Every year, I see the same thing re Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Bonobo]

Whether you think it was right, wrong, justified, unjustified or whatever, why do people need to be such assholes as to not be able to even hold their tongues long enough for an event like that to be given some thoughtful graceful silence or contemplation?

Did Japan "deserve" it? War criminals? Guess what, all the murderers who engage in war are war criminals and if you don't think that people that intentionally did incendiary fire bombing of Tokyo so they would create an environment of hell -enough to burn 100,000 people in one night, if you don't think THEY would be war criminals if they had lost the war, you don't know shit.

I just hope that this theory of "deserving it" somehow justifying it after the fact proves NOT to be true for America too. Because if it does, I could point you to a hell of a lot of victims of US aggression in the past couple of decades who perhaps would argue that you all "deserve it" too.

If the city of Sacramento went up in flames, yes, there would be people saying it was deserved.

So be careful who you point your fingers at and throw that word around at. It could be you.

[jimlup]

1. Using it was unjustified

The American myth that it saved 1 million American soldiers lives is a bold lie that goes unchallenged in the mainstream.


http://www.amazon.com/The-Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X

[Bully Taw]

5. perhaps

it goes unchallenged because it's true? just saying...

My grandfather and two uncles served in the Pacific in WWII, and their description of the Japanese military was "relentless and brutal". Whether or not the use of the atomic bomb saved lives or not may never be fully known or understood. But, a fairly good indicator of the Japanese military mindset at the time is this: it took TWO Atomic detonations to get them to surrender. One was not enough to stop them.

[jimlup]

36. Unlikely that it actually took two...

72 hours is not enough time to understand the damage caused by the first. The other fact in the mix is the Soviet declaration of war which was very significant to the Japanese war council. Hiroshima was likely not justified but even given a justification for that one Nagasaki stands as a clear act of immorality.

It doesn't really matter what the Japanese military mindset was as the Emperor was already opposed to continuing the war. The surrender terms which were accepted (that the emperor remain) were already in place before the bombing. My belief is that the Soviet declaration tipped the balance even for the hard liners not the atomic bombings.

Still it is interesting that the American people continue to believe the mythology. It is perhaps more comfortable for them than the alternative.

[Bully Taw]

101. it is, in fact...

highly likely that it took two, because it did take two.

Mythology is cool! Didn't you like Clash of the Titans? And isn't comfort better than discomfort? Are you the type of person that walks around all day with a rock in their shoe because it makes them feel better about themselves?

The point is, you are making assumptions on 1) information you don't know and 2) information we will never know. it is good to hold this day in history solemn, but to affix blame after the fact on a very debatable situation is a bit of Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

[jimlup]

103. All of your criticism is unfounded and unfair...

Think about what you are saying. You have no meaning in what you say. You too are guilty of armchair analysis. Few are alive today who actually experienced the war and that experience is highly colored by the position they were in. To objectively study the situation does require some detachment.

Why would you be so ridiculus as to ask if I like to walk around with a rock in my shoe. That is a very unfair statement and intended to imply a personal attack.

[Bully Taw]

107. not at all

I meant no personal attack. I am simply asking the question of why you would take a situation for which you have no information and project a conclusion designed to make you and others feel bad about something that you had nothing to do with.

I guess i don't understand why hold the moment solemn in history isn't enough? Should today's average Japanese citizen feel guilty about Pearl Harbor?

[jimlup]

110. WHich

by your explaination in clearly an implied personal attack as obviously no one in their right mind would walk around all day "with a rock in their shoe."

I know that you've already made up your mind on this question. It is obvious that we should investigate this question. I don't feel "bad" about it as I've given up considering myself to be guilty of things that are beyond my control as this clearly was. And you are dead wrong. We DO HAVE INFORMATION about Hiroshima and the sequence of events.

Why in the world do you think I feel "guilty" about it. Quite the contrary. Though I will admit to feeling some sympathy for the innocent victims.

Gee - - get a grip. Either make intelligent reference to actual facts or don't bother. Really as a physicist this is about actual facts and the actual history. If I come to a conclusion that differs from the mainstream American mythology so be it. It isn't based on emotion. My position is based on study of the actual events.

You can find accounts of it if you wish but I bet you don't

http://www.amazon.com/The-Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X

[Bully Taw]

113. no, I won't

I look ahead, not behind. I find I run into less stuff that way.

Have a nice day

[dbackjon]

7. And you are wrong

An invasion of Japan would have cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of American lives, millions of Japanese lives as well.


You only need to look at Iwo Jima and Okinawa for your answers.


Anyone that says otherwise has their head in the sand about the reality of the Japanese mindset in 1945.

[ET Awful]

14. Including General Eisenhower. What would he know?

"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

But what would Eisenhower know?

[dbackjon]

17. Eisenhower never fought the Japanese

He wasn't on the ground in Okinawa or Iwo Jima. Why would he be more of an authority than he Pacific Commanders that actually fought the Japanese?

Eisenhower felt it necessary to carpet/firebomb German cities, which were as deadly as an atomic bomb

[ET Awful]

18. So your position is that Eisenhower didn't know anything . . . .

interesting.

[dbackjon]

19. No - reading comprehension

Tell me why Eisenhower, who never fought the Japanese, would be in a better position to evaluate the war in the Pacific than that commanders that were actually FIGHTING the Japanese?

[former9thward]

33. Who are these commanders?

Truman was the guy who made the decision and he didn't fight either one.

