the hiroshima pictures

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Who cares about invading the Japanese mainland? They were utterly defeated, and nothing was going to change that. If anything, a resurgent China would have scarcely put up with any Japanese sabre rattling in the forseeable future. They probably would have taken over the blockade themselves before 1950.

As far as regaining military strength, the physical ingredients for combat in WW2 were men, food, steel, and oil. An isolated Japan had access to only one of these. It is laughable to think that they could threaten a gunboat, let alone a navy, which would be the minimum paradigm necessary to overcome in order to menace other entities.

As far as Japanese war criminals, they were unfortunatley let of the hook more often than not, and the surrender was far from the proclaimed 'unconditional' one that was heralded. Hirohito walked, end of story.

Who cares? The Chinese with millions killed cares, the hundreds of thousand American soldier's died as a result of Japanese invasion cares, the Korean and the rest of Asian suffered as Japanese invasion cares.

Japan may not be able to become a world power with a naval blockage, but they can surely survive and recover from the war all without any help from outside world. Without Ally invasion, those Japanese warmongers can rebuild their strenght and at least ensure their mainland is properly defended and continue to stay in power. So again, are you telling everyone that warcriminals like Hideki Tojo should just stay in power? And it's okay to let a country who started a war, killing millions and millions to walk away without being brought to justice?

You twist the words well, but in the end, yes. I don't think you can 'bring a country to justice' in any case. I would handily trade 'justice' for a precious few disgusting war criminals for the near-pointless deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

This is similar to the death penalty issue, but even more ridiculous. Why should these civilians pay the price for the criminal actions of others? You can bet your ass it would be unfair if your family got nuked just because the leadership of your country were a bunch of criminal bastards.

As noted, Hirohito got off, and he was #1 in Japanese command, he did nothing to stop the imperialist wars through the 30s.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Even if it didn't result in immediate surrender, they are no longer a threat. Also, I am a voracious student of Japanese culture, and I don't think the Bushido code held all that much influence outside of the military itself. I believe that after facing the very real and undeniable fact of their military's complete and utter defeat, that the population at large would begin to reject the imperial government. The emperor himself was already in support of ending the war, but many fanatics stood in the way of peace.

In the end, I don't think it particularly horrible compared to the millions of other horrific deaths in WW2, but I do think it was somewhat unnecessary. It probably had more to do with scaring Stalin than with Japan directly. I bet that detonating repeated atomic blasts in Tokyo harbor would have sufficed to scare the population into utter despair and submission, instead of deliberately murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians in two blasts, without even waiting long enough to gauge the socio-political results of the first.

Do you think the detonating repeated atomic blast that does nothing is gonna be more effective than the tokyo firebombing that killed in excess of 100,000 people?

Japan started the war and killed millions as a result. They had the military strengh to fight a war against the US, China and the rest of the Asian countries. If the US didn't continue to press on and simply rely on naval blockage, what's the guarantee that they wouldn't regain the military strenght, and made any further invasion into Japan much more difficult. Or are you suggesting that US and Ally should just let all the war criminal in Japan continue to lead their government without being held responsible for starting such a horrendeous war?

By the way, there were still over a million men in Japanese military by the end of the war defending Japan mainland. How are you going to ensure the complete and utter defeat of that force without invading Japan?

Who cares about invading the Japanese mainland? They were utterly defeated, and nothing was going to change that. If anything, a resurgent China would have scarcely put up with any Japanese sabre rattling in the forseeable future. They probably would have taken over the blockade themselves before 1950.

As far as regaining military strength, the physical ingredients for combat in WW2 were men, food, steel, and oil. An isolated Japan had access to only one of these. It is laughable to think that they could threaten a gunboat, let alone a navy, which would be the minimum paradigm necessary to overcome in order to menace other entities.

As far as Japanese war criminals, they were unfortunatley let of the hook more often than not, and the surrender was far from the proclaimed 'unconditional' one that was heralded. Hirohito walked, end of story.

We werent interested in blockading the japanese. We wanted them to surrender period. Blockading, prolonging the war for months or years while starving people out in Japan would be counter productive and more inhumane than getting the war ended.


China was still fighting their civil war and would until 1950 so they werent going to join the fun.

On the starvation issue, I believe that Japan was still agriculturally self-sufficient enough to avoid that fate at that point in time. Rationing would have been a starting point, but it's not like Iraq where there was no agriculture to speak of on a national level. In the 40s, many Japanese were farmers.

Regarding China, yes, and this is admittedly arguable either way, but I think that a potential Japanese threat would have certainly warranted their undivided attention, given that the Japanese had left millions of dead over the preceding decade.

