57 years ago today the US killed 10's of thousands of civilians

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: MichaelD
*SIGH*

I knew this thread would turn out in an all-out, name-calling bar brawl. But then, so did rahvin.
rolleye.gif


Obviously, rahvin is very pro-Japanese, and there's nothing wrong with being proud of your ethnicity. What rahvin seems to be confused about is the difference between an enemy and a Japanese or Italian or African person. In WWII Japan was an enemy of the US, nothing more nor less. They got bombed b/c they were the enemy and ASKED for it by bombing Pearl Harbor.

If it would've been AFrica or Belgium or whomever that bombed us, they would've asked for it too. Sigh, flame on, people. *ducks out of way*

rolleye.gif
Keep your own slant to yourself.
 

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,529
3
76
Originally posted by: dribgnikcom
The Japanese population needed to be forced into submission, just like the Germans did, and just like the Arabs need to now, only then was it possible to negotiate terms of peaceful coexistance with those countries, althugh this is not possible with the Arabs in my opinion.

Oh crap, now we throw the "Arafat Factor"into the mix...this thread will get locked soon.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: 0ops
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Originally posted by: 0ops
You're wrong. Read some history books for the facts. Not the revisionist sh!t that was posted earlier but some real history. Perferably some that quotes Truman and his Chief of Staff.

wow you're so helpful. You must be a teacher :p . How about pointing out where the
mistakes are? Maybe you should also give references to things that are more objective
than just quotes from Truman?


Dropping the bombs had nothing to do with the war in Germany( they surrendered in May '45). We pretty much knew what the power of the bombs was from testing. The second bomb was dropped because we wanted Japan to think we had a lot of them. If Trumans own words about the bombs isn't good enough I don't know what will be. I'm not your research assistant, find your own material.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Not only that but Germany was not even in the war in August 1945 since they had surrendered in June 1945. Just like every other discussion about historical events it is very easy to sit here and pass judgement based on the standards of 2002 rather than actually put yourself in the shoes of the nation that had been fighting this war on 2 fronts for 4 years and staring at an invasion that potentially could cost 10's of thousands of American lives.
 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,511
219
106
Originally posted by: Linflas
Not only that but Germany was not even in the war in August 1945 since they had surrendered in June 1945. Just like every other discussion about historical events it is very easy to sit here and pass judgement based on the standards of 2002 rather than actually put yourself in the shoes of the nation that had been fighting this war on 2 fronts for 4 years and staring at an invasion that potentially could cost 10's of thousands of American lives.

Yes..as stated earlier, the Japanese were attacking us with suicidal pilots...from what I've read, I understand that the Japanese were going to defend their nation to the last person with fighting capability. Any idea how many American lives that would cost? In the long run, the atomic bomb may have saved Japanese lives as well.
 

jackpot

Member
Jul 11, 2002
66
0
0
During WWII there were many atrocities committed, including five million Jews slaughtered, millions of Russians killed, the raping and murdering of Chinese by the Japanese, and the fire bombings in Japan by the Americans. I think the nuclear bombings are nothing compared to these examples, but because of the way these people died, an unprecedented, nearly instantaneous, and unequalled atomic blast to this day (in combat), it is routinely a focus of history.

The Japanese were not about to surrender, and even after Nagasaki was hit, the generals didn't want to surrender, but the emperor did. It is the classic argument of these forums that, surprise surprise, happens to be related to a situation in the Middle East. A pre-emptive strike is often the most effective attack due to the element of surprise and it deters the enemy before they can strike. Unfortunately, this brings about criticism because people say, "There was other ways to deal with this problem!" and people will not accept that, sometimes in war, you have to kill civilians to save more lives. Sad but true.
 

MrCodeDude

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
13,674
1
76
Heh, if we had to do it again to save millions of innocent people, I'd be all for it.
-- mrcodedude
 

0ops

Senior member
Jul 4, 2001
277
0
0
Originally posted by: DaveSohmerDropping the bombs had nothing to do with the war in Germany. We pretty much knew what the power of the bombs was from testing. The second bomb was dropped because we wanted Japan to think we had a lot of them. If Trumans own words about the bombs isn't good enough I don't know what will be. I'm not your research assistant, find your own material.

ok, thank you for your meaningful response. you are suggesting I accept the
governments official position at the time they dropped the bomb. This is a bad
thing to do without looking at objective factual evidence. If you want to believe
everything the government tells you, go to Syria or Iraq, at least what you
hear will be more interesting.

As for people who say that its ok to kill lots of Japanese civilians because of what
their army did, wtf are you thinking? They have no control over the army. How would
you like to be blown up (along with everyone you know) for what your country did?
 

dexvx

Diamond Member
Feb 2, 2000
3,899
0
0
A lot of you guys need to take some history courses...

Its true that there were 57 million killed in WWII (primarily Soviet Union/China), I guess that the reason the a-bomb was so blown up in porportion was because a lot of people died instantly to one bomb. It also brought the end to large scale conventional warfare, because with nations all having a-bombs, war will be totally different. That is why it is different. The reason Japanese people dont acknowledge their atrocities is because of this pacifist attitude that they carry (responsible by the US's Japan restructuring) by forgetting about their military past. Conveniantly, they also forget about their military atrocities.