[ET Awful]

38. You would be referring to the commanders that Eisenhower communicated with regularly

and who corresponded with all the same levels of command that he did right?

[Jim Lane]

133. Would you please name the Pacific theater commanders who thought the bomb was necessary?

Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 04:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Because, as far as I know, every military leader who commented on the subject agreed with Eisenhower in rejecting the argument that the use of the bomb was necessary to save American lives.

See "American Military Leaders Urge President Truman not to Drop the Atomic Bomb" for details.

[tumtum]

21. Eisenhower was in charge of the Europeon Theater of the war,

not the Pacific Theater, he hadn't fought the Japanese, he didn't experience first hand the fanaticism of the Japanese.

[ET Awful]

40. Little hint for you . . .

Neither did Truman, Stimson, nor, for that matter, any of Truman's top advisors.

Eisenhower was privy to the exact same information as Truman which I'm sure you know. He made his statements based on that information.

You can twist it any way you want, but I'll guarantee you that Eisenhower had better knowledge of the situation than you do.

[Nevernose]

66. This would be the same Eisenhower

Who killed far more German civilians through conventional bombings than died at Hiroshima? Your source isn't exactly coming from a moral high ground.

[ET Awful]

94. I'm not referring to moral highground.

I'm referring to someone who is a military authority discussing the military necessity of the use of nuclear weapons.

[NuclearDem]

23. MacArthur and Nimitz did, and they were both opposed to using the bomb.

Even LeMay was against it, and that guy was not known for his restraint.

Admittedly he was hardly opposed to it on moral grounds, since he's the one that orchestrated the bombing of Tokyo, but my point still stands.

[1monster]

52. I've always found it hard to reconcile what Eisenhower said with what he did.

Consider: Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex and regretted the use of the atomic bomb; and yet he was the one who built up the US atomic arsenal from next to nothing to over 18,000 in just eight years. And he used that atomic asena regularly as a giant stick to beat other nations into submission.

[OnlinePoker]

111. Eisenhower only warned against the MIC in his farewell address

He did nothing to stop it getting its hooks in the American taxpayer during his 8 years in office. I would have had more respect for the man if he had said something in his inaugural address.

[HardTimes99]

24. The error in Eisenhower's thinking is that the Japanese military were nowhere near 'ready

to surrender' and a large faction wished to continue fighting even after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Only Hirohito's personal intervention allowed Japan to surrender, Imperial Japan's military notwithstanding.

[whathehell]

88. The were "ready to surrender"?...Funny, then, that they

were given THREE warnings before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

[jimlup]

25. Sorry but if you actually study the history you will discover that your statement is the mythology

not the truth. Seriously check out the history. No historical source says 1 million that isn't propaganda (Truman maybe after it became necessary for him to justify his decision.)

If you do the research you may find some officials who quote 100000 American soldier's lives but that itself is propaganda. The military analysis gave a maximum of 10000 soldiers lives.

Nevertheless do you realize that justifying the bombing by saying it saved military lives is advocating a war crime? The Genenva conventions are clear on this point.

[dbackjon]

32. I have read plenty of WWII history

And I don't pretend to know for certainity what would have happened.
No one can.

And calling me a war criminal? That is rich - and very insulting.

[ET Awful]

41. He didn't call you a war criminal. It never happened.

He said that the course of action you described constituted a war crime and that you were advocating that course of action.

[dbackjon]

73. You have reading comprehesion issues

He did indeed, call me a war criminal.

[Dawgs]

75. Nobody called you a war criminal. And, you're just making it worse. n/t

[ET Awful]

96. Hmmm. . . what he actually said was

"Nevertheless do you realize that justifying the bombing by saying it saved military lives is advocating a war crime?"

Exactly what I said, he did NOT call you a war criminal. It seems that you are the one with reading comprehension issues.

He said that you were advocating a war crime. That doesn't make you a war criminal, nor did he accuse you of being one.

You might want to pop open a dictionary sometime.

[dbackjon]

97. I have great reading comprehension

And yes, he is calling me a war criminal, by advocating for it.

[ET Awful]

99. No, he's not. You really DO have a problem with comprehension.

By your logic, someone who advocates for abortion rights is an abortionist, someone who advocates for the death penalty is an executioner, and someone who advocates for gay rights is homosexual.

Your logic and comprehension are sorely lacking.

[ozone82]

127. Estimated Casualties, Military Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties

Just something to ponder.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

61. Japan was ready to surrender.

On the condition that they keep their emperor, which they did anyway. We used the bombs to flex our muscles at the Soviets.

[dbackjon]

134. No, they were not.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

135. Yes, they were.

[hunter]

65. You've bought the myth.

No question, the Japanese empire fought dirty, and often to the last man.

But we had the bomb and we were not going to invade Japan.

The bomb changed everything.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3414264

[jberryhill]

77. Explain Nagasaki

Why do you believe that given the ability to fully assess the Hiroshima bomb, the same result could not have been reached without bombing Nagasaki?

[dbackjon]

81. Did they surrender after Hiroshima?

No.

It is a lot of second guessing to understand the decisions that were made. Would Japan had surrendered had we given them a month? Or would have the Imperial Forces decided that we only had one bomb?


Another overlooked factor is the Soviet Union. They declared war on Japan in between the bombings. The US wanted Japan to surrender before the Soviets became too engaged in the war in the pacific, in order to keep the Russian influence in post-war Japan to a minimum.