One of the primary problems was that the US sank most of the inter-island shipping and was bombing the crap out of the rail system. They had some food (amounts were still problematic), but they couldn't get much of it to the people.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Even if it didn't result in immediate surrender, they are no longer a threat. Also, I am a voracious student of Japanese culture, and I don't think the Bushido code held all that much influence outside of the military itself. I believe that after facing the very real and undeniable fact of their military's complete and utter defeat, that the population at large would begin to reject the imperial government. The emperor himself was already in support of ending the war, but many fanatics stood in the way of peace.

In the end, I don't think it particularly horrible compared to the millions of other horrific deaths in WW2, but I do think it was somewhat unnecessary. It probably had more to do with scaring Stalin than with Japan directly. I bet that detonating repeated atomic blasts in Tokyo harbor would have sufficed to scare the population into utter despair and submission, instead of deliberately murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians in two blasts, without even waiting long enough to gauge the socio-political results of the first.

Do you think the detonating repeated atomic blast that does nothing is gonna be more effective than the tokyo firebombing that killed in excess of 100,000 people?

Japan started the war and killed millions as a result. They had the military strengh to fight a war against the US, China and the rest of the Asian countries. If the US didn't continue to press on and simply rely on naval blockage, what's the guarantee that they wouldn't regain the military strenght, and made any further invasion into Japan much more difficult. Or are you suggesting that US and Ally should just let all the war criminal in Japan continue to lead their government without being held responsible for starting such a horrendeous war?

By the way, there were still over a million men in Japanese military by the end of the war defending Japan mainland. How are you going to ensure the complete and utter defeat of that force without invading Japan?

Who cares about invading the Japanese mainland? They were utterly defeated, and nothing was going to change that. If anything, a resurgent China would have scarcely put up with any Japanese sabre rattling in the forseeable future. They probably would have taken over the blockade themselves before 1950.

As far as regaining military strength, the physical ingredients for combat in WW2 were men, food, steel, and oil. An isolated Japan had access to only one of these. It is laughable to think that they could threaten a gunboat, let alone a navy, which would be the minimum paradigm necessary to overcome in order to menace other entities.

As far as Japanese war criminals, they were unfortunatley let of the hook more often than not, and the surrender was far from the proclaimed 'unconditional' one that was heralded. Hirohito walked, end of story.

We werent interested in blockading the japanese. We wanted them to surrender period. Blockading, prolonging the war for months or years while starving people out in Japan would be counter productive and more inhumane than getting the war ended.


China was still fighting their civil war and would until 1950 so they werent going to join the fun.

On the starvation issue, I believe that Japan was still agriculturally self-sufficient enough to avoid that fate at that point in time. Rationing would have been a starting point, but it's not like Iraq where there was no agriculture to speak of on a national level. In the 40s, many Japanese were farmers.

Regarding China, yes, and this is admittedly arguable either way, but I think that a potential Japanese threat would have certainly warranted their undivided attention, given that the Japanese had left millions of dead over the preceding decade.

One of the primary problems was that the US sank most of the inter-island shipping and was bombing the crap out of the rail system. They had some food (amounts were still problematic), but they couldn't get much of it to the people.

Interesting and credible, though I still think that carts and camps could have sufficed for feeding the populace.

Given the outlook and statements of Hirohito at the time, surrender was already offered, it just wasn't up to the standards wanted out of the CINCPAC and the White House at the time. Sad, since the supposed 'unconditional' surrender so many extra people died for yielded no responsibility from the Emperor on war crimes. In essence, all of the extra death was for nothing.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

You twist the words well, but in the end, yes. I don't think you can 'bring a country to justice' in any case. I would handily trade 'justice' for a precious few disgusting war criminals for the near-pointless deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

This is similar to the death penalty issue, but even more ridiculous. Why should these civilians pay the price for the criminal actions of others? You can bet your ass it would be unfair if your family got nuked just because the leadership of your country were a bunch of criminal bastards.

As noted, Hirohito got off, and he was #1 in Japanese command, he did nothing to stop the imperialist wars through the 30s.

Unlike the criminal case, it wasn't just those war criminals who invaded the Asia and started the war. It was the entire nation of Japan that took part in the war effort. If the nation of Japan couldn't bring those war criminals to accept defeat and an unconditional surrender in a timely fasion, it is only natural that the entire nation of Japan suffers. In the end, the Ally had to get an unconditional surrender, and bring justice by punish those responsible for the millions of death. It was those who stubbornly refuse to surrendor even after all the defeats that brought such tragedy to Japan.

Yes Hirohito got away. But with his status of semi-deity among Japanese people, it would have been extremely difficult to get a surrender if he were severely punished. Plus he was not part of the right wing Japanese group that started the war, the worst he did was not stopping it.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Interesting and credible, though I still think that carts and camps could have sufficed for feeding the populace.

Given the outlook and statements of Hirohito at the time, surrender was already offered, it just wasn't up to the standards wanted out of the CINCPAC and the White House at the time. Sad, since the supposed 'unconditional' surrender so many extra people died for yielded no responsibility from the Emperor on war crimes. In essence, all of the extra death was for nothing.