How are they "Innocent"?? did the japanese civilians NOT support the war? Were the Japanese civilians COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to the ATROCITIES commited by Japanese soldiers during and Just before the war??

Yes most of them ere oblivious until post war, just like Nazi Germany's holocaust. What you are saying basically says that its OK to kill people as long as they belong to the enemy government.

JL, I wouldn't support killing a couple of hunderdd civilians let alone a couple of hundered thousand enemy civilians unless it would save American lives. They attacked us and they didn't indicate they were going to surrender. In fact they indicated just the oppossite.

While everyone wants to save Allied lives, I dont think you should take it to the far extreme. I dont think its right to kill thousands of enemy civilians in order to save a few dozen Allied lives (I know it'll be far more difficult if I knew I was had the chance to be one of those Allied lives). Go read any proper history book and you'll find that Japan's war council was talking surrender (secretly) starting early 1945 when it was obvious they were going to lose. Their only clause for surrender would be that the emperor remain in tact. The US refused to grant that ammendment, and Japan agreed to surrender unconditionally only after the a-bombs. The irony is that the US kept the emperor in tact anyways post war.

Frankly, I dont think how anyone can justify Nagasaki. It was 3 days after Hiroshima, basically not enough time to even know what was going on. It would take more than 3 days for senior government officials to go to Hiroshima and look at the wreckage and report back. The original plan called for dropping one every 2-3 weeks until surrender, but I believe the 2nd one was sped up due to bad weather. 2-3 weeks is breathing room to repond, 3 days is not.

And technically Japan didnt surrender until... I think 1988, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was like that because the a-bomb differed the Soviet Union and the United states so much that Stalin refused to accept any peace accords. Instead of making Stalin cowering in a little corner of Siberia, Stalin was more ruthless in dealing with the Western Allies after the a-bomb.
 

dribgnikcom

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
221
0
0
During WWII there were many atrocities committed, including five million Jews slaughtered

Six million not five. Not to mention the millions of Armenians killed by the savage Islamic-obsessed Ottoman Turks.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: 0ops
On a side note, why were Hiroshima and Nagasaki picked?

You're obviously the expert. Why don't you tell us?

ok, thank you for your meaningful response. you are suggesting I accept the
governments official position at the time they dropped the bomb. This is a bad
thing to do without looking at objective factual evidence. If you want to believe
everything the government tells you, go to Syria or Iraq, at least what you
hear will be more interesting.

Why don't you drag your sorry ass to school and learn a little something? There are plenty of books out there along with the records of meetings obtained through the FOIA that tell exactly what the thought processes were at the time. It has nothing to do with official goverment position, it has to do with facts. Of course you don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your BS do you. After all we dropped the bomb in Japan to end a war in Germany that had already been over for four months, right f-tard.
 

0ops

Senior member
Jul 4, 2001
277
0
0
DaveSohmer,
Have you noticed that there are some seemingly knowledgeable
people here who dont exactly agree with your position? Why dont
you just take a valium and chill?

EDIT:
After all we dropped the bomb in Japan to end a war in Germany that had already been over for four months

ok, my bad on this one, but otherwise...
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
DaveSohmer,
Have you noticed that there are some seemingly knowledgeable
people here who dont exactly agree with your position? Why dont
you just take a valium and chill?


No, I hadn't noticed because there aren't any. I hate ignorance with a passion and you seem to have an abundance of it. However since you've at least admitted you were wrong, I'll let it go.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: dexvx
A lot of you guys need to take some history courses...

Its true that there were 57 million killed in WWII (primarily Soviet Union/China), I guess that the reason the a-bomb was so blown up in porportion was because a lot of people died instantly to one bomb. It also brought the end to large scale conventional warfare, because with nations all having a-bombs, war will be totally different. That is why it is different. The reason Japanese people dont acknowledge their atrocities is because of this pacifist attitude that they carry (responsible by the US's Japan restructuring) by forgetting about their military past. Conveniantly, they also forget about their military atrocities.

How are they "Innocent"?? did the japanese civilians NOT support the war? Were the Japanese civilians COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to the ATROCITIES commited by Japanese soldiers during and Just before the war??

Yes most of them ere oblivious until post war, just like Nazi Germany's holocaust. What you are saying basically says that its OK to kill people as long as they belong to the enemy government.

JL, I wouldn't support killing a couple of hunderdd civilians let alone a couple of hundered thousand enemy civilians unless it would save American lives. They attacked us and they didn't indicate they were going to surrender. In fact they indicated just the oppossite.

While everyone wants to save Allied lives, I dont think you should take it to the far extreme. I dont think its right to kill thousands of enemy civilians in order to save a few dozen Allied lives (I know it'll be far more difficult if I knew I was had the chance to be one of those Allied lives). Go read any proper history book and you'll find that Japan's war council was talking surrender (secretly) starting early 1945 when it was obvious they were going to lose. Their only clause for surrender would be that the emperor remain in tact. The US refused to grant that ammendment, and Japan agreed to surrender unconditionally only after the a-bombs. The irony is that the US kept the emperor in tact anyways post war.

