Doesn't go down too well around these parts though. We're probably the only country in the world where the natives would see a man on fire and the 1st thought would be to kick his ass.

Evil Dead
Originally posted by jaden101
Don't know if it slipped passed you unnoticed but there was this thing that happened on September 11th 2001...

must have slipped past me. I could have sworn a nation was not behind this, a group of militant religous zealots were. must have missed the news.

you can't nuke an entire country to take out 200 people that could be hiding anywhere. If it had actually been the Afghanistan or Pakistan military who had carried this out, their country would be a glass parking lot right now. that's why countries haven't f-cked with the USA. They'd like the list to stay Hiroshima, Nagasaki......not adding more to it.

Hyperion Prime
Yes it was justified and I am happy Truman did it. It let the Japanese who brutalized 100 of thousands of people in Nanking China and korea, the philipenes know the ENough is Enough. Emperor Hirohito should have been tried as a war criminal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre#Murder_of_civilians

http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)

occultdestroyer
Yeah, the Japanese f---ed up the Philippines.

Just read some history books. What they did were messed up and disgusting.

Robtard
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Yeah, the Japanese f---ed up the Philippines.

Just read some history books. What they did were messed up and disgusting.

And the Chinese, but no one cares about them, so meh.

inimalist
right, because other people do bad things, we must also do bad things.

their evil makes everything we do good by definition, and thus, we never have to worry about the moral or material consequences to our actions.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by inimalist
right, because other people do bad things, we must also do bad things.

their evil makes everything we do good by definition, and thus, we never have to worry about the moral or material consequences to our actions.

sounds good to me, its how i live my life. do on to others before they do on to you. cool

inimalist
lol, hey, whatever works

I'm somewhat concerned with the moral high ground, but how many wars have I won?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, hey, whatever works

I'm somewhat concerned with the moral high ground, but how many wars have I won?

Just remember, when the enemy has the high ground they're that much closer to the bombers.

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
right, because other people do bad things, we must also do bad things.

their evil makes everything we do good by definition, and thus, we never have to worry about the moral or material consequences to our actions.

That's not the point, now is it.

If you really want to get on the "morals" issue of Japan getting it's ass kicked in WWII, the US dropped the bombs to end the war earlier, which saved America/Allies lives in the long run, can't blame the US for that.

They also did it to show Stalin up and let the CCCP know what the **** was up after the Axis fell, because the bed had turned cold long before the war ended. Was this aspect a dick move? Probably in of itself, but it had a positive side (for American troops).

Japan was a complete Imperial dick in WWII, they were seeking an atom bomb themselves to use against America/Allies, they used Chinese villages as testing grounds for chemical and biological weapons they planned to use against America/Allies. The list goes on and on, yet the Nazi's are the only ones deemed bastards.

So shitting on America while making Japan out to be some victim in WWII just isn't right; I know shitting on America is fun and all, but it's just silly here. <--- not accusing you of specifically doing this.

inimalist
Just to clarify, I'm not saying it wasn't worth it, actually my first post in the thread was about how silly looking for this type of justification is, as it is 100% relative to an individual.

My real point is that there is hardly justification for killing people in the fact that their government might be doing evil things. Even to save lives. While saving lives is important, and we could argue about how many were saved, it is essentially moot, imho, because I generally do not accept that the ends justify the means.

To bring it around, using "they do evil things" as justification for dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian centre immediately justifies similar actions returned. The atrocities mentioned above could easily be "nuking unarmed civilians and hospitals", giving any other nation on the planet the right to commit atrocities on American civilians, using the very same justification.

Robtard
Well, I don't think the 'US bombed Japan because they were committing war crimes' is correct in of itself. It dropped the bombs to end the war, save American(Allies) lives and to show Stalin he was still just a little man with a gimping leg.

The first two reasons are definitely justified, considering the war environment. You can say "innocent civilians", yet we both well know that innocent people die in wars, just a fact and those civilians were the fuel of Japan's war machine, soldiers weren't the ones on the homeland making bullets, guns, planes and food rations.

Might as well shit on the UK and the US for the nightly bombings on Berlin and Germany's other centers of war-production. As plenty of civilians were killed there too.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Could I not say the same of you?

You could, though you'd be wrong related to that post. I was really just pointing it out because you replied twice to the same post only thinking of your joke later.

Mairuzu
Originally posted by Robtard
And the Chinese, but no one cares about them, so meh. how dare you, those are some good people!