And by the way, the reason the surrender wasn't accepted was because Hirohito was still hoping to retain his power as the emperor of Japan, instead of renouncing the power and become only a figure head. After the atomic bomb, he offered the unconditional surrender.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I have always hated the bombings of Japan; I am not 'emo' but fvk reading about what happened their would make anyone human cry...I think Japan was set up and our leaders wanted to show the discovery we made. I think they were banking on the world bowing down to us in one swoop.

We could have easily picked a remote section of Japan to demonstrate, but I still wonder why we didn't bomb Germany earlier...

People that posted about Japan's Military experiments above should also mention the rest of the superpowers also did the same things. The USA had dropped bombs on it's own soldiers to see how'd they hold up and even worse things.

Unfortunately, War is a great economy booster and the people buy into hate your neighbor even more now.

It's too late now, unless major casualties of our young are accepted; but I seriously think when the US started they should have made a mandatory 2 year enlistment for all those turning 18...male and female alike. The world should do that.

I think it would cut down on war and at the same time like the Cafe Latte drinkers realize their stock performance is not worth lives. They do seem to care though when the cost to run their SUV's jumps.

Sadly all war stems from the leader wanting to make their share bigger. It's rare someone steps up to bat for humanity.

To those talking about how Japan is so suicidal...ritual suicide and self-sacrifice are a lot different than someone sitting down in a hot bath to slit their wrists or kneel down on a shotgun.

Unfortunately in most of the world self-sacrifice for a greater good is thought of as retarded.

Most of the Japanese military command was very willing to fight to the death, even after they dropped the first weapon.

Sufficent U-235 and Pu-239 wasn't available before Germany surrendered, they were done after the Battle of the Bluge anyway and everyone knew it (except Hitler).

What the Japanese did to Asia is in no way comparable to anything the US has ever done. Not even the Indians got treated that badly. I think most people fail to grasp the scale and severity of what Imperial Japan did. It is thought that millions more Asians (Chinese, Koreans, ect..) died as a result of Japanese conquest than in than people in Europe. Japan's war conduct with regards to the Allies was no less deplorable. They wanted a war without mercy, showing us time and again how determined they were in this. We simply obliged them.

Japanese self sacrifice was based on a corruption of the Bushido code and a total faith in the diety status of the Emperor. It was a cult of fanaticism not unlike the Nazis in many ways. Though the Germans as a whole were usually far more pragmatic when faced with most situations.

you guys crack me up...arguing over something that happened over 60 years ago....sure it was horrible, but that is war, whats done is done, nothing will change that.

Sadly though we haven't learnt anything from those events....wars still happen, people still kill people.

I don't think anyone is arguing...it's more of discussing one of the biggest events of the 20th century.

Unfortunately most of us were never taught the real story in school...even college.

We did learn things though, war is profitable.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: K1052

I only get a little miffed when we are indicted for our conduct in the war and people think Japan wasnt that bad and evil America ganged up on them.

War will most likely always be with us in one form or another, or as the guy in my sig says:

"Let us recollect, that peace or war, will not always be left to our options.?To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude, that the fiery and destructive passions of war, reign in the human breast, with much more powerful sway, than the mild and beneficial sentiments of peace; and, that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character."

I don't know if you were referring to me with your first statement. I know both cultures well (not through morning musame or manga, but my wife lived there all, but the 5 years we met and then married...we are both older than 30).

Japan, the US, and most of the world powers have done terrible things to humans for war. People seem to forget that ancient man and through the middle ages was one of the most barbaric of times. Numbers of casualties goes up due to better weapons, but in a way the deaths are more humane.

Also any nations military and their actions does not equal how their civilians think.

The biggest issue people have with the US, is it seems to dictate world policy and often times screws up the important balances in certain regions between the debatable 'good guys' and 'bad guys'.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
what are you not going to touch? my unamerican comments?

i'm really sorry dudes for coming in every time and cuss you all down. I do not intend to. I login to see any interesting threads to read and then i read some of the flag-waving comments and the blood just rushes to the head.

I'm not American either, but your gunna get eaten alive once a few of the yanks get here.

sucks to be you.

In defense of Americans...most were simply taught the wrong story in school. Many will say "no I researched this...", but in reality they are spouting dogma.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Aimster
IMO killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers is wrong.

soldiers have a job so let them do it.
do not play God and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians so the soldier death count is low.

Of course those days are over. Otherwise we would have nuked Vietnam.

Read some history books. Japan was arming the civilian population in the event of a mainland invasion. Iwo Jima was a precursor to the invasion of the Japanese mainland. 24,000 U.S. casualties in one month. Or how about Okinawa where 100,000+ Japanese were killed.

Japan was also in the midst of a major food crisis verging on famine. ---link please!!

If the war had gone on another few months millions more Japanese would have died. One of the first things the US occupation forces did was import massive amounts of foodstuffs to prevent the popluation from starving to death.

