Hiroshima

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Um, the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT H-bombs. Those weren't developed until a few years later, and have never been used in war.

Ooops. My bad. I'll fix that.

Originally posted by: Linflas
You left out #4 The US and Japan were at war after Japan launched an unannounced surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor resulting in 2300 deaths.

That's mostly the same as my #3 because Pearl Harbor led to the war, not to the specific bombing.

Not really since #4 explains why the US was determined to end it with an unconditional surrender and why the entire country was very united in that goal.

 

[OCGuy]

Dont fuck with us.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: jalaram


That's mostly the same as my #3 because Pearl Harbor led to the war, not to the specific bombing.

Let me correct you again. Pearl Harbor did not lead to war, it was an act of war. :disgust:

Originally posted by: AznAnarchy99

I remember watching the History Channel once about this and they said that since all of the communication lines from Hiroshima was so badly destroyed, military leaders did not know to what extent what had happened in Hiroshima. They did not surrender immediately because of that.

Again, research Kyujo Incident.

BTW, some Japanese official/s speculated we could not have many, or maybe even, any more, of them, after the ones we dropped. We were evidently prepared to drop 2 more within a year, if need be, to make them think we had them stockpiled.

 

[Cattlegod]

so, if you were 2-3 feet under water when the blast hit, would you have survived?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Um, the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT H-bombs. Those weren't developed until a few years later, and have never been used in war.

Ooops. My bad. I'll fix that.

Originally posted by: Linflas
You left out #4 The US and Japan were at war after Japan launched an unannounced surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor resulting in 2300 deaths.

That's mostly the same as my #3 because Pearl Harbor led to the war, not to the specific bombing.

Not really since #4 explains why the US was determined to end it with an unconditional surrender and why the entire country was very united in that goal.

Well, that and the fact that the Allied leadership knew it was going to have to remake the gov't structure of the Axis nations in order to prevent them from recovering, re-arming, and restarting yet another global war in the future. It wasn't enough just to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan - they had to be "rebooted" at an institutional level to insure these problems didn't arise again. Seems like that plan worked out pretty well.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Mursilis


Well, that and the fact that the Allied leadership knew it was going to have to remake the gov't structure of the Axis nations in order to prevent them from recovering, re-arming, and restarting yet another global war in the future. It wasn't enough just to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan - they had to be "rebooted" at an institutional level to insure these problems didn't arise again. Seems like that plan worked out pretty well.

:thumbsup: I read they wanted the Imperial government to remain in tact, and it was one of the main sticking points. Many simply did not want to surrender unconditionally, which obviously translated to they would be getting no concessions.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: K1052
A little known fact also was that the Japanese food situation was beyond dire. Had the war been allowed to grind on for another 6 months millions more Japanese would have certainly died of famine.

I've read that as well; the rice crop essentially failed that year, and rationing was down to ridiculous levels - something like the equivalent of 1000 calories per person per day, or similar. POWs were getting basically nothing. Almost immediately after occupying Japan, the U.S. had to rush in millions of tons of emergency food supplies for the population.

Additionally, post-war intelligence confirmed that the Japanese had basically guessed correctly the primary landing sites the U.S. had chosen to assault mainland Japan, and any invasion would've been a bloodbath for both sides. It's really hard to honestly argue against the idea that by ending the war when they did, the atomic bombs saved lives - most likely millions of lives.

How about the fact that peace was recognized as the only option since January of that year, and was being seriously debated since June of that year. They just wouldn't accept an unconditional surrender.

But, I guess it's just speculation, since the opportunity was never given.

What do you mean the opportunity was never given? They always had the opportunity to unconditionally surrender, and they didn't even do it after the first atomic bomb destroyed one of their cities.

Re-read. I stated they would accept an unconditional surrender. The opportunity for a conditional surrender was never given.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend


Re-read. I stated they would accept an unconditional surrender. The opportunity for a conditional surrender was never given.

:roll:

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
From reading the comments there, it is evident just how different the history classes are in various countries. Some there are obviously just taking an opportunity to exercise their anti-America agenda, but others seem to genuinely believe what we did was wrong or unnecessary.

post 119 is what I was taught

Dropping the bomb stopped the war. Many years of fighting and millions of death through traditional tit for tat did not force the Japanese military elite to decide to end the war. Nor did the firebombing of many Japanese cities during which many thousands were killed. That the Japanese did not surrender after the first bomb was dropped is significant. It took a second bomb to convince the Emperor to overrule his generals and to announce that fighting meant annihilation and was futile. We Americans bear no guilt for using such a weapon. If we had not done so, millions of both Japanese and Americans would have died. If Truman had not ordered the bombs to be dropped, the same people complaining above would be asking why it was not dropped to prevent the millions of deaths...