[jberryhill]

87. They had not fully assessed the situation

For obvious reasons, there were problems communicating the situation from Hiroshima to Tokyo.

[dbackjon]

91. Yet, the day after Nagasaki, Hirohito ordered the Japanese to begin the surrender process

So he was able to immediately access the situation.

[SidDithers]

142. Good post. Add Peleliu to that list...

Sid

[zappaman]

145. Peleliu need never happened.

We had a local historian take us there when visiting Palau.
What's remarkable is they have left everything there...90mm caliber machine gun turrets, chinaware, tank treads, you name it.
It's a holy place and the stories he told us were horrific.
The head guys knew it was unnecessary 2 weeks before and could have called it off, but didn't.
To add to the misery, the tide was calculated based on a neighboring island. So, when the marines landed, it was actually low tide and they had to storm the beach from 100 yds out.
Unfortunately, the Japanese had their machine guns mounted on either side and just mowed down dozens of marines.

There is a small museum there and one of the exhibits is a photograph album from a marine containing heinous shots of dead bodies. It seemed gruesome and pointless until the last page where he had written (and I'm paraphrasing) "TO MY BROTHERS IN THE CORP AND TO THE BRAVE JAPANESE WHO FOUGHT WITH COURAGE-NONE OF THIS WAS NECESSARY AND SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED."

Powerful stuff

[SidDithers]

146. I'd never heard of Peleliu until watching HBO's The Pacific...

I then went and read almost everything I could find about it.

Horrific almost isn't a strong enough word.

Eugene Sledge's account "With The Old Breed" is a fascinating read.

It makes you realize how lucky we are to live in the time and place we do.

Sid

[zappaman]

147. We also went into the tunnels the Japanese had dug.

Since they were smaller than Americans, the ceilings were lower.
So, they could run, while the marines had to kinda crouch.
Unfortunately for the Japanese, we used flamethrowers. The soot is still on the walls.

This is a good book as well..
Last Man Standing: The 1st Marine Regiment on Peleliu by Dick Camp

and this one...
The Devil's Anvil: The Assault on Peleliu by James H. Hallas

if you want more reading.

[SidDithers]

149. Thanks. I'll try and find them...

Sid

[MicaelS]

22. My opinion has always been

That if the bomb has been available 6-12 months sooner, or the war lasted 6-12 months longer, then Berlin would have been the first target. Those on the Left who now condemn the use of the bombs on Japan would not have said a thing about their use on Germany. Their attitude would have been that the dirty Fascists got what they deserved.

The Nazis were executing people faster toward the end of the war in the concentration camps because they had perfected the mechanical means of the Holocaust. How many Jews, Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals and others might have been saved if the war in Europe had ended 6-12 months sooner?

Those scientists who worked on the bomb (many of the Jewish refugees from Hitler) did not seem to develop scruples until it was clear that Germany would no longer be the target. They knew for a fact that Berlin, and its civilians would certainly be the main target. They certainly didn’t have any concerns about German civilians being killed.

And for those who cry moral outrage I see no difference between the fire-bombing of Dresden, Tokyo and other Japanese cities and the atomic bombings. Dead is dead.

The Japanese were just as bad as the Nazis. But too many people weep tears for the “victims" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as if the Japanese did nothing to start the war in Asia. The Chinese suffered between 20-35 million casualties during the Japanese invasion of China (1937-1945). The Japanese forced Korean women into sexual slavery as “comfort women” in field brothels where the women were forced to sexually service, as many as 70 Japanese soldiers a day. In other words these women were raped 70 times a day for yeasr on end. Everywhere the Japanese conquered, they acted like barbarians toward Allied POWS and civilians. The Japanese beat, starved, tortured and executed men and women. They used living human beings as living test subjects in their infamous biological warfare Unit 731.

People these days find it easy to take some moral high-ground when they are not involved in a war to the knife for the future of civilization. Hindsight is easy.

Finally, I personally think if Truman had not used the bomb out of moral scruples, and Operation Downfall had gone ahead, then America would have suffered terrible casualties. The truth about the bomb would have come out. And I think Truman would have been impeached.

[jimlup]

26. I don't disagree with your position but

it still provides no justification for the dropping of atomic bombs on cities German or Japanese.

[MicaelS]

35. The justification was to end the war as quickly as possible..

By any means necessary. The war had been going on for nearly 6 years and people in the US wanted it over. Some Generals and Admirals in the field might have had reservations, but when Truman and his top political and military advisors met, there never was any discussion about NOT using the bomb. As soon as it was ready it was going to be used.

[jimlup]

39. Ending the war "as quickly as possible"

doesn't justify immoral actions. It is rather straightforward actually. Truman's diary is available as evidence. It is clear he knew that an alternative course was available. He stands guilty of a major international war crime and will for remain guilty of this crime for eternity. He could have changed the course of the surrender without even additional time.

It remains curious to me that the bombings occurred before the Soviet declaration of war on Japan. Truman knew the Soviets were going to do this. Why did he preempt that with the bombings? If you think about this honestly you will discover the truth of the situation which was that Truman wanted to use the bombs as a way of declaring American power.

[MicaelS]

46. Hell, WWII itself was immoral start to finish.

Wholesale aerial bombing of civilians and unrestricted submarine warfare just to name two. And all major combatants did both.

The only thing that wasn't done was widespread use of poison gas. The Japanese used it against other Asians, but not against the Western Nations. The US had manufactured and stockpiled 7,000 TONS (not pounds) of poison gas for possible use on Japanese cities during Operation Downfall (the Invasion of Japan).