I don't know WTF so many people don't understand the famine going on in Japan during WWII...crops were basically for the military (and upper class of course) during that war.

However; it was mostly the children that suffered especially orphans of soldiers.

There is a classic movie now distributed by Disney called "Grave for the Fireflies". It's no happy ending, but shows a pretty realistic tale of a young boy and is toddler sister left out alone in Japan.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Arkaign

You twist the words well, but in the end, yes. I don't think you can 'bring a country to justice' in any case. I would handily trade 'justice' for a precious few disgusting war criminals for the near-pointless deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

This is similar to the death penalty issue, but even more ridiculous. Why should these civilians pay the price for the criminal actions of others? You can bet your ass it would be unfair if your family got nuked just because the leadership of your country were a bunch of criminal bastards.

As noted, Hirohito got off, and he was #1 in Japanese command, he did nothing to stop the imperialist wars through the 30s.

Unlike the criminal case, it wasn't just those war criminals who invaded the Asia and started the war. It was the entire nation of Japan that took part in the war effort. If the nation of Japan couldn't bring those war criminals to accept defeat and an unconditional surrender in a timely fasion, it is only natural that the entire nation of Japan suffers. In the end, the Ally had to get an unconditional surrender, and bring justice by punish those responsible for the millions of death. It was those who stubbornly refuse to surrendor even after all the defeats that brought such tragedy to Japan.

Yes Hirohito got away. But with his status of semi-deity among Japanese people, it would have been extremely difficult to get a surrender if he were severely punished. Plus he was not part of the right wing Japanese group that started the war, the worst he did was not stopping it.

Overgeneralizations like this are shameful for anyone to use. It is enough to say that the entire Japanese economy was converted to wartime purposes, but the average civilian had no say (and there many vocal opponents of the imperial actions as well) in the decisions that affected the country's destiny at large. Blaming the entire Japanese population is just as naive as blaming the entire United States for Abu Ghraib prison scandal and other (rare, thankfully!) atrocities committed in our country's name throughout history. In the end, you are responsible solely for your own actions and decisions, and how they affect others. I cannot stress this strongly enough. Collective guilt and collective punishment are intellectually threadbare concepts.

As for 'punishing' the Japanese populace, I think the treatment given to them after the war was positively glowing. We helped rebuild their nation, nearly from scratch, into historic high levels of industry, technology, and society. Is this fair to them? To the Chinese who suffered incredibly at the hands of the Japanese empire, and yet was given no aid in rebuilding?

These are very interesting questions, do not drown them in closed-minded single-note justifications and rants.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
They SHOULD have dropped 2 into Tokyo, at least one into Kyoto, and some of the other major cities as well...After the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the cruel and inhumane way the Japanese treated POW's, and all the savagery they showed the worls, (china, vietnam, etc) it woule have been warranted.

Sure let's do to their civilians what they did to our soldiers.

The US has been pretty savage as well, even on it's own troops.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Arkaign

You twist the words well, but in the end, yes. I don't think you can 'bring a country to justice' in any case. I would handily trade 'justice' for a precious few disgusting war criminals for the near-pointless deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

This is similar to the death penalty issue, but even more ridiculous. Why should these civilians pay the price for the criminal actions of others? You can bet your ass it would be unfair if your family got nuked just because the leadership of your country were a bunch of criminal bastards.

As noted, Hirohito got off, and he was #1 in Japanese command, he did nothing to stop the imperialist wars through the 30s.

Unlike the criminal case, it wasn't just those war criminals who invaded the Asia and started the war. It was the entire nation of Japan that took part in the war effort. If the nation of Japan couldn't bring those war criminals to accept defeat and an unconditional surrender in a timely fasion, it is only natural that the entire nation of Japan suffers. In the end, the Ally had to get an unconditional surrender, and bring justice by punish those responsible for the millions of death. It was those who stubbornly refuse to surrendor even after all the defeats that brought such tragedy to Japan.

Yes Hirohito got away. But with his status of semi-deity among Japanese people, it would have been extremely difficult to get a surrender if he were severely punished. Plus he was not part of the right wing Japanese group that started the war, the worst he did was not stopping it.

Overgeneralizations like this are shameful for anyone to use. It is enough to say that the entire Japanese economy was converted to wartime purposes, but the average civilian had no say (and there many vocal opponents of the imperial actions as well) in the decisions that affected the country's destiny at large. Blaming the entire Japanese population is just as naive as blaming the entire United States for Abu Ghraib prison scandal and other (rare, thankfully!) atrocities committed in our country's name throughout history. In the end, you are responsible solely for your own actions and decisions, and how they affect others. I cannot stress this strongly enough. Collective guilt and collective punishment are intellectually threadbare concepts.