The exactly the purpose too. It was an attempt to force the hand of Japan into surrendering, because the island warfare campaigns, and the likely-to-be-very-soon-landing-on-main-island, were just causing large numbers of wasted deaths. Both countries were sending thousands and thousands to each island, only to fight over advancement opportunities of the next island. Truman absolutely hated the bombs but had hoped it meant it would save more lives than they would ultimately take.

A little known fact also was that the Japanese food situation was beyond dire. Had the war been allowed to grind on for another 6 months millions more Japanese would have certainly died of famine.

indeed. Either millions die slowly and painfully to starvation and brutal war injuries over the next several months, or even years...or incinerate a few hundred thousand in seconds.

I always get a little sad on this day

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
http://www.google.com/hostedne...ZcKpbfBFySNxFUyBybcXmA

:shocked: 2 nukes, and still around at 93, maybe Unbreakable wasn't so far fetched after all.

Holy Hell! :Q either this is the unluckiest man in history...or the luckiest. hard to say!

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Heh, the comments are mostly anti-American. Although that's not too surprising since anything showing American military prowess (regardless of how old) tends to result in such comments.

Or it could be that people in other countries are taught different "facts" about history than what Americans are taught. It's quite likely they won't feel that the bombs were necessary evils as many here do.

there are no different "facts". There are just facts. What is being taught unfortunately is opinion. Teachers/professors need to stop trying to mold students into junior versions of themselves and let students develop their own views.

Okay, what are the facts?

1. US dropped an H-bomb
2. Thousands of civilians are dead

If we leave it at that, what views would the students form? Let's add:

3. The US and Japan were at war

That's a fact and it adds context. Some would still feel that it was a barbaric act. Are they wrong after learning just the facts? All the points brought up above by other posters are not facts. They're conjecture to add context and support the decision. That's no different than your "teachers" trying to mold views.

You left out #4 The US and Japan were at war after Japan launched an unannounced surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor resulting in 2300 deaths.

A surprise attack (which was not that uncommon anyway) that was the result of much poking and prodding at the relationship by the US.

 

[jalaram]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: jalaram


That's mostly the same as my #3 because Pearl Harbor led to the war, not to the specific bombing.

Let me correct you again. Pearl Harbor did not lead to war, it was an act of war. :disgust:

Originally posted by: AznAnarchy99

I remember watching the History Channel once about this and they said that since all of the communication lines from Hiroshima was so badly destroyed, military leaders did not know to what extent what had happened in Hiroshima. They did not surrender immediately because of that.

Again, research Kyujo Incident.

BTW, some Japanese official/s speculated we could not have many, or maybe even, any more, of them, after the ones we dropped. We were evidently prepared to drop 2 more within a year, if need be, to make them think we had them stockpiled.

I wasn't trying to diminish the impact of Pearl Harbor. I was stating that it didn't directly lead to Hiroshima.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend


Re-read. I stated they would accept an unconditional surrender. The opportunity for a conditional surrender was never given.

:roll:

What's wrong with my statement? It's a simple fact.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: apac
I have mixed feelings about the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, quoted as "promoting a hope to end the existence of all nuclear weapons". Why should it be specific to Nuclear weapons? 1 atomic bomb is no different than 10000 normal bombs. If there weren't nuclear weapons, there would be something else. They are not the problem. Maybe the problem was Japan starting an unnecessary, selfish war in the Pacific.

10,000 "normal" bombs don't cause deaths from radiation, they don't cause increases in birth defects, and many other differences.

Using "normal" bombs, you won't cause people to die over the course of days/weeks/months/years slowly and in a LOT of pain.

Ever hear of chemical warfare? Cheaper, easier to manufacture, and available to many nations. Biological warfare is just as bad. Both are very real and receive nowhere near the amount of press as nuclear bombs do.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: jalaram


That's mostly the same as my #3 because Pearl Harbor led to the war, not to the specific bombing.

Let me correct you again. Pearl Harbor did not lead to war, it was an act of war. :disgust:

Originally posted by: AznAnarchy99

I remember watching the History Channel once about this and they said that since all of the communication lines from Hiroshima was so badly destroyed, military leaders did not know to what extent what had happened in Hiroshima. They did not surrender immediately because of that.

Again, research Kyujo Incident.

BTW, some Japanese official/s speculated we could not have many, or maybe even, any more, of them, after the ones we dropped. We were evidently prepared to drop 2 more within a year, if need be, to make them think we had them stockpiled.