Frankly, I dont think how anyone can justify Nagasaki. It was 3 days after Hiroshima, basically not enough time to even know what was going on. It would take more than 3 days for senior government officials to go to Hiroshima and look at the wreckage and report back. The original plan called for dropping one every 2-3 weeks until surrender, but I believe the 2nd one was sped up due to bad weather. 2-3 weeks is breathing room to repond, 3 days is not.

And technically Japan didnt surrender until... I think 1988, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was like that because the a-bomb differed the Soviet Union and the United states so much that Stalin refused to accept any peace accords. Instead of making Stalin cowering in a little corner of Siberia, Stalin was more ruthless in dealing with the Western Allies after the a-bomb.

You have no idea how many casualties the US expected in an invasion of Japan. The US government hasn't purchased purple hearts since WWII because of the number that were ordered in anticipation of the Japanesse invasion. Nearly 1 million would have been required and they expected casualties of close to a quarter of a million. Okinawa was their guide to how vicious the fighting would be. Although the current revisionist history would have you believe that Japan was talking surrendor the Generals in charge believed that a proper Sammuri (sp) death was in order for Japan and that meant death before surrendor. According to Truman's notes the use of the nuclear weapons was handed over to the military while he was steaming back from Europe. The millitary then had full control of the use of the weapons and used them how millitaries generally do, they dropped one and then asked Japan to surrender unconditionaly. Japan offered to surrender without deposing the Emperor. The Millitary then dropped a second weapon and asked for unconditional surrendor at which time the government of japan relented and surrendered. Shortly after the dropping of the second bomb Truman recieved pictures back of Hiroshama, he promptly took back control of the nukes from the millitary.

The use of the second weapon was a result of Japans unwillingness to surrender unconditionally. After 4 years of war we could expect no less than unconditional surrendor. It took the threat of dropping death from above with no chance to suicide gracefully in battle to convince them they had lost the war.

Revisionist history is a plauge. The use of those weapons should not be questioned, it saved hundereds of thousands of american soldiers lives. One of my Uncles died on Okinawa 3 days before the end of the war in some of the bloodiest fighting seen in the pacific theater. Although I do think the use of the weapons was justified I do feel that we should remember the use of those weapons with reverence and pray that the world will never see the use of nuclear weapons again. Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as monuments to the evil of war and as a reminder that we must be ever vigilant to prevent wars like that from ever occuring again.
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
the soviets were occupying land everywhere before US dropped the atomic bomb. besides making the japanese surrender i'd say yes it has something to do with politics.

a lot of japanese suffered from radiation but most japanese were instantly killed, no pain, nothing. It's a better way to die compared to getting raped in nanking.
 

Spoooon

Lifer
Mar 3, 2000
11,565
202
106
Just think how many more would have died had there been a Type-R sticker on Little Boy...

Yes, it was in bad taste, but people have said worse.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
I wonder why they dropped it in the cities where they could kill the maximum number of civilians, instead of on military targets?

I guess its a good way to tell the Soviets to back off, I just don't buy the "it saved millions of american lives" argument.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I wonder why they dropped it in the cities where they could kill the maximum number of civilians, instead of on military targets?

I guess its a good way to tell the Soviets to back off, I just don't buy the "it saved millions of american lives" argument.

They did drop it on millitary institutions. It just happens that the millitary structures happend to be in cities and when dropping bombs of that size you end up with lots of additional damage. You should also keep in mind they DID NOT target the largest cities. Tokyo was the largest and was specifically exlcuded from the list of targets.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: Nefrodite
notice how all the jews left japan before the bombs were dropped? :)
proof? and not some wacky, half-baked website.
 

Dragnov

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
6,878
0
0
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I wonder why they dropped it in the cities where they could kill the maximum number of civilians, instead of on military targets?

I guess its a good way to tell the Soviets to back off, I just don't buy the "it saved millions of american lives" argument.


Exactly. I haven't formed an opinion on the use of the atomic bomb in general, but the location of the two that were dropped makes me think of them as a huge mistake. I don't care if the "civilian population" are blind idiots and supporting a wrongful cause, you dont purposely go bombing them. We didn't go bomb cilvilian population centers in Afhanistan even though a large amount of supporters were among them did we?! (well not on purpose at least... well at least thats what they tell us).

Why are the WTC attacks so tragic but not the Pentagon? Not just because of numbers but because one was a civilian center whle the other was a military government institution. For all who said you'd support it all over again... wow... I guess you see nothing wrong if we sent planes full of civilians crashing into a building full of civilians as long as its full of "enemies".
rolleye.gif


And for those of you suggesting reading a book or taking history classes. Riiiiight, like those aren't biased at all or have a slant on them... riiight.... public education and the public library is filled with completely unbiased material. After all, what your history teacher tells you, is exactly how things went.
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Nefrodite
notice how all the jews left japan before the bombs were dropped? :)
proof? and not some wacky, half-baked website.

what?:Q its just a fact! everyone knows this! the jews control the media too so don't look for proof:)