 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
And it certainly bothers me that they made sure to pick pristine cities thus far unaffected by the intense firebombings that most of the other Japanese cities were subjected to. Like it or not, there was some sick puppies in the military (as there are in every military), who wanted to see how much damage these bad boys could do.
|
It makes no sense to target what's already flattened and leave standing what's still standing (and producing stuff to use against you.)
quote:
And also... there WAS a huge amount of racism towards the Japanese. It was a racist war on both sides. Take a look at the cartoon "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" and you'll see what I'm talking about... a study was done on US troops, and it was discovered that on average, an American soldier in the European theater felt bad about killing his enemy. In the Pacific theater, it was just the opposite. Every time one was killed, the soldier wanted to kill more. On the average... this is not to say every soldier was like that. But this also has a lot to do with the ferocity of the fighting in addition to racist opinions of the day. |
Of course. From the surprise attacks at Pearl and the Phillipines, making 200 civilian construction workers on Wake Island come out in groups of 20, dig their own mass grave, then stand in front of it to be executed, to what we knew of Japanese conduct in China, to the Bataan death march, on and on, everything we knew about the way they fought, and especially the way they treated prisoners, led us to hate and fear them. Wounded Japanese soldiers would try to kill unarmed medics who tried to help them, so pretty quickly the only thing you gave a wounded Japanese was a .45 to the head.
If you'd been there, fighting them the way they fought, it wouldn't be long before you'd cheer every one of the bastards dead, as that was one less that would be coming after you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I think more lives were saved in the end with the bombs being droped then if they were not. YOu have to rebmember that the Millitary of Japan was not going to give up, and even after the two bombs were droped tryed to take the government over but failed. Also the millitary was getting the people of Japan as a whole to fight off any invasion, even little kids.
If the US invade Japan with ground troops millions on both sides would have died.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Meldor
Yes, it is always interesting to watch people debate the choices of the past based on the thoughts of today.
At the time the bombs were dropped, atomic power was considered the great technology that was going to turn the planet into a paradise. There were no worries about radiation (we had really done any studies, so most things were guesses). There was no cold war with nuclear brinkmanship to make us fear the weapons.
Everyone keeps mentioning Dresdon, but the same thing was occurring in Japan as well. Prior to the invasion, the Japanese cities would have been "prepped" by constant and relentless bombing. The thread yesterday about using "firebombs" on military targets is nothing. We were dropping them on cities we knew were built in a large part out of wood. The idea was to inflict as much damage and as many casualties as possible. Civilians weren't considered off limits. They contributed to the war efforts and so were legit targets.
The big question about the bombs wasn't to use them or not because they were nuclear,, no one at the time gave a royal rats rear about that (although some thought that the explosion could start a chain reaction). It question was the amount of fissible material on-hand and if this would waste what little we had. The Japanese also had some intel on how much we had as well. Some factions didn't think we had enough for more than the test bomb and one other. The fact that the US dropped two bombs in quickly, indidcated to them that we had a lot more material than they thought.
|
This is bull. Americans even then were not monsters. We very reluctantly bombed German cities - only at the insistence of the Brits. According to Marshall, we agreed to bomb Dresden because the Soviets insisted.
But, when the news of what happened at Dresden leaked out, Americans were appalled. Even Churchill began to doubt Bomber Harris's strategy.
In Japan, we firebombed cities, yes. But ONLY after dropping leaflets days before warning that we were going to do so.
We did the same thing at Hiroshima. I am not sure about Nagasaki, as that was a secondary target. However, our targets were infrastructure, not civilians. We did our best - especially after Dresden - to avoid civilian casualties while conducting strategic bombing.
Now to the necessity of the bombing, clearly it was not necessary. The Japanese were trying to surrender even before we dropped the bomb and even before the USSR declared war. The supposition that the Japanese would not have surrendered without using the bomb is false.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
I think more lives were saved in the end with the bombs being droped then if they were not. YOu have to rebmember that the Millitary of Japan was not going to give up, and even after the two bombs were droped tryed to take the government over but failed. Also the millitary was getting the people of Japan as a whole to fight off any invasion, even little kids.