Robtard
Originally posted by Mairuzu
how dare you, those are some good people!

Oh yeah, name one? I double-dog dare you!

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Oh yeah, name one? I double-dog dare you! Yao Ming....Bruce Lee......Mickey Rooney

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yao Ming....

Clearly part Negro.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bruce Lee......

Proven to be Chuck Norris in a body suit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Mickey Rooney

Disney character.


Nice try.

docb77
Saw this video while stumbling, thought it might be relevant to this discussion.

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/ Jon_Stewart%2C_War_Criminals_%26_The_True_Story_of
_the_Atomic_Bombs/1808/

jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos



Proven to be Chuck Norris in a body suit.






Blasphemy. You're going to hell for that one.

Hyperion Prime
Originally posted by inimalist
right, because other people do bad things, we must also do bad things.

their evil makes everything we do good by definition, and thus, we never have to worry about the moral or material consequences to our actions.

I don't think what America did was bad....It was good to set things right. Too many people would have died if we invaded the main land. Better they die by the Atomic bomb..than Americans die because the Japanese were to dumb or stubborn to quit.

No one is crying for the tormented souls of the Koreans, Vietnamese, Philipino, Chinese, Vietnamese who the Japanese victimized in a horrible way. The Nazis were bad, but at least had enough civility to gas people most of the time. The Japanese ran people over with tanks, raped women, cut babies out of stomachs burned thousands of people alive poured acid on people. Played games with people burning half the body....etc. f' japan. Those mf'ers wont even apologize. Germany did

I don't always have faith in America, but in the long run I beleive in America. What would the world be like if the Anglo American alliance wasnt in charge. Look what they did for Japan. Its not like they bombed them and left them in ruins.

The world is a better place with America, England, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand running things.

Robtard
Canada? LoL.

I've from more than one source that Japan doesn't teach students that it was the aggressor/would be conqueror during WWII, so I wouldn't expect them to apologize for something 'they never did.'

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Hyperion Prime
No one is crying for the tormented souls of the Koreans, Vietnamese, Philipino, Chinese, Vietnamese who the Japanese victimized in a horrible way. The Nazis were bad, but at least had enough civility to gas people most of the time. The Japanese ran people over with tanks, raped women, cut babies out of stomachs burned thousands of people alive poured acid on people.Played games with people burning half the body....etc.

Yeah, the Nazis didn't do anything like that . . .

Originally posted by Hyperion Prime
Those mf'ers wont even apologize. Germany did

Who's still alive that was specifically involved in the raping babies to death thing? Why would a person who did that care about apologising?

Originally posted by Hyperion Prime
What would the world be like if the Anglo American alliance wasnt in charge.

No one knows.

jaden101
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, the Nazis didn't do anything like that . . .



As a POW, you had a far greater chance of survival under the Nazis than you did the Japanese.

Obviously if you were a Jew, Gypsy or retard then you were....unlucky.

Hyperion Prime
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, the Nazis didn't do anything like that . . .



Who's still alive that was specifically involved in the raping babies to death thing? Why would a person who did that care about apologising?



No one knows.

It dosen't matter...they need to appologize as a people. Germany did it. I also said Nazi did stuff that was horrible, but the usually gassed people. Japanese did some nasty shit to everyone and anything. Did you even read any of those links I posted about the Japanese. People may be alive. I know some WW2 veterans....this didnt happen thousands of years ago. Hell one of the last WW1 veterans just died.

leonheartmm
it was among the most horrendous crimes in human history, and dont let any rationalisations tell you otherwise

Robtard
Originally posted by leonheartmm
it was among the most horrendous crimes in human history, and dont let any rationalisations tell you otherwise

The bombings? LoL, no, wasn't a crime, was horrible for the Japanese though.

leonheartmm
i didnt mean legally. i meant crimes against HUMANITY.

Robtard
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i didnt mean legally. i meant crimes against HUMANITY.

