06-08-2002 21:53									#1
	Hiroshima Remembered. Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

57 years ago, the city of Hiroshima was hit by the only use of an atomic weapon against an enemy target in history. Over 220,000 deaths are attributed to the dropping of the atomic bomb on the city and its aftermath.

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Ike on Ike," Newsweek, 11/11/63

	06-08-2002 21:58									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I don't think Truman had a choice and have to disagree with Ike, the Japanese were ready to fight to the death and American forces would of had to land on Japan itself.

	06-08-2002 22:00									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

3 days later, the city of Nagasaki was hit as well, so it was not the only use of that weapon.

	06-08-2002 22:02									#4
	Suffering from ads?

Arguments can and have been made from both sides of the case, but one does conclude that, at least in my view, 'twas regretfully necessary. It is not nice that the people had to die, but it was war.
And, sorry to be pedantic, but Nagasaki was bombed also.

	06-08-2002 22:04									#5
	Remove this text

Bah, up yours Ecth--I was referring to the bombings in general as being the only use. Thbbbbbbbllfffffft.

Fez: Most military leaders of the time disagreed with that assessment, including Eisenhower, MacArthur, Admiral Leahy, General Spaatz, General Clarke, and many others. Truman certainly had a choice. He didn't bomb them to end WWII, he bombed them to scare Stalin and start the Cold War.

	06-08-2002 22:05									#6
	Re: Hiroshima Remembered. Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov the only use of an atomic weapon against an enemy target in history

You're forgetting Nagasaki.


The damaged inflicted upon the population of Hiroshima was horrible. But the bombing was necessary because it gave the Japanese the excuse the needed to "endure the unendurable" and surrender. Without it, they would have fought on.

My dad would have been among the troops to invade the Japanese home island. (Operation Olympia?) We now know the Japanese had deduced exactly where the invasion was to take place and was putting everything it had there. The invasion would have been a bloodbath.

Truman did the right thing.

	06-08-2002 22:06									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Simon, I find the arguments that it was "necessary" don't hold water, especially since Japan had already communicated its willingness to surrender so long as the Emperor could remain. Since that is indeed what happened after the surrender, it is unfathomable as to why the bombs needed to be used.

	06-08-2002 22:07									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Boris that is your opinion but this is the one I hold. Truman in my opinion did not have a choice.

	06-08-2002 22:20									#9
	Suffering from ads?

The bombing was just, albeit horrid.

Why was it just?
1. Rape of Nanking.
2. Occupation of Korea.

those things ALONE make it so that the Japanese deserved some sort of karmic punishment.

do i feel pity for the japanese civilians caught in the blast and the aftermath? yes, i do.
do i think that atomics are a curse bestowed upon an idiotic human race? yes, i do.
do i think truman had a choice? yes, i do.
do i fervently hope that no atmoics will ever be used again? yes, i do.
do i feel that japan deserved them? yes, i do.

germany was lucky-- i feel had the bombs been ready for germany, and used there, i would feel much the same way.

but they weren't. japan was not so lucky. they got hit. but they deserved it.

	06-08-2002 22:23									#10
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Simon, I find the arguments that it was "necessary" don't hold water, especially since Japan had already communicated its willingness to surrender so long as the Emperor could remain. Since that is indeed what happened after the surrender, it is unfathomable as to why the bombs needed to be used.

One is of the view that the Emperor should not have been allowed to come out smelling of innocent roses, but it is a moot point, as it was realpolitik. (Whilst it is not an apt or fair comparison, one just feels like slipping in the devil's advocate question of "What if Germany offered unconditional surrender in early 1945 with the only condition being the survival of the Fuhrer?". Different situation, but it holds that the survival of the Emperor was not a negotiated condition, but rather something that the Allies gave to the Japanese in a gesture of magnamity.)
Nevertheless, there was a great deal of manuevering about the issue.
It is true that warding off the Soviets was one 'beneficial' side effect of the bombing, but it was not the primary motivation.
There was also the notion of punishing Japan for their aggression and atrocities, and the thousands of POWs being held in Japan in appalling conditions.

As long as it saved one Allied life, it was worth it. Now that may be a nasty statement in this day and age, but coming at the bloody end of a very bloody war, it is apt. It has also had the effect of (at least up to now) subduing any militaristic currents in Japanese society or politics.

It is easy to ascribe contemporary morality to such a situation in hindsight, but we cannot fully understand the feeling/mood of the time, or the considerations facing Truman. We can attempt to do so, but not the whole way, unless someone here is his reincarnation.
It is not an issue that can be dismissed in a few lines.

	06-08-2002 22:27									#11
	Increase the size of your Attachments

punishment for the people, Q Cubedm, for civilians? If that is just in your eyes, then what happened on September 11 is exactly as just, in the same way even. Why?

1. Attack on Libya
2. Attack on Iraq
3. Attack on Sudan

and so on, wherever arab population had to suffer from US interventions...

but that's not the way a western country should think and work

	06-08-2002 22:43									#12
	Got spare money?