I repeat what I said earlier:

People these days find it easy to take some moral high-ground when they are not involved in a war to the knife for the future of civilization. Hindsight is easy.

[jimlup]

55. Hindsight is easy

but it is also useful. We should aim to learn from history not condemn ourselves because "we didn't live it." That doesn't provide a justification for anything. It is kinda like the oft quoted "There are no atheists in foxholes."

Ah but there are! That too is mythology.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. That's the thing. We've never used an atomic weapon in anger since, and neither has anyone else.

Came close in Korea, but the administration wasn't willing to pull the trigger and sacked MacArthur over his demands to deploy it. He wanted to salt Manchuria with cobalt. 30-50 atomic weapons. Truman fired his ass. (And for insubordination, unofficially)

I'd say the lesson was learned, and the lesson holds true today.

[hobbit709]

70. The only military weapon in history that hasn't been used over and over.

The invention of the machine gun was supposed to make war too terrible. At one time the same was said about gunpowder itself.

[dbackjon]

74. Was firebomning Dresden and Tokyo war crimes?

Truman is not guilty of anything, no matter how much you want to hate America and Americans.

[ET Awful]

98. So, by that logic ("as soon as it was ready it was going to be used", the actual status of Japan's

willingness to surrender was irrelevant. After all, your theory is that it was going to be used regardless.

Sorry, but "The ends justify the means" is not a valid argument.

[MicaelS]

102. It was going to be used unless...

Japan surrendered unconditionally before it was ready. They didn't, so it was used. We dropped one, and they still didn't surrender. We dropped two, and only after Hirohito intervened did they surrender. It they hadn't, then there is some discussion at the link below that number three would have been dropped on Kokura on about August 20th.


http://www.warbirdforum.com/third.htm

[tumtum]

27. Outstanding post.

My dad was a Marine in the Pacific and was slated to be in the first wave of the invasion of the Japanese Home Island, if it wasn't for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I might not be writing this now.

On a side note, it broke his heart when I joined the Army, he was Corp through and through.

[jimlup]

43. If you look honestly

at the history (even given what I suspect are the false justifications) you will discover that this is almost certainly NOT true. The numbers thrown around of American casualties are mythology and don't hold up to even what the military planners were accepting as the worst case.

[lynne]

68. We're in the same boat -

- as my father was finishing up his naval training when the atomic bomb was dropped. He had been told that he - as well as his classmates - were slated for the Invasion of Japan. Like you, if it wasn't for the bombings, I might not be here.

[HardTimes99]

28. An invasion of the Japanese home islands would have cost an estimated 1 million

U.S. casualties and as many if not more Japanese.

Your post is a much-needed dose of historical reality, although I do not think Truman would have been impeached for his unwillingness to use the atomic bomb. I do think he would not have been re-elected in 1948, though.

[ET Awful]

44. Had it been dropped on Berlin, I would say exactly the same thing I say now.

Germany, like Japan, was already defeated. Deliberately targeting a civilian population with a weapon of mass destruction is reprehensible. Engaging in mass killing of a civilian population with a single strike is no different than engaging in mass killing of a civilian population via taking them out to the edge of town and shooting them in the back of the head.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

64. Straw man argument.

I'm against fire bombings regardless of region, as are many other Leftists

[Violet_Crumble]

136. I'd have the same reaction regardless of whether the bomb had been dropped on Berlin or Hiroshima...

I don't know where you got the idea that people on the Left would think German civilians would have deserved that...

Despite yr opinion to the contrary, the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were victims and deserve to be remembered as such just like other victims of the war. You can trot out the same stuff I already know about Japanese atrocities during the war to try to justify yr opinion, but it doesn't fly for me...

And, no. American civilians were never going to have suffered terrible casualties, so that's not a justification for the mass killing of Japanese civilians. It's possible that there could have been large losses of Allied soldiers, but civilians are supposed to be protected in war, while soldiers are combatants. To justify the possible saving of some soldiers by intentionally killing a large number of civilians is wrong. Maybe it wasn't wrong then, but people now shouldn't be saying there's nothing wrong with it...

There was nothing moral in why the US dropped the bomb. They were working out of pragmatism and I'm not going to second guess and say what they should and shouldn't have done. It happened, so that's it. What I'm sick of seeing is people who portray civilians as evil and inhumane monsters who weren't victims and who act as though the US acted with morality as a guiding light. They didn't....

[LordGlenconner]

31. That's certainly one point of view

[Fantastic Anarchist]

57. +1000

[geek tragedy]

2. Curtis LeMay said if the US lost the war, he'd be rightfully hanged as a war criminal.

World War II was a spectacularly savage conflict. Yes, the Nazis and the Japanese were worse than the US and British, but the Allies dealt out plenty of wanton destruction and cruelty themselves.

[burnodo]

9. hmm

I quoted LeMay and was jumped on because he was a far-right lunatic so therefore what he said was automatically suspect

[Octafish]

20. Guy ran for president with George Wallace (D-Alabama) on an Independent ticket in 1968.

Good old boys wanted to bomb Vietnam to the Stone Age.



Something else: LeMay did some shady stuff on Nov. 22, 1963 for which he never answered.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002245664

[Throd]

3. If you're going to caution people not to be assholes, you might want to change your own tone.

"If you think "X", you don't know shit" doesn't still the waters.