As for 'punishing' the Japanese populace, I think the treatment given to them after the war was positively glowing. We helped rebuild their nation, nearly from scratch, into historic high levels of industry, technology, and society. Is this fair to them? To the Chinese who suffered incredibly at the hands of the Japanese empire, and yet was given no aid in rebuilding?

These are very interesting questions, do not drown them in closed-minded single-note justifications and rants.

Compare a war that was fought in multiple continents and lasted over 8 years (Japan invaded China way before Pearl Harbor) to one single incident at Abu Ghraib is just ludicrous. You'll need the backing of an entire nation, or at least a large majority of the nation to start a war on a scale like WW2. The entire Japanese population was put into the war effort, and every single one of them contributed to the war effort, either directly by joining the military, or indirectly by contributing to the economy. Where as it only takes a few rotten soliders and a bad commender for Abu Ghraib to happen.

If Japan started a war as a nation, and is unable to accept defeat as a nation, it is only natural that they suffer the consequences as a nation. How is that unfair? Starting a war has serious consequences, and when you and your country kill others mercilessly, others will return in kind.

Anyway, I don't see dropping atomic bomb as "punishment" per se. I see it as a strategic move to minimize further casualties and accomplish one thing, to end the war right there without further delay. Just like the rebuilding of Japan, American didn't do that out of pure goodwill, it is soley for the reason to establish a line of defense against communism and the cold war that comes after ww2. It's too bad that it take hiroshima/nagasaki to reach the end of the ww2. But it was unavoidable giving the choices Japanese made themselves.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: BoomerD
They SHOULD have dropped 2 into Tokyo, at least one into Kyoto, and some of the other major cities as well...After the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the cruel and inhumane way the Japanese treated POW's, and all the savagery they showed the worls, (china, vietnam, etc) it woule have been warranted.

Sure let's do to their civilians what they did to our soldiers.

The US has been pretty savage as well, even on it's own troops.

While I don't agree with BoomerD's suggestions I can understand his sentiment.

You may know something about the culture of modern Japan, however I think your understanding of what went on in Asia from the early 30s to 45 is lacking.

There are some pretty valid reasons IMO that a healthy chunk of Asia goes batsh!t every time a Japanese PM visits the Yasukuni Shrine. People from that era are still living and that is like pouring salt into an open wound.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Compare a war that was fought in multiple continents and lasted over 8 years (Japan invaded China way before Pearl Harbor) to one single incident at Abu Ghraib is just ludicrous. You'll need the backing of an entire nation, or at least a large majority of the nation to start a war on a scale like WW2. The entire Japanese population was put into the war effort, and every single one of them contributed to the war effort, either directly by joining the military, or indirectly by contributing to the economy. Where as it only takes a few rotten soliders and a bad commender for Abu Ghraib to happen.

If Japan started a war as a nation, and is unable to accept defeat as a nation, it is only natural that they suffer the consequences as a nation. How is that unfair? Starting a war has serious consequences, and when you and your country kill others mercilessly, others will return in kind.

Anyway, I don't see dropping atomic bomb as "punishment" per se. I see it as a strategic move to minimize further casualties and accomplish one thing, to end the war right there without further delay. Just like the rebuilding of Japan, American didn't do that out of pure goodwill, it is soley for the reason to establish a line of defense against communism and the cold war that comes after ww2. It's too bad that it take hiroshima/nagasaki to reach the end of the ww2. But it was unavoidable giving the choices Japanese made themselves.

So now that I've got it straight, you blame every man, woman, and child in Japan at the time for the Japanese atrocities. I regret that I can no longer have anything to do with talking to you, since you are patently insane.

Starting wars and supporting them is the responsiblity of the men in power. You can wax philosophical about how righteous it would be for the populace to rise up and overthrow the evildoers, but you must realize that resistance would be crushed just as brutally as always in such cases, if not more so due to the fanatical Bushido code. To blame common citizens, especially women and children, for the actions of corrupt and evil leaders is beyond ignorant. It rises to the level of true evil. Goodbye sir.

 

[fubar569]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: BoomerD
They SHOULD have dropped 2 into Tokyo, at least one into Kyoto, and some of the other major cities as well...After the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the cruel and inhumane way the Japanese treated POW's, and all the savagery they showed the worls, (china, vietnam, etc) it woule have been warranted.

Sure let's do to their civilians what they did to our soldiers.

The US has been pretty savage as well, even on it's own troops.

only 3? hell...as far as i'm concerned, ALL BETS WERE OFF when they provoked us by attacking pearl harbor. ALL BETS. you want a war? great...we'll bring the war and then some.

the point of war? to not die...to kill the other bastard before he kills you. if that means civilians to make it happen...well then so be it...you signed on to the effort. they knew what they were getting themselves into when they flew those planes over. i just don't think they expected the response they got. in my opinion we should've leveled the whole country along with germany and the rest of them. you don't wanna die? too bad. don't shoot at us next time and maybe we won't have to mess your day up.

my opinion of world affairs today? iraq and afghanistan were a mistake. shoulda leveled them too...iran? whoops...my finger slipped! north korea? boohoo a 1kt or less explosion...lets show them what really big firecrackers do.

if this country would just grow some balls we wouldn't be in half the ****** we are in right now. we would've never had to revisit iraq a 2nd time, have the situation with iran and NK that we do now, and countless others.

the best part? we as a people elected the idiots that made the mess!

what makes it better...we STILL won't kick them out of office...