Times have changed. Back in WWII, civilians were routinely made targets by ALL sides in the conflict. It was accepted and expected. Fortunately, times have changed, and it is no longer considered acceptable. We have all grown, which we can be thankful for. I don't think a comparison between now and then is really an apples to apples comparison.

Rich

	06-08-2002 22:50									#13
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: punishment for the people, Q Cubed, for civilians?

i said i felt pity and grief for those in the blast, didn't i? i still think it was a horrific weapon, that atomic blast-- and the fact that it was used on civilians makes america almost the bad guy here.

but let's get one thing straight. i think it's just, yes, but i think it's just only in a karmic sense. i don't think two wrongs will ever make one right, but the right wrongs can deter future wrongs.

you want me to feel sorry for the japanese as a whole? they, who desecrated the entire nation of korea by trying to stamp out our culture for forty years? they, who used our young women as battle front whores, our young men as cannon fodder, and our children and elderly as slaves in their own country? the death toll in korea during the years of the occupation is far greater than that of both bombs combined-- blast and aftermath.
and it was the japanese who performed the atrocity known as the rape of nanking. iirc, nanking, population ~800k, was captured by the japanese and looted, sacked, and pillaged for a period of four months or so-- and during that time, approximately 400k perished. men were carted off for mass executions, women for gangraping and other odious crimes.
my pity for the japanese here stretches only so far.

quote: If that is just in your eyes, then what happened on September 11 is exactly as just, in the same way even. Why? 1. Attack on Libya 2. Attack on Iraq 3. Attack on Sudan and so on, wherever arab population had to suffer from US interventions...

i ask you... did we, as americans or as any other western power EVER do anything like that? did we cart off arab women to be our sex slaves? did we use arab men as cannon fodder? did we sack and pillage a city in that same manner?

i can't think of one instance when we did that. sept 11 was not karmic. it was a terrorist attack.

hiroshima was karmic. it was brutal and horrid, but just.

nagasaki was overkill.

	06-08-2002 22:52									#14
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Rah: If that were the case, how would you explain the outrage by the Americans over the Lusitania disaster in 1915? Certainly that should have been expected as just a part of war.

I don't think the targeting of civilians was expected at all. After all, the Geneva Convention had already explicitly condemned such a thing.

The "they deserved it" line is also appalling. Certainly those who perpetrated war crimes like in Nanking deserved punishment, but innocent civilians? No way.

I'm not trying to exculpate Japanese atrocities at all. But the fact that the Japanese committed them doesn't make it "right" or "fair" that we, who claimed to be better, did the same thing. Same thing goes for Dresden.

	06-08-2002 22:55									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Chernobyl remembered (mugwort)

	06-08-2002 22:56									#16
	Got spare money?

I have thoroughly researched the Japanese at that point in time, and any assertation that they were about to surrender is revisionist historian bullshit. The armed forces were going to fight to the death and only the hand of the emperor was going to stop them (and did).

Scaring the Russians? We dropped the bomb more or less to stop the Russians from claiming all of China and half of Japan.

I spit on the man who says it wasn't necessary and the Japs were going to surrender. Did it occur to you that surrender had never been their motto from the get-go? Suicide was preferable to surrender.

If you want to point fingers at the body count, look at Dresden or Tokyo's firebombings which caused obscenely higher deathtolls than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Both cities were not chosen because the U.S. wanted to kill innocent civilians, they were chosen because they were both extremely important nodes (and production centers) for the Army and Navy of the Imperial Japanese Forces.

	06-08-2002 22:58									#17
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I think civilian deaths became common with World War II due to the advances in aerial technology. Combatants were now able to drop bombs and whatnot directly on targets in cities and it was inevitable that civilian deaths would follow.

Gatekeeper

	06-08-2002 22:58									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: The "they deserved it" line is also appalling. Certainly those who perpetrated war crimes like in Nanking deserved punishment, but innocent civilians? No way.

i didn't say those civilians deserved it per se. i said the japanese people as a whole deserved it through karma. i think that the horrors of the atomic weapons could have been avoided-- but the fact that they weren't is something that we have to deal with.
how can you punish the tens of thousands of troops who occupied korea and nanking? the logistics of it all are mindboggling.

i'm not denying that the hiroshima and nagasaki were appalling. all i'm saying is that they don't deserve as much pity and grief as they seem to want.

quote: I'm not trying to exculpate Japanese atrocities at all. But the fact that the Japanese committed them doesn't make it "right" or "fair" that we, who claimed to be better, did the same thing. Same thing goes for Dresden.

neither am i exculpating the americans for using those bombs. their moral advantage from germany was lost on those two days. but that doesn't change the fact that japan as a nation did deserve such treatment.

	06-08-2002 23:02									#19
	Inflate your Upload Space

What sense does it make that there is Karma on a national scale? Karma doesn't know national borders, AFIK. It only works on an individual level.

Hell, I don't believe in Karma anyway...

	06-08-2002 23:10									#20
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

1915 was not WWII. And besides, that incident was PRed to death to get the US behind the war effort. That outrage was carefully and deliberately orchastrated.