Why is it a crime against humanity? ie, one of the most "horrendous crimes against humanity"?

leonheartmm
1. not a necessity
2. specifically targetted civilian area with large population to demoralise{i.e. terrorism}
3. the number of non combatant deaths
4. done primarily to destroy a power opposing an empire{im referring to america as an empire}
5. unjustified retaliation

Robtard
Originally posted by leonheartmm
1. not a necessity
2. specifically targetted civilian area with large population to demoralise{i.e. terrorism}
3. the number of non combatant deaths
4. done primarily to destroy a power opposing an empire{im referring to america as an empire}
5. unjustified retaliation

1) America had previously bombed Japan for six months with conventional arms in trying to force a surrender, Imperial Japan refused to surrender.
2) LoL. MIght as well call just about every bombing raid in WW2 "terrorism" then. Also see point 1)
3) Civilians are the backbone of the military, or do you think soldiers and munitions just 'spawn' out of thin air. Also see point 1)
4) WTF? Japan was the empire and it was the aggressor here. They attacked first.
5) See point 1)

Japan had several opportunities to surrender and spare itself the atomics, they didn't want to at first, then they wanted concessions; them being the aggressors and the would be world conquerors where in no position to ask or expect concessions.

Edit: IYO, what should have America done when Japan refused to surrender?

leonheartmm
1) yes, and the firestorm prior to the nuke was even worse. and your talking like america has a god given right to MAKE empires other than itself SURRENDER

2) yes, but necessity can easen the guilt a bit in many of the other cases

3) just like children become adults and mothers produce human beings. shud i start indescriminately killing either because a random human or adult harmed me or killed a loved one? civilians shud never be harmed in wars, and if they are, it i rightly a war crime. injustifyable

4) america is also an empire. and pearl harbour did not justify nuking and napalm bombing specifically civilian areas. pearl harbour was a military target, remember

5) fail

how does the stubborness of an emporer {well ONE emporer at any rate lol} translate to his entire people? guilt by association? and what gave america the right to even be in a position to OFFER concession?

stupidity

edit : nothing, one evil empire vs another evil empire, there is no winning, all actions are driven by self interest and are morally unjustified. america was just the bigger ***** in this equation.

ofcourse, if you are asking practically, assasination/espionage/bombardment of specifically military targets to take away strike capability.

Robtard
Originally posted by leonheartmm
1) yes, and the firestorm prior to the nuke was even worse. and your talking like america has a god given right to MAKE empires other than itself SURRENDER

2) yes, but necessity can easen the guilt a bit in many of the other cases

3) just like children become adults and mothers produce human beings. shud i start indescriminately killing either because a random human or adult harmed me or killed a loved one? civilians shud never be harmed in wars, and if they are, it i rightly a war crime. injustifyable

4) america is also an empire. and pearl harbour did not justify nuking and napalm bombing specifically civilian areas. pearl harbour was a military target, remember

5) fail

how does the stubborness of an emporer {well ONE emporer at any rate lol} translate to his entire people? guilt by association? and what gave america the right to even be in a position to OFFER concession?

stupidity

edit : nothing, one evil empire vs another evil empire, there is no winning, all actions are driven by self interest and are morally unjustified. america was just the bigger ***** in this equation.

ofcourse, if you are asking practically, assasination/espionage/bombardment of specifically military targets to take away strike capability.

Let me guess, America was wrong in conventionally bombing Japan too? They were at war, did you forget? Surrendering is a part of that.

You have a very illogical and childish grasp of war. Civilians die, it happens. WW2 was a conventional full-scale war, destroying your enemy's ability to wage war against you is vital, ergo, the civilian deaths happen.

Okay, America is an empire, you go with that. Guess what, civilians died in Pearl Harbor too, oh noes.

WTF? Japan refused to surrender, it's not like it's military and civilians rebelled and took out their emperor.

Because it was a war and America had proven the better combatant than it's aggressor enemy. Again, your grasp of war is illogical.

Stupidity? Don't follow you here.

Ah, so a non-answer and then just claiming America is shit. Good. Japan had retreated itself back to it's homeland and stated it would fight to the bitter end. America either had the bombings or launch massive ground invasion. Which would have cost hundreds of thousands live still, this time though, masses American lives would have been included.

The whole "America is an evil empite" bit is hilarious, makes me think of some kid getting all uppity listening to Rage Against the Machine. Then going to Starbucks.

leonheartmm
yes

not at all, infact, i wud say its childish to buy into propaganda stating that america was in it for any other reason then self interest as an empire. and despite everything youve stated, i still know that war is WRONG and killing of innocents under any circumstances outside of error is a morally reprehensible act.

they werent targetted though, collateral damage. and yes, that is wrong too, although targetting civilians specifically for mass murder is in a whole other league.

and your grasp of reasoning is immature. by that logic, every suicide bomber who attacks israel and america is justified.

america is shit, and how is giving three effective/sensible/plausible options a non answer? stating means nothing if you are incapable of doing it. the wrest is propagandist bull, a ground invasion wudnt have cost as many lives by a long shot and american lives are no more precious than japanese lives so i cud care less about the second part. america had the ability to bomb the naval vessels and ship yards of japan which wud have taken away the island's ability to launch any invasion much less one against america, hence, dealing with the only threat it ever posed america militarily and the rationalisation for all this bull. america also had the option to NOT target civilian areas for NAPALM bombing{which was SPECIFICALLY done against human targets due to the nature of napalms and chosen as japanese houses of the time were wooden and wud catch fire one after the other.} and nuking. as well as the ability to target the emporer for assasination or bombing.

guess what, they CHOSE not to do any of those lesser evils.