[SunSeeker]

6. + 1

[treestar]

4. The Japanese were the aggressors

They killed a lot of people too.

Are you really saying in your seconds paragraph, that anyone is a war is a murderer? And war criminal?

Do you really think the US, UK, France, Western Europe, all other countries involved were not justified in fighting back the Germans and Japanese?

Yes the Japanese had to be stopped. Whether the bomb had to be dropped could be debated, but the Japanese and Germans had to be stopped.

[dbackjon]

8. Exactly

[rwsanders]

11. One book "The Imperial Cruise" by the guy who wrote "Flags of our Fathers"

[ET Awful]

49. Using that as the standard, Iraq would be justified in carrying out

an attack on an American city right?

After all, the US was the aggressor in Iraq.

By your standards, they would be justified in bombing a major US target.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Quite true.

There are a few nations out there that would be morally justified in retaliation, actually.

[treestar]

72. If you insist on seeing it that way.

The answer would be yes, but then they don't have much chance of pulling that off do they?

[ET Awful]

92. So might makes right in your estimation? n/t

[treestar]

100. In a reality way

I suppose it does. If Iraq had WMD and claimed we'd attacked them and had a way to hit us with them or somehow an army that could invade, we couldn't stop them because it's not "right."

Which is why the North Koreans are scarier. They seem closer to having something. And crazy enough to try dropping it on the US somehow.

This is why we worry about whether these countries have WMD. There is no reason not to think they would do the "wrong" thing with them.

Would you have been against the Iraq War had it been true they had WMD?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

108. Word salad.

They didn't have WMDs so its irrelevant. Let me guess, you supported the invasion of Iraq?

[treestar]

130. No.

A hypothetical: suppose it were true they had WMD? Would you support it the war then?

[closeupready]

10. Don't pick fights with innocent bystanders, and then complain when you lose.

[Dawgs]

78. Who are you talking about? Because all of those dead Japanese families were pretty innocent. n/t

[closeupready]

79. The Japanese. They started it.

[Dawgs]

82. Got it. If I'm an innocent person born into a country that has aggressive leaders...

...it's also my fault if they attack another country and I DESERVE TO DIE.

Is that what you're saying?

[closeupready]

84. The Japanese initiated hostilities, and refused to stop.

That's what I'm saying.

[Dawgs]

85. So, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent families was the only option, in your opinion? n/t

[closeupready]

86. That was a decision made by their Emperor's Department of War.

They had a choice.

[Dawgs]

89. Sounds like a great 'stand your ground' argument. 'Don't blame me. They forced me to do it.' n/t

[closeupready]

95. If it comes down to you or me, me wins.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

106. Easy to say.

But when the war comes to your front door I doubt you'll be so giddy to kill.

[Bully Taw]

126. haha!!!

yeah!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

105. Sound logic.

So I guess if a Pakistani who had a family member taken out by a US drone missile kills your family or loved ones you'll be completely ok with it? After all, we started it.


You're sick in the head.

[closeupready]

109. Whatever dewd. We won. You lost. Get over it.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

117. "you lost"

"You lost"? I'm not Japanese (if I were I would I would take offense to that) but I am a human being. I can assure you that it wasn't a "win" for the human race.

If war were to come to your front door I'm sure you would be crying like a baby. Tough guy.

[Jimvanhise]

12. Ask the people of Shanghai what they think of Japan.

China has had a deep hatred of the Japanese since WW2. The Japanese didn't just invade Chinese cities, they slaughtered civilians in unbelievable numbers. In many respects the Japanese were worse than the Nazis. The Nazis victimized the Jews. The Japanese victimized anyone who didn't live in Japan. For example, the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor when no war had been declared. The Japanese also relentlessly abused captured prisoners because they despised the concept of surrender and believed that anyone who surrendered to them was a coward not worthy of decent treatment. Militarism has never been more ruthlessly displayed than by the Japanese in WW2. The Japanese invented suicide bombers. The people on mainland Japan were ready and willing to fight allied invaders with knives and pitchforks if necessary which is why there was such a widespread belief of massive allied casualties if there was a traditional invasion of Japan like the allies had done in Europe. Even after Japan surrendered there were militarists who despised this and the allies occupying Japan could not walk the streets at night because there were Japanese waiting to kill them. The Japanese soldiers were ruthless, and unapologetic. Books have been written about this, including memoirs by survivors of Japanese POW camps.

[HardTimes99]

30. Technical Note: The Nazis victimized anyone they considered "Untermenschen" (sub-human) with

varying degrees of brutality and cruelty. Slavic people were treated horribly by invading and occupying German forces, as were Gypsies, homosexuals ("deviants&quot , socialists and communists, genetically deformed and so on.

Not meaning to minimize the brutality of Imperial Japan but only to make sure the Nazis' brutality is accurately reckoned.

[Violet_Crumble]

138. The Japanese didn't invent suicide bombers...

Their history goes back a long way further than the Kamikaze pilots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack#Historical

btw, when you listed atrocities committed by the Nazis and Japan, you were correct on all except Pearl Harbour. That wasn't an atrocity, it was an act of war aimed at military targets...

Anyway, talk of Kamikazes has made me search out one of my favourite songs from my youth. Enjoy...

[SheilaT]

13. I used to read old Life Magazines.

A couple of different universities I attended had bound issues starting with the first one, which was in November, 1936. I read them sequentially, and made it through March, 1945. It's real clear to me at that point that the war in Europe is almost over, it's just a matter of time.