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: rchiu
Compare a war that was fought in multiple continents and lasted over 8 years (Japan invaded China way before Pearl Harbor) to one single incident at Abu Ghraib is just ludicrous. You'll need the backing of an entire nation, or at least a large majority of the nation to start a war on a scale like WW2. The entire Japanese population was put into the war effort, and every single one of them contributed to the war effort, either directly by joining the military, or indirectly by contributing to the economy. Where as it only takes a few rotten soliders and a bad commender for Abu Ghraib to happen.

If Japan started a war as a nation, and is unable to accept defeat as a nation, it is only natural that they suffer the consequences as a nation. How is that unfair? Starting a war has serious consequences, and when you and your country kill others mercilessly, others will return in kind.

Anyway, I don't see dropping atomic bomb as "punishment" per se. I see it as a strategic move to minimize further casualties and accomplish one thing, to end the war right there without further delay. Just like the rebuilding of Japan, American didn't do that out of pure goodwill, it is soley for the reason to establish a line of defense against communism and the cold war that comes after ww2. It's too bad that it take hiroshima/nagasaki to reach the end of the ww2. But it was unavoidable giving the choices Japanese made themselves.

So now that I've got it straight, you blame every man, woman, and child in Japan at the time for the Japanese atrocities. I regret that I can no longer have anything to do with talking to you, since you are patently insane.

Starting wars and supporting them is the responsiblity of the men in power. You can wax philosophical about how righteous it would be for the populace to rise up and overthrow the evildoers, but you must realize that resistance would be crushed just as brutally as always in such cases, if not more so due to the fanatical Bushido code. To blame common citizens, especially women and children, for the actions of corrupt and evil leaders is beyond ignorant. It rises to the level of true evil. Goodbye sir.

Heh, is it wrong to state every Japanese man, woman and children "contributed to the war effort" during that time? Isn't that a fact? Whether they should be blame for the atrocities that I am not sure. If you are brainwashed into doing something evil, are you excused of the thing you did? If you are forced into doing something evil, are you excused?

Either way you see it, it doesn't matter as I have stated the atomic bomb wasn't meant to "punish" those civilian. That's just the result of Japanese as a nation making their choices. Be it starting the war, or refusing to surrender. If you want to find someone to blame, blame those leader who led Japanese down that path, and those Japanese who follow without question. Again I ask you, do you have any suggestion that would have saved more lives on either side, bring justice, and bring closure to this war? And please don't give me that leaflets stuff, that's just laughable.

 

[kmmatney]

This whole thread started out becuase of pictures of Hiroshima. Well, guess what - you can show pictures of just about any part of WWII and they will look just as tragic. Take a look at the total WWII death toll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Just look at Indonesia: "4 million famine and forced labor dead during the Japanese Occupation of Indonesia including 30,000 European civilian internee deaths"

Sounds like there should be plenty of bad pictures from that.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: lyssword
The tragic thing is, Japan's emperor was ready to give up before nukes went off, but he was held hostage by his own military generals.

Thats not true at all.....

I saw a history channel special with interviews with a Japanese soldier telling that exact story. With Japanese imperial documents to back it up!

Doesnt make it true...in fact I saw a history channel special that stated just the ooposite..lol

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: lyssword
The tragic thing is, Japan's emperor was ready to give up before nukes went off, but he was held hostage by his own military generals.

Thats not true at all.....

I saw a history channel special with interviews with a Japanese soldier telling that exact story. With Japanese imperial documents to back it up!

Doesnt make it true...in fact I saw a history channel special that stated just the ooposite..lol

That must have been quite a ridiculous special. There are heaps of historical documents that account for the Emperor's wish for peace. It was the Japanese military, and the allies blind insistence on an 'unconditional' surrender that delayed things for bloody months. And the surrender wasn't really unconditional at all, they left Hirohito in place, untouched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito#Last_days_of_the_war

http://www.stanford.edu/class/history5n...k/chen_files/frame.html#slide0010.html

http://www.willamette.edu/~rloftus/largelec.html

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: lyssword
The tragic thing is, Japan's emperor was ready to give up before nukes went off, but he was held hostage by his own military generals.

Thats not true at all.....

I saw a history channel special with interviews with a Japanese soldier telling that exact story. With Japanese imperial documents to back it up!