Robtard
Hahahaa.

I wasn't stating that 'war wasn't wrong'. Just stating reality.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

There we have it, "America is shit." Awesome.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes

not at all, infact, i wud say its childish to buy into propaganda stating that america was in it for any other reason then self interest as an empire. and despite everything youve stated, i still know that war is WRONG and killing of innocents under any circumstances outside of error is a morally reprehensible act.

they werent targetted though, collateral damage. and yes, that is wrong too, although targetting civilians specifically for mass murder is in a whole other league.

and your grasp of reasoning is immature. by that logic, every suicide bomber who attacks israel and america is justified.

america is shit, and how is giving three effective/sensible/plausible options a non answer? stating means nothing if you are incapable of doing it. the wrest is propagandist bull, a ground invasion wudnt have cost as many lives by a long shot and american lives are no more precious than japanese lives so i cud care less about the second part. america had the ability to bomb the naval vessels and ship yards of japan which wud have taken away the island's ability to launch any invasion much less one against america, hence, dealing with the only threat it ever posed america militarily and the rationalisation for all this bull. america also had the option to NOT target civilian areas for NAPALM bombing{which was SPECIFICALLY done against human targets due to the nature of napalms and chosen as japanese houses of the time were wooden and wud catch fire one after the other.} and nuking. as well as the ability to target the emporer for assasination or bombing.

guess what, they CHOSE not to do any of those lesser evils.

yuk it up

and the bombings were REALLY wrong.

no you are, and im elaborating it.

america is shit, atleast as an international presence. all empires have been smile .

WO Polaski
rob why do you bother replying? his gaps in logic and naivety hardly warrant it.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by WO Polaski
rob why do you bother replying? his gaps in logic and naivety hardly warrant it.

do i know u?

Robtard
Originally posted by leonheartmm
yuk it up

and the bombings were REALLY wrong.

no you are, and im elaborating it.

america is shit, atleast as an international presence. all empires have been smile .

Well it's funny, you considering tactical bombings during a war "wrong". Maybe wars should just be fought with Nerf.

Yeah, they were in fact the 'most wrong' of anything ever done. Evil, evil, evil America.

NO, you are. <-- see, I can say that too

Yeah, shit.

Robtard
Originally posted by WO Polaski
rob why do you bother replying? his gaps in logic and naivety hardly warrant it.

Because I'm an idiot. This is true, but entertaining at times.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Robtard
Well it's funny, you considering tactical bombings during a war "wrong". Maybe wars should just be fought with Nerf.

Yeah, they were in fact the 'most wrong' of anything ever done. You said so.

NO, you are. <-- see, I can say that too

Yeah, shit.

you must have reading problems. i already stated that the firebombings were not tactical, and the nukes werent tactical at all, ive explained the tactical options which america didnt take. no need to discuss this further.

they were among them.

but can you demonstrate it? because i can.

yes shit. and?

Robtard
And your points were wrong, yet again. Granted in an 'let's just do the illogical because the world is what I say it is" kind of scenario, you'd be correct. You'll always have that.

Hey, in the end Japan came out ahead of the Evil American Empire. That should make you happy.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Robtard
And your points were wrong, yet again. Granted in an 'let's just do the illogical' because the world is what I say it is kind of scenario, you'd be correct. You'll always have that.

prove it smile .

Robtard
Originally posted by leonheartmm
prove it smile .

My many post to you in this thread have. Rehasing again will just spawn another one of these between us that go on and on, were your illogical (sometimes idealistic) points are destroyed, yet you continue. Like in the suicide thread, gun etc. I've no desire to do that again, as it will ultimately lead to bickering and you making wild claims about yourself and your eProwess in many fields.

BTW, if the Japanese Empire and "American Empire" were/are both shit, how exactly did you come to the conclusion that "AE" is the bigger criminal, p.o.s., scum etc here? Just because of the bombings?

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>