In the Pacific? That's a totally different story. It's obvious that we're going to have to invade the Japanese homeland, the war there will last another year, maybe even longer, and we'll lose many thousands of American servicemen. Not to mention that the Japanese civilians will fight us to the death also, and some enormous number of them will also die. Basically, it's hard to imagine they'll surrender until nearly every soldier and most of the civilians are dead.

Someday I'll find a place that has Life magazine from those years and I'll find out exactly how the war ended.

Okay, so I really do know how the war ended, but you get the idea. Among the things I was able to figure out from reading those old Lifes was that Germany never put itself on a total war footing. Until the very end, German civilians weren't especially touched by the war. They didn't experience too much in the way of shortages, because Germany happily starved all the conquered populations so their people could eat. Japan was a totally different story. That country was 100% focussed on their war effort, and it showed. They held us off much longer than would have been thought, and were willing to do everything until the bitter end. It is possible that the second bomb did not need to be dropped. I'm no expert in what was going on in diplomatic negotiations between the two. But it does seem true that it was going to take something incredibly dramatic to persuade them to surrender.

What is truly frightening is that as living memory of the two bombs recedes, there are those who would casually drop nuclear bombs in all sorts of places. As terrible as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, they need to remain permanent reminders of why nothing like that should ever happen again.

[Hydra]

15. The bombs were not necessary

They were our way of saying "We're the biggest kids on the block now!"

Funny that an idealist(a stupid one, but still) in Los Alamos blew that plan up.

We nuked a lot of civs because we could, and it was declared a heroic act because we won the war.

"Evil, when we are in its power, is not felt as evil, but as a necessity, even a duty."
Simone Weil

[el_bryanto]

16. this is an interesting post

You want people to be quiet and thoughtful, and then go on to castigate all the people who disagree with you on this issue. Quiet and thoughtfulness isn't a bad idea, but it sounds like you only want one side of the debate to be quiet and thoughtful.

Bryant

[kestrel91316]

29. What's done is done, and it cannot be undone. Shame on ALL of you for turning this into a

flamefest. Today is NOT all about you and your opinions. It is a day to remember the dead and work on making ourselves better people so we never feel the need to do it again.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

137. "feel the need to do it again"

Yeah, and with out debate on this important issue, when we 'feel' the need again, we probably will, again.

[kestrel91316]

143. There's no "debate" here. There IS a whole lot of blaming dead people for

what OTHER people did, and carrying that hatred forward to today to piss on Japanese now. Sounds like a bunch of racist, xenophobic teabaggers today.

War is ALWAYS a failure on two sides.

[Whiskeytide]

34. Every analysis of war should look at both sides...

... to try and understand the perspectives, and the person on the receiving end of an act will always perceive it differently that the person on the delivering end. But there is no real question in my mind that both Germany and Japan were controlled by their military leaders, and they were generally not humanitarians. They invaded other countries, and committed unspeakable acts against millions of civilians. Many in the US - including a lot of leadership here - resisted entry into the conflicts until PH. That was a direct attack on the US, and we were then at war whether we wanted to be or not. The wars had to be ended after that. How that was done can be debated. But they had to end. You can interpret that as a "they deserved it" if you wish. I think of it more as a situation where we had to take action. We made some mistakes. We gave birth to the MIC. We sometimes prioritized the wrong things. But we had to act. Overall, I think we did the best we could with the hand we were dealt.

[Phillyindy]

37. And why did Japan attack...

...the US (PH)? We're they bored?

[AtheistCrusader]

45. In 1852 we taught them how to be an expansionist imperial force.

They were a feudal shogunate, minding their own business until we put a gun to their heads in the name of open trade, and in doing so, taught them how to turn around and do the same to other nations. We put them on the path to the very war we had to fight against them. Ushered in the Meiji Restoration. They set upon Korea, just as we set upon the Philippines, and we had an informal 'agreement' to stay out of each other's imperial playgrounds.

Problem is, eventually empires bump into each other, and bad things happen.

[Bonobo]

47. Yes, trace it back to Commodore Perry.

He busted open Japan so the US could...wait for it... kill whales more easily.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Didn't learn our lesson.

Precisely 100 years later, we kicked over the government of Iran.

Who knows where that path will lead...

[ET Awful]

53. You really don't know?

I'll give you a hint . . . it wasn't unprovoked.

I'll give you another hint - Japan needed oil that was blocked by a US embargo (while the US purported to be neutral).

If a nation blocked all US access to a vital resource, how would the US react?

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Phillyindy is asking a leading question.

He or she most certainly knows the answer. It's a way of pointing out a truth.

[Whiskeytide]

69. But why did the US adopt...

... such policies in the pacific? Why did we set up the embargo and other policies in the face of Japanese imperialism? Maybe we can MMQ the US policies, but they were hardly unprovoked either. Japan was, unquestionably, seeking to control the pacific militarily and economically. We tried policies that were short of war, and they started shooting. I'm sorry, but that's the way I see it.

If a nation blocked our access to a vital resource we needed to support our efforts to colonize South America and Canada, perhaps we should re-think our strategy a little. If we decide to start a fight instead of backing down, I don't think we'd be justified in being outraged that someone fought back.

[ET Awful]

114. Yet the US did nothing in the face of British imperialism in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Why take action against Japan but not the UK?

[closeupready]

116. We DID take action against the UK - in 1776.

[ET Awful]

129. Irrelevant. You made the argument that the reason the US imposed an oil embargo against

Japan was to halt their empire in the 20th century.