If the US invade Japan with ground troops millions on both sides would have died. |
If we used the bomb, we should have it a military target that would have minimized civilian casualties. Truman's speech to the American people emphasized that we had struck a miltary-industrial complex. He did not mention that this was in the middle of a heavily populated city. It is clear that even Truman could not admit the truth of what we were doing to the American people even considering the true hatred we had at that time toward the Japanese.
Our behavior in 1945 borders on the bizzare. We bombed Dresden which was not a military target. Until that time, we had not conducted terror bombing except on two limited occasions at the insistence of the British.
As I mentioned before, we firebombed Japanese cities - but only after fair warning through dropped leaflets. But, the way we dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki seemed more intended to kill civilians than to knock out industry.
If the choice is between dropping the two bombs and an extended war where millions would have lost their lives on both sides, the choice seems clear. But, I still maintain that the Japanese would have surrendered prior to an invasion - particularly after the USSR had declared war and made their position in China, Manchuria and Korea untenable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
No, that is incorrect.
In order to get taken action from the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, he had to be led to believe that the Emperor approved the diplomatic instruction, but it was a mid level foreign ministry type, with a mid-level imperial household staff type who kept the emperor's seal, and some communication types. All of the actual meetings with the emperor in attendance were recorded with very careful minutes by the imperial household staff, and especially any meetings in which the emperor spoke or gave directives.
Some advisors argued to the emperor of the need to approach the allies about seeking peace, but this was in the form of routine meetings and setting forth views. They were (a) counterargued by war faction members, (b) marked as possible traitors by the Kenpeitai, and (c) marked for elimination.
The emperor himself normally never did more than preside in a nominal way at such meetings, and rarely even spoke. He was, after all, a god, and not in charge of anything at all except in name.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Why do people point out Nagasaki and Hiroshima as ultimate major atrocities? The Allies firebombed Dresden using conventional means and killed more innocent civilians. In terms of atrocities in WW2, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are low on the list. |
The atom bomb did, and still, scares the **** out of everyone. It can simply ELIMINATE anything in a large radius. It gives cancer. The general consensus is that you don't **** with the a-bomb. Never before could one pack such a destructive punch in one weapon, and the ratio of destroy to cost makes it even more amazing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
If we used the bomb, we should have it a military target that would have minimized civilian casualties. Truman's speech to the American people emphasized that we had struck a miltary-industrial complex. He did not mention that this was in the middle of a heavily populated city. It is clear that even Truman could not admit the truth of what we were doing to the American people even considering the true hatred we had at that time toward the Japanese.
Our behavior in 1945 borders on the bizzare. We bombed Dresden which was not a military target. Until that time, we had not conducted terror bombing except on two limited occasions at the insistence of the British.
As I mentioned before, we firebombed Japanese cities - but only after fair warning through dropped leaflets. But, the way we dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki seemed more intended to kill civilians than to knock out industry.
If the choice is between dropping the two bombs and an extended war where millions would have lost their lives on both sides, the choice seems clear. But, I still maintain that the Japanese would have surrendered prior to an invasion - particularly after the USSR had declared war and made their position in China, Manchuria and Korea untenable. |
What millitary targets where there that would have had a major impact? Also the Millitary wanted to fight to last man, untill everyone of them was dead and they killed as many Americans and Soviets they could in the process.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
My laziness prompts me to ask (or possibly repeat) - what if the first bomb was dropped in the mountains, say just in view of Tokyo or Osaka? Not my own question, but I'd like to hear what y'all around here think of that scenario
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Although absolutely adorable and beyond kind today - Indeed, the Japanese were batsh*t insane scumbags back then.
The US could probably have magically lifted a major unpopulated island out of the ocean and sent it crashing down in the mountains without convincing them. Perhaps smaller cities were in order to be hit (ethically), but then you're not really getting much bang for your buck out of an extremely limited supply of new technology - against a populace that were seemingly eager to fight it out until the last mother and child
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Yes. He thinks the US should have politely asked the Japanese armed forces to settle into a single industry rich area which they could drop the bomb on, instead.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-08-2003 05:37
to that, and to the dropping of the second bomb too, of course.
|