Doesnt make it true...in fact I saw a history channel special that stated just the ooposite..lol

That must have been quite a ridiculous special. There are heaps of historical documents that account for the Emperor's wish for peace. It was the Japanese military, and the allies blind insistence on an 'unconditional' surrender that delayed things for bloody months. And the surrender wasn't really unconditional at all, they left Hirohito in place, untouched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito#Last_days_of_the_war

http://www.stanford.edu/class/history5n...k/chen_files/frame.html#slide0010.html

http://www.willamette.edu/~rloftus/largelec.html

Starting the war was a huge miscalculation by the Japanese. It never was really their goal to defeat us. They just wanted us out of the region and to restore full trade relations so they could use our raw materials to complete their conquest of Asia. The whole idea was to force us to the negotiating table in a position of weakness.

The desire for peace on the part of the Emperor and members of his cabinet only appeared after it was unavoidably clear that the war was lost. Even then they held out for better conditions than the US could realistically grant. Only the atomic bombings gave the peace faction the leverage needed to do what had to be done. As a result Hirohito's power was destroyed, his deity status recinded, and his constitutional authority revoked.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: lyssword
The tragic thing is, Japan's emperor was ready to give up before nukes went off, but he was held hostage by his own military generals.

Thats not true at all.....

I saw a history channel special with interviews with a Japanese soldier telling that exact story. With Japanese imperial documents to back it up!

Doesnt make it true...in fact I saw a history channel special that stated just the ooposite..lol

That must have been quite a ridiculous special. There are heaps of historical documents that account for the Emperor's wish for peace. It was the Japanese military, and the allies blind insistence on an 'unconditional' surrender that delayed things for bloody months. And the surrender wasn't really unconditional at all, they left Hirohito in place, untouched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito#Last_days_of_the_war

http://www.stanford.edu/class/history5n...k/chen_files/frame.html#slide0010.html

http://www.willamette.edu/~rloftus/largelec.html

Starting the war was a huge miscalculation by the Japanese. It never was really their goal to defeat us. They just wanted us out of the region and to restore full trade relations so they could use our raw materials to complete their conquest of Asia. The whole idea was to force us to the negotiating table in a position of weakness.

The desire for peace on the part of the Emperor and members of his cabinet only appeared after it was unavoidably clear that the war was lost. Even then they held out for better conditions than the US could realistically grant. Only the atomic bombings gave the peace faction the leverage needed to do what had to be done. As a result Hirohito's power was destroyed, his deity status recinded, and his constitutional authority revoked.

No argument on the huge mistake part, nor the very late timing of the Emperor's wishes for peace. I have several things to say about the rest though.

As for 'only the atomic bombings', we have no idea of the relativity of this statement because there is no alternative history to compare it to.

Hirohito had extremely limited power to begin with, his most prized possession was the Imperial status that he KEPT. His deity status was never rescinded, but his more public appearance and presence helped to humanize him somewhat. What little influence he had was reduced in all forms, yet he remained basically unpunished, even rewarded by MacArhtur's benevolence in helping rebuild Japan with Hirohito as a spokesman for the new Japan.

Undisputable is the fact that Hirohito was trying desperately to surrender, a difficult task through the layer of fanatical Japanese military leaders, and the terms were rejected because they weren't complete enough for the allies. Then when they finally get their surrender, it's not truly an unconditional one. For Hirohito, a direct war criminal (he signed documents authorizing chemical weapons attacks against the Chinese in the late '30s), went utterly unpunished in practical terms. Removing someone's token power is not punishment, when their public status remains as the Emperor of Japan. He is still widely respected and admired in Japan to this day.

On the atomic bomb usage issue, this is something that will be argued for as long as history records the event. It is impossible to fully say one way or the other whether it was truly necessary outside of conjecture or opinion. My own feelings on the subject, I handily admit, are just my own. I could be wrong, but we shall never know. All I can say is that I believe that while it made sense at the time, hindsight is 20/20, and there were better paths to choose from. This is not to overly criticize the men responsible for their difficult decision. They had not the luxury of looking back directly at the consequences of their actions. Just as we ourselves cannot truly grasp the final impact of our leaders decisions until long after the reverbrations have died down. A good example is Iraq, how will popular opinion and history bear the subject 50 years from now?

Your opinions are reasonable, and I respect them. Please accept my own feelings as nothing beyond my personal reflection on the subject. Cheers.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: lyssword
The tragic thing is, Japan's emperor was ready to give up before nukes went off, but he was held hostage by his own military generals.

Thats not true at all.....

I saw a history channel special with interviews with a Japanese soldier telling that exact story. With Japanese imperial documents to back it up!