I don't care what the Geneva convention said, look at civilian casualties in WWII on all sides. It was accepted.
Otherwise, all aerial bombardment would have been halted. Fortunately, as mentioned above, advances in technology have given us the option minimize civilian casualties. Times are different.

Rich

	06-08-2002 23:12									#21
	Full PM-box? Change here!

i believe what comes around goes around. japan was by far one of the harshest colonialists in asia, and possibly the world.

they treated groups of people like sh1t. and it went, and it came back to them.

and now am i supposed to feel sorry for each and every one of them when few western breaths have been spent in any attempt to make the japanese apologize for the atrocities they did in asia? when almost no word has been uttered in public about the destruction of nanking and the occupation of korea?

am i supposed to believe that japanese lives are worth more than korean and chinese lives simply because they were vaporized, burned, or irradiated by atomics?

i feel sorry for them, i do. but not enough to make me believe that they didn't deserve it in some way.

	06-08-2002 23:54									#22
	Support Apolyton

Go ahead, live in denial if it makes you feel better .
No country deservers that kind of treatment. No matter what. Justifying it by saying war is dirty, war is hell, it stopped the war is... excuses to feel better in my opinion. And every man knows it deep in their hearts.

	06-08-2002 23:58									#23
	Support Apolyton

Not every man. Some believe, myself included, that it did stop the war and saved more people's lives. We're all entitled to our opinions. Your's is no more important than mine.

	07-08-2002 00:04									#24
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

True true. Well.. I too think it did stop the war. Stopping war is good.. But I think it was a bad way to stop it.
Bah, I know too little about this subject, I might just as well keep my mouth shut.

	07-08-2002 00:07									#25
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Yes, I agree that there might have been a better way. But in war, answers are not always clear or easy. At least this one worked.

	07-08-2002 00:08									#26
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Go ahead, live in denial if it makes you feel better .

i should live in denial? you seem to be...

quote: No country deservers that kind of treatment. No matter what.

no country deserves to have its children shipped off to be killed for no reason, or to be used as whores.

quote: Justifying it by saying war is dirty, war is hell, it stopped the war is... excuses to feel better in my opinion.

war is dirty, war is hell, there's no bones about it. it's a pity it had to happen, but i feel very little grief for them.

quote: And every man knows it deep in their hearts.

and every man knows it deep in their hearts that not pressuring japan to apologize for their crimes and atrocities is wrong.
or they should.
except, see, nobody knows. or cares, it seems, not in the west.

	07-08-2002 00:10									#27
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Yep. It might have been the right choice, maybe more people would have died. Something we'll never know.
Damn. Now I'm not sure if it was the right decision or not.. I'll stop figuring it out.

	07-08-2002 00:12									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

q cubed, but two wrongs doesn't make it right

	07-08-2002 00:37									#29
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

pekka, see an earlier post.

i know two wrongs don't make a right.

but i think the right wrong can stop future wrongs.

does that make sense?

i think hiroshima was just barely enough to pay for japan's sins. nagasaki was gratuitous.

but the fact that the west--and japan-- refuse to acknowledge the sheer brutality and cruelty of the japanese occupations... while on the other hand heaping loads and loads of pity and grief on the victims of hiroshima...

you will understand, then, why i am a bit miffed?

let's take a look at nanking. originally, the city held only about 250k; during the 30s, when japan was vigorously attacking china, the number swelled to over 1 million.
then nanking fell, with about 800k stuck there.
in the four months of japanese occupation, fron dec 1937 to mar 1938, approximately 400k people were murdered by japanese troops-- men were machine gunned in the mass graves, for instance. 80k women and girls were raped, often repeatedly. even conservative estimates place the death and rape toll at 300k+ and 20k+.

hiroshima: 200k. at best, it's still 100k less. at worst, 50% less.

so all the pity we heap upon the "poor" japanese who died there, they are worth twice as much as those nanking chinese? i barely hear any recrimination against the japanese for what they did there. but no, everybody hears about the atomic.

what about the tens of thousands of "comfort women", women snatched from their homeland and forced into prostitution for japanese troops? in some cases, their quota of men to service was as high as 120/d... 70-90% of them became casualties. you never hear about those, now do you? obviously the horror of a daily rape by 120 different men for weeks, if not months on end, is worth less than that of a mercifully quick death from irradiation.

and then the occupation of korea? some estimates place the death toll in just seven years of a forty-year occupation at close to 1m.
and yet nobody hears about it.

tell me again, why should i feel sorry for these japanese?

the atomic stopped their brutal rule. i feel pity for those caught in it, but it only goes so far. flat out, the wrongs of the atomics may not make it right, but those atomics were deserved.

	07-08-2002 00:52									#30
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed in some cases, their quota of men to service was as high as 120/d...

If you include a meage 6 hours of sleep and and hour to eat/hygene per day, that works out to a new man every 8.5 minutes. Somehow, I think that's a bit of an exageration.

I'm not saying that it wasn't brutal. I really think it was horrible, but it does seem a bit inflated.

Rich