I wasn't trying to diminish the impact of Pearl Harbor. I was stating that it didn't directly lead to Hiroshima.

by that logic nothing led to hiroshima, except a bomb that went off there.

everything led to hiroshima, and it started with the first act of war.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: jalaram


I wasn't trying to diminish the impact of Pearl Harbor. I was stating that it didn't directly lead to Hiroshima.

I just don't understand your perspective, logic, what ever it is. Japanese commit an act of war and attack our pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor. We in turn declare war on Japan, then, we end the war through the use of vastly superior fire power aka A-bombs. I contend, that the use of atomic weapons, was the direct result of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Had that "day that will live in infamy" not taken place, and Japan would have forgone war with us, those nukes would have been unnecessary. That is my logic on the matter.

BTW, I agree with those that lament it, it was a terrible thing, and I share the hope it is never repeated. I just do not appreciate the twisting of events to portray my country's actions as evil or unnecessary.

edited.

 

[Iron Woode]

it seems jalaram is getting an appreciation of facts vs opinion.

lots of students hear things about the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan like:

the US is evil. That's an opinion.
the Japanese were victims. That's an opinion.
the bombs were unnecessary. That's an opinion.
the dropping of those bombs is a war crime. That's an opinion.

Now for some facts:

We (allies) were at war with a barbaric enemy bent on world domination. That's a Fact.
America fought a protracted war, island by island back to Japan. That's a fact.
Japan's resistance was extreme. That's a fact.
American Government struggled with the decision to use the A Bomb. That's a fact.
The bombs brought about a quick end to the war. That's a fact.
Casualties are a part of war. That's a fact.
A land invasion would have cost even more lives then those killed by the bombs. That's a fact.

Japan should have paid more attention to the warning by Admiral Yamamoto:

"I am afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant."

 

[jalaram]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: jalaram


I wasn't trying to diminish the impact of Pearl Harbor. I was stating that it didn't directly lead to Hiroshima.

I just don't understand your perspective, logic, what ever it is. Japanese commit an act of war and attack our pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor. We in turn declare war on Japan, then, we end the war through the use of vastly superior fire power aka A-bombs. I contend, that the use of atomic weapons, was the direct result of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Had that "day that will live in infamy" not taken place, and Japan would have forgone war with us, those nukes would have been unnecessary. That is my logic on the matter.

BTW, I agree with those that lament it, it was a terrible thing, and I share the hope it is never repeated. I just do not appreciate the twisting of events to portray my country's actions as evil or unnecessary.

edited.

It's not my perspective per se that I'm arguing. I started off with a simple theory as to why people in other countries don't see it the way we do. Yes, in many cases, they just want to knock the US. But, in other cases, they just see it as a terrible thing like you stated. That's not a knock on the US, but an opinion of the event.

My response to you was because I thought you were using my (poor?) choice of words to insinuate that I was diminishing the impact of Pearl Harbor.

 

[jalaram]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
it seems jalaram is getting an appreciation of facts vs opinion.

lots of students hear things about the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan like:

the US is evil. That's an opinion.
the Japanese were victims. That's an opinion.
the bombs were unnecessary. That's an opinion.
the dropping of those bombs is a war crime. That's an opinion.

Now for some facts:

We (allies) were at war with a barbaric enemy bent on world domination. That's a Fact.
America fought a protracted war, island by island back to Japan. That's a fact.
Japan's resistance was extreme. That's a fact.
American Government struggled with the decision to use the A Bomb. That's a fact.
The bombs brought about a quick end to the war. That's a fact.
Casualties are a part of war. That's a fact.
A land invasion would have cost even more lives then those killed by the bombs. That's a fact.

Japan should have paid more attention to the warning by Admiral Yamamoto:

"I am afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant."

I'll agree to most of your facts and opinions except with:
Barbaric enemy is opinion.
Are civilian casualties part of war? In this case, the deliberate killing of civilians is what sways opinions of the bombing.

However, those facts won't change that many people believe that Hiroshima was a terrible act.

 

[JS80]

If Japan had never bombed Pearl Harbor I don't think I would have been born.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: JS80
If Japan had never bombed Pearl Harbor I don't think I would have been born.

I can forgive them for Pearl Harbor. But this...

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: K1052
A little known fact also was that the Japanese food situation was beyond dire. Had the war been allowed to grind on for another 6 months millions more Japanese would have certainly died of famine.