Doesnt make it true...in fact I saw a history channel special that stated just the ooposite..lol

That must have been quite a ridiculous special. There are heaps of historical documents that account for the Emperor's wish for peace. It was the Japanese military, and the allies blind insistence on an 'unconditional' surrender that delayed things for bloody months. And the surrender wasn't really unconditional at all, they left Hirohito in place, untouched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito#Last_days_of_the_war

http://www.stanford.edu/class/history5n...k/chen_files/frame.html#slide0010.html

http://www.willamette.edu/~rloftus/largelec.html

Starting the war was a huge miscalculation by the Japanese. It never was really their goal to defeat us. They just wanted us out of the region and to restore full trade relations so they could use our raw materials to complete their conquest of Asia. The whole idea was to force us to the negotiating table in a position of weakness.

The desire for peace on the part of the Emperor and members of his cabinet only appeared after it was unavoidably clear that the war was lost. Even then they held out for better conditions than the US could realistically grant. Only the atomic bombings gave the peace faction the leverage needed to do what had to be done. As a result Hirohito's power was destroyed, his deity status recinded, and his constitutional authority revoked.

No argument on the huge mistake part, nor the very late timing of the Emperor's wishes for peace. I have several things to say about the rest though.

As for 'only the atomic bombings', we have no idea of the relativity of this statement because there is no alternative history to compare it to.

Hirohito had extremely limited power to begin with, his most prized possession was the Imperial status that he KEPT. His deity status was never rescinded, but his more public appearance and presence helped to humanize him somewhat. What little influence he had was reduced in all forms, yet he remained basically unpunished, even rewarded by MacArhtur's benevolence in helping rebuild Japan with Hirohito as a spokesman for the new Japan.

Undisputable is the fact that Hirohito was trying desperately to surrender, a difficult task through the layer of fanatical Japanese military leaders, and the terms were rejected because they weren't complete enough for the allies. Then when they finally get their surrender, it's not truly an unconditional one. For Hirohito, a direct war criminal (he signed documents authorizing chemical weapons attacks against the Chinese in the late '30s), went utterly unpunished in practical terms. Removing someone's token power is not punishment, when their public status remains as the Emperor of Japan. He is still widely respected and admired in Japan to this day.

On the atomic bomb usage issue, this is something that will be argued for as long as history records the event. It is impossible to fully say one way or the other whether it was truly necessary outside of conjecture or opinion. My own feelings on the subject, I handily admit, are just my own. I could be wrong, but we shall never know. All I can say is that I believe that while it made sense at the time, hindsight is 20/20, and there were better paths to choose from. This is not to overly criticize the men responsible for their difficult decision. They had not the luxury of looking back directly at the consequences of their actions. Just as we ourselves cannot truly grasp the final impact of our leaders decisions until long after the reverbrations have died down. A good example is Iraq, how will popular opinion and history bear the subject 50 years from now?

Your opinions are reasonable, and I respect them. Please accept my own feelings as nothing beyond my personal reflection on the subject. Cheers.

While the civilian and military components of the government did run the day to day operations, Hirohito did seem to have the final word about taking major action. He authorized the attacks on Manchuria, China, agreed to joining the Axis powers, and the commencing of hostilities with the US (among other thing). While I may agree that punishing Hirohito further for his actions may have been warranted, it was more expedient to retain him as a figurehead to accelerate the recovery process in the face of the looming Soviet threat.

Given the available options at the time, I can't say I would have chosen differently. Conditional surrender granting much to Japan, little past the understood retention of the Imperial office, simply wasn't an option the US could take back to its people given the nature and beginning of the war. The options available to produce that result were limited and horrific (with limited nuclear weapons usage being the least so IMO).

It is nice to have a calm debate and I respect your views on the matter.

 

[pkme2]

America lost over 2000+ young men on the Ist day of battle on Iwo Jima.
Today, the count is over 2000+ in Iraq.
The American public has shown its distaste for our soldiers being killed by the November elections.
The media has made that point very clear every time a soldier is killed in the Middle East.

IMHO, So killing the "enemy" can shorten the conflict. Well, "nuking them" thereby saving to tell our families about their children KIA.
Its justified, no second thoughts, no recriminations.

Until one has loss someone, philosophizing doesn't mean much. All the talk about what's right and what's wrong, will never bring back a loved one. Ask the mothers who gave their children for the war effort. Their words on the matter means more to me than someone who 'sympathizes' with the 'enemy'. Its sad but its a fact, do it to them before they do it to you.

Remember the saying, "War is Hell".

There is no right way in war, only the solution and that's what America wants. The public has spoken!

 

[Aisengard]

Basically, the dropping of the atomic bombs was one of the greatest moves for peace in history, in terms of lives saved.

Yeah it sucks that 100,000+ had to die to save millions, but if you want to blame anyone for those deaths you can blame 1940s Japan and her Generals, not FDR, not Truman, and definitely not the pilot of the Enola Gay and that other plane. They made the necessary actions to prevent the worst slaughter of a country the world would have ever seen.

 

[beyoku]

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: Czar
Can we agree that dropping an atomic bomb on two civilian cities is bad?

just like firebombing civilian cities is bad
just like enslaving neighboring countries is bad

asking those people to thank their killers is arrogance to the max