What happened 150 years prior is not at issue.

Additionally, the US was not a colony of Japan opposing taxation without representation.

[Whiskeytide]

131. Sorry. Had to work for a while...

... You're right. I didn't say the US was without hypocrisy or inconsistency. But British imperialism was more about acquiring resources and "making the world British". Atrocities were committed by British troops if I recall my history, but nothing on the scale of that inflicted by the Japanese. It was a different culture in play.

But that still begs the question. Regardless of the policies leading up to the war - which we can certainly debate, second guess and criticize in hindsight - Japan attacked us and started the shooting war. It had to be finished one way or another, and at a cost of many lives. Truman chose to let that be Japanese lives rather than US Marines, Airman and Seaman. I cannot say he made the wrong choice among the shitty choices he had.

[ET Awful]

132. The British were killing huge numbers of innocent civilians in places like India.

On the same scale? Nope. Does it matter if was on the same scale? Nope.

The only reason the US didn't do anything to the UK is because they were our "allies."

See, if your friends do something, it's okay. If someone your friend doesn't like does something, it's an atrocity.

Guess who else the US didn't do anything to halt during the same time period? Joe Stalin.

[Whiskeytide]

144. That's politics, my friend...

... and though unfortunate, it is the way it is. I think all nations have an inclination to look the other way, depending on the relationships they have with those involved. But its still, in the end, a "what is my interest in the matter?" analysis. It sucks, but its true.

What the British did in India didn't really affect US interests. Neither did Stalin's crimes. Hitler was screwing with all of our interests in Europe. The Japanese aligned with Hitler, and were screwing with our interests in the pacific.

For a while, we tried to get away with a strategy to supply the forces opposing Hitler, and tried to slow Japan with an embargo. Then, Japan hit us in the face. We got involved in both wars, and had to find a way to end them. The bomb was ultimately the way Truman chose to try and do that, and I believe the bomb was originally targeted for Berlin before it fell to the Russians. So, we had the bomb, and we still had this war going on in the pacific. Drop a couple of bombs and kill a lot of Japanese civilians, or invade the Japanese islands and kill a lot of Japanese civilians and American servicemen.....

Just out of curiosity, what do you think we should have done differently - both with regard to getting into the war, and getting out of it? And how would our different actions have stopped Hitler or the Japanese - assuming you think they needed to be stopped? And how many of us might not be here if 1 million US servicemen had been lost in an invasion in 1945?

I have to go, but I'll check in tomorrow.

[Whiskeytide]

58. IMO...

... It was primarily because we were viewed as the only real obstacle to the Japanese military's economic control of the pacific. But as is always the case, there were many, many reasons that went into the eventual decision. And some can be argued to have been because of our actions and/or policies in Indochina and elsewhere in the pacific (which is what I'm sure your getting at).

But that doesn't change the fact that they had invaded China and other countries. They were preparing to invade Indochina/Philippines. And they DID attack PH. After that, we had to do something - poor policy decisions leading up to that point notwithstanding.

We can argue this to death, I suppose. And you would likely find I agree with you on a lot of it. But at the end of the day, I believe both Germany and Japan threw the first real, out in the open, military punches. They could not have done so without expecting a fight. I don't blame the people of either nation, but their leaders made some poor choices and took poor risks, and suffered consequences. We certainly had - and still have - some shitheads on our side too (see Bush Doctrine, for a recent example), but that doesn't relieve the axis powers of blame. JMHO.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. And both made civilians targets, deliberately.

Ask India or China how they felt about us dropping the bomb. Especially ask someone alive at the time of WWII, how they felt.

The civilian death tolls were so high, they cease being people, and just become meaningless abstract numbers.

[Whiskeytide]

67. That's right...

... I was born in the 60s. But I have read countless books over the years that focused on or included first hand accounts of the atrocities committed against civilians by the Japanese military. Horrific. And we all know what the Germans were doing with their ovens! I have NEVER read any account that said "things were not as bad as some make them out to be".

I think some folks don't understand that you can feel remorse and shed tears for the loss of humanity caused by the bombs, but not feel guilt for the decision to use them. It was a decision made under less than ideal circumstances, but one that had to be made. The alternatives were no less horrific.

[dbackjon]

76. Well said

[joshcryer]

140. When one tries to minimize the holocaust, they're discredited.

Japanese war crimes, on the other hand, get turned around and made into a discussion about American war crimes and Ally war crimes.

The fire bombing of Toyko killed more people than all the bombs dropped on Berlin, Dresden and Hamburg combined.

[Whiskeytide]

141. Right on all counts...

... But my dad's generation never really forgot what the Japanese military (not people) did, and he didn't tolerate any apologies for using the bombs.

I think people try so hard to see things in black and white, right and wrong. In reality, the world is very gray. There are skeletons in everyone's closet Some more than others, maybe, or bigger perhaps, but all nations have failed to take the moral high ground on occasions. The US is no exception.

Truman did what he felt was the right thing, given all of the circumstances, and considering all of the shades of gray. Personally, don't think his decision is one of our skeletons.

[joshcryer]

148. One thing missing is the Geneva Conventions didn't protect civilians.

Back then civilians were seen as instrumental toward the war industry. It was, after all, total war. It wasn't until after WWII that civilians were protected, in 1949.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. The book 'Hiroshima' by John Hersey told me everything I needed to know about the justification

to use the bombs.