I've read that as well; the rice crop essentially failed that year, and rationing was down to ridiculous levels - something like the equivalent of 1000 calories per person per day, or similar. POWs were getting basically nothing. Almost immediately after occupying Japan, the U.S. had to rush in millions of tons of emergency food supplies for the population.

Additionally, post-war intelligence confirmed that the Japanese had basically guessed correctly the primary landing sites the U.S. had chosen to assault mainland Japan, and any invasion would've been a bloodbath for both sides. It's really hard to honestly argue against the idea that by ending the war when they did, the atomic bombs saved lives - most likely millions of lives.

How about the fact that peace was recognized as the only option since January of that year, and was being seriously debated since June of that year. They just wouldn't accept an unconditional surrender.

But, I guess it's just speculation, since the opportunity was never given.

What do you mean the opportunity was never given? They always had the opportunity to unconditionally surrender, and they didn't even do it after the first atomic bomb destroyed one of their cities.

I read the biographies of a few U.S. generals involved in the war in the Pacific six or seven years ago and I believe SacrosanctFiend is technically correct - the terms for a conditional surrender were being floated out there by the Japanese, who knew they were beat.

The Allied leadership was having none of it, though, as they could visualize a 1930s Germany style rebuild of the Japanese military machine - this time with an additional nuclear component. Thus they decided that nothing less than an unconditional surrender, occupation of the Japanese mainland and the dissolution of the Japanese armed forces was an acceptable outcome.

Outside of all that, which is to the best of my recollection all fact, you can debate whether or not the Allies were right to insist on nothing other than total capitulation. I agree with them, but it's possible to disagree and believe that when nukes entered the game Japan may have smartened up and realized that total war was now a thing of the past.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
How about the fact that peace was recognized as the only option since January of that year, and was being seriously debated since June of that year. They just wouldn't accept an unconditional surrender.

But, I guess it's just speculation, since the opportunity was never given.

What do you mean the opportunity was never given? They always had the opportunity to unconditionally surrender, and they didn't even do it after the first atomic bomb destroyed one of their cities.

Re-read. I stated they would accept an unconditional surrender. The opportunity for a conditional surrender was never given.

I read it several times and couldn't find the part where you said the opportunity for a conditional surrender wasn't given. Nor can I figure out why it matters that we weren't willing to accept a conditional surrender. They were in no position to be offering a conditional surrender.

They had one option - unconditional surrender. Their failure to accept that option resulted in many unnecessary deaths.

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JS80
If Japan had never bombed Pearl Harbor I don't think I would have been born.

I can forgive them for Pearl Harbor. But this...

haha!

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
it seems jalaram is getting an appreciation of facts vs opinion.

lots of students hear things about the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan like:

the US is evil. That's an opinion.
the Japanese were victims. That's an opinion.
the bombs were unnecessary. That's an opinion.
the dropping of those bombs is a war crime. That's an opinion.

Now for some facts:

We (allies) were at war with a barbaric enemy bent on world domination. That's a Fact.
America fought a protracted war, island by island back to Japan. That's a fact.
Japan's resistance was extreme. That's a fact.
American Government struggled with the decision to use the A Bomb. That's a fact.
The bombs brought about a quick end to the war. That's a fact.
Casualties are a part of war. That's a fact.
A land invasion would have cost even more lives then those killed by the bombs. That's a fact.

Japan should have paid more attention to the warning by Admiral Yamamoto:

"I am afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant."

I'll agree to most of your facts and opinions except with:
Barbaric enemy is opinion.
Are civilian casualties part of war? In this case, the deliberate killing of civilians is what sways opinions of the bombing.

However, those facts won't change that many people believe that Hiroshima was a terrible act.

sorry but those are facts.

Go ask the people in the countries that were invaded.

* Alexandra Hospital massacre
* Andaman Islands occupation
* Banka Island massacre
* Bataan Death March
* Burma Railway
* Changjiao massacre
* Changteh chemical weapon attack
* Comfort women
* Hell ships
* Kaimingye germ weapon attack
* Kalagong massacre
* Korea under Japanese rule
* Laha massacre
* Manila massacre
* Nanking Massacre
* Palawan Massacre
* Parit Sulong Massacre
* Panjiayu tragedy
* Sandakan Death Marches
* Sook Ching massacre
* Three Alls Policy
* Tol Plantation massacre
* Unit 100
* Unit 200
* Unit 516
* Unit 543
* Unit 731
* Unit 773
* Unit Ei 1644
* Unit 1855
* Unit 2646
* Unit 8604
* Unit 9420
* Wake Island massacre
* War crimes in Manchukuo

people die in war. That's the way it is. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legit military targets.