War is hell. In war, you are going to get dirty. Better to not go to war, if possible.


It was an awful thing, but what's done is done, and it's barely a footnote on the butcher's bill from that war. Let's just learn our lesson and never do it again, ok?

[The Link]

48. Completely justified.

Japan deserved it.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

118. Tell me more.

What did the children do to deserve their skin being melted off their bodies? Do we deserve it for being foreign aggressors? Do your loved ones deserve it because of our drone missiles and illegal occupations?

[hunter]

51. The USA was in a big hurry to test the bombs on living cities before the war ended.

That's all there is too it.

Our capacity to produce these things was huge, enough to destroy both Germany and Japan, while scaring the hell out of the Soviets.

But the Nazi war machine collapsed before we could use the bomb there.

The plan to invade the Japanese homeland was a deception from the moment the guys at Los Alamos calculated their plutonium bomb would work. The actual plan was to drop nuclear bombs on Japan until their war machine was extinguished. There were many more bombs in the pipeline, literally tons of plutonium in production.

After Japan surrendered, the plutonium production reactors at Hanford were shut down briefly to rework them for "Cold War" use. Shortcuts and problems that were considered acceptable risks during the war were not so acceptable in times of an uneasy "peace." But once these safety upgrades were made plutonium production resumed.

"The bomb saved American lives" is bullshit myth building.

U.S. leaders knew they had the ultimate weapon and chose not to tip their hand. In 1950 the U.S.A. "retired" 120 (!!!) Mark III "Fat Man" bombs of the sort that was dropped on Nagasaki. The USA had created, during the war, a weapon that would have destroyed both Japan and Germany. In some ways humanity was lucky only one of these plutonium weapons was used in warfare.

I knew a woman who survived the fire bombing of Dresden. She lost her mother, her dad was a German naval officer who survived the war. She'd suffered severe malnutrition as a child. She was my mom's age, but always had health problems. When I think about the horrors of war, I think about her. Like my mom she was just a little girl during the war. Most of those who suffer in war are entirely innocent.

Nobody "deserves" to have fire bombs or atomic bombs dropped on them.

The decision to use the atomic bombs on Japan was disgusting.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

56. It was totally unjustified.

Despite all the historical revisionism.

[ProfessorGAC]

59. One Can Argue There Is Revisionism In Both Directions

Taken things out of the context of the time knowing what we all know is still revising the sentiments and the decision making triggers of the past.
GAC

[whathehell]

93. Thank you. n/t

[Rex]

71. Wars are state sanctioned mass murders.

When two or more nations decide to become serial killers, without it being illegal or immoral - based on it being 'the other guy' that is causing grievances.

IOW, war is insanity.

[Dawgs]

80. Amazing that so many here are defending the killing of so many innocent people. n/t

[Rex]

83. Yes, you know how DU works. Someone has to be right and someone else

has to be wrong...even over insane things like war. How about this, there is almost never a justification for nations going to war. It should always be the very last solution and even then should be avoided at all costs if possible.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

104. It is amazing.

Unfortunately this mentality exists all around the globe. Which is why the elites can murder, rape and pillage and they will always have a base of people who support it or rationalize it. We can be a sick species.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

121. Not just defend.

But to callously mock the dead by saying "get over it" or "we won you lost". I don't agree with the "it was tragic but it had to be done" defense but at least it shows some remorse or humanity.

However the amount of "progressives" saying "fuck them" or "they started it" to defend the brutal murder of children is astounding. It shows you why it so easy to take this country to war. There are so many people diseased with nationalism that they're willing to kill and bomb just about anyone. After all they're perfectly safe in their American suburbs.

[RedCappedBandit]

90. Well said, Bonobo

[Rex]

112. And starting now, every year I'm going to post this;

[Catherina]

115. And every year we see the same bullshit apologetics

with the same tired, recycled and discredited story lines.

Rec'd.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

119. Nationalism is a disease.

Anything that can make someone justify the brutal murder of children is a sickness. The Japanese imperialist machine was diseased but so are we.

[closeupready]

120. Speak for yourself.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

122. The diseased often don't know it.

I'm not speaking for you, you've done enough of that already. Sorry if the truth hurts, maybe that's some tiny speck of a conscience trying to get through.

[Dawgs]

123. Thank you. I personally have never understood nationalism/patriotism.

Unjust war and killing of innocence is wrong no matter where you were born or live.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

125. Its a good tool for the powers that be.

Spread the disease of nationalism and you can get people to do and support almost anything. Vietnam, Iraq, people only come to their senses after its too late.


We can invade and bomb anyone we want and we're right and justified, but as soon as the war comes to us we scream and yell. It doesn't make sense. But then again neither does nationalism.

[Th1onein]

128. Thank you, Bonobo!

[joshcryer]

139. I acknowledge American war crimes.

I was taught about them as I grew up and they are widely detailed.

Sadly, Japan still has reluctance teaching of its war crimes.

This is in contrast to Germany who makes it clear that the holocaust existed and drives the point home admirably.

If a state commits war crimes it is necessary for that state to educate its citizens on those crimes so that those citizens will not be willing to commit them on that scale again. Everyone posting about the bomb is well educated on its destructive power and I don't know of anyone who thinks that they're a particularly useful weapon to detonate outside of the context in which they were originally used. Indeed, War Tard makes a powerful argument as to why not using nukes is all they're good for.

All Empires fall. No Empire lasts forever. And when Empires fall they tend to do so loudly and reluctantly.