 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
and what are those photos supposed to do?
we've seen them. most of us have also seen numerous classics and read numerous recountings; a short list:
black rain/kuroi ame
barefoot gen
hiroshima (hershey)
sadako
...
it was still justified. the loss of life was horrific and bitter, but a) there was no other solution--an invasion would have cost more lives and the total destruction of japan, b) karmic, an unintended retort to all the atrocities that the japanese military committed on korean, chinese, and other civilians (this 'atrocity' was committed by the american military on japanese civilians--which is where the 'karma' arises), c) and warning in hindsight against ever using such weapons again.
it's b) that seems to get me in the most trouble, and so i'll explain it further. many koreans also perished in those two blasts; odds are they wouldn't have been there if they weren't dragged by japanese slavers to those cities to work in the factories.
even so, those two cities visited upon japan horrors that japan visited upon cities like nanking, upon entire nations like korea and manchuria...
much as the destruction of germany was a 'karmic' response to some of what it did to the hebrews, this bomb blast was somewhat of a response to what japan did before and during the war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Q Cubed
and what are those photos supposed to do?
we've seen them. most of us have also seen numerous classics and read numerous recountings; a short list:
black rain/kuroi ame
barefoot gen
hiroshima (hershey)
sadako
...
it was still justified. the loss of life was horrific and bitter, but a) there was no other solution--an invasion would have cost more lives and the total destruction of japan, b) karmic, an unintended retort to all the atrocities that the japanese military committed on korean, chinese, and other civilians (this 'atrocity' was committed by the american military on japanese civilians--which is where the 'karma' arises), c) and warning in hindsight against ever using such weapons again.
it's b) that seems to get me in the most trouble, and so i'll explain it further. many koreans also perished in those two blasts; odds are they wouldn't have been there if they weren't dragged by japanese slavers to those cities to work in the factories.
even so, those two cities visited upon japan horrors that japan visited upon cities like nanking, upon entire nations like korea and manchuria...
much as the destruction of germany was a 'karmic' response to some of what it did to the hebrews, this bomb blast was somewhat of a response to what japan did before and during the war. |
Q Cubed, Revenge? I beleive the attrocities were committed by the Army,not by the people of Japan. This is almost like nuking Baghdad to teach the Iraqi's a lesson, when the evil ones were Saddam and his sons.
As to resistance to surrender, obviously there were two branches of thought on that issue in Japan. One branch were themselves war criminals who knew what was in store for them if they surrendered. The other were actually more concerned about the welfare of Japan.
Now, if there was a successful coup and a Japanese offer to surrender were withdrawn, then perhaps the use of nuclear weapons against non-military targets might have been justified, but only if it were totally clear in advance that this would bring the war to an end.
Dissident, et al., you argue that we impute today's values into the 1940's. I don't think so. I think we, the American people, were quite aware of the immorality of attacking civilians. It is also clear that some (in the military?) were more concerned about winning and could care less about enemy civilians.
But still, the justification for the bomb has to be viewed from a time before it was dropped. They must have known that its use would cause enormous civilian casualties so as to make its use a terror weapon, not just a very effective weapon against military targets. So the question presented is the same question as to whether Dresden was justified.
Did the US leadership really believe that attacking Dresden would cause the Nazi leadership to surrender? This somewhat presumes that the Nazi leadership was more concerned about the fate of Germany than themselves. Since we know the truth, it is quite apparent that Dresden was not justified because nothing would have made Hitler surrender.
Did we know that the use of the A-bomb on civilians would have caused the Japanese to surrender? Given Dresden, I doubt that anyone was sure before the bomb was dropped.
I also believe that we knew of Japanese surrender offers prior to the use of the A-bomb. The surrender offers were conditional. Among the conditions were that the Emperor stay - a condition we eventually accepted.
So, in fact, we used the A-bomb not to get the Japanese to surrender, but to remove some of their conditions. It was not used to avoid an invasion.
Given this, was the use of the A-bomb on cities, intentionally and wantonly killing hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT civilians, justified?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
As to resistance to surrender, obviously there were two branches of thought on that issue in Japan. One branch were themselves war criminals who knew what was in store for them if they surrendered. The other were actually more concerned about the welfare of Japan.
|
That's a very white view. Perhaps you should read Hagakure, and look at Japanese treatment towards those who surrendered, as well as things like the aftermath of Sekigahara, the spring siege of Osaka castle, etc. Or the whole ethos of Chushingura. "They knew they were war criminals" is hysterical to someone who understands the Japanese world view at the time. Hell, there are still memorials to these people at Yasukuni-jinja and other places, and the Japanese by and large have consistently denied they committed war crimes or did anything else wrong, as in their views of the time, they were a "special" race with a living god as emperor, and anything they did to prisoners or others was not even subject to question. Look at the ****ing rape of Nanjing.
quote:
Now, if there was a successful coup and a Japanese offer to surrender were withdrawn, then perhaps the use of nuclear weapons against non-military targets might have been justified, but only if it were totally clear in advance that this would bring the war to an end.
|
There was (a) no offer of surrender; (b) no overture of discussion of surrender by anyone in authority; (c) preconditions to discussion from the gentlemen without authority who made the overtures to neutral ambassadors; (d) no communication from the Soviet government to the US, as the Soviets had their own plans and declared war on August 5, 1945, out of concern that the Japanese would surrender to the US immediately.
quote:
Dissident, et al., you argue that we impute today's values into the 1940's. I don't think so. I think we, the American people, were quite aware of the immorality of attacking civilians. It is also clear that some (in the military?) were more concerned about winning and could care less about enemy civilians.
|
Then why were "we" so hot to relocate "Japs" to internment camps, and why did we take the position that giving them random 7 to 10 days notice to report with one suitcase and whatever they could carry on their back was doing them a favor? There was a regular cottage industry of buzzards going to Issei and Nisei home and business owners, buying what they had for pennies on the dollar, in lieu of it being stolen when the Japanese-Americans had to report to camps. We wanted to stick it to the Japanese, and American newspaper articles, newsreel movies, etc., took a completely different view of the "inscrutible oriental" - this was scarecely 60 years after the original Anti-Chinese leagues, and less than 20 years after the second wave of anti-Asian hostility throughout much of the US.
quote:
But still, the justification for the bomb has to be viewed from a time before it was dropped. They must have known that its use would cause enormous civilian casualties so as to make its use a terror weapon, not just a very effective weapon against military targets. So the question presented is the same question as to whether Dresden was justified.
Did the US leadership really believe that attacking Dresden would cause the Nazi leadership to surrender? This somewhat presumes that the Nazi leadership was more concerned about the fate of Germany than themselves. Since we know the truth, it is quite apparent that Dresden was not justified because nothing would have made Hitler surrender.
Did we know that the use of the A-bomb on civilians would have caused the Japanese to surrender? Given Dresden, I doubt that anyone was sure before the bomb was dropped.
|
Nonsense. Dresden was an open city, with no military assets or production to speak of. Every potential Japanese target had substantial military assets, production facilities, and logistics facilities. They were the best remaining targets outside even more densely populated areas in Tokyo and Osaka.
Using conventional bombing raids, Sendai, Aomori, Kobe, Nagoya, Fukuoka, Shimonoseki, Yokohama, Yokosuka, and large parts of Tokyo and Osaka had already been massively bombed.
quote:
I also believe that we knew of Japanese surrender offers prior to the use of the A-bomb. The surrender offers were conditional. Among the conditions were that the Emperor stay - a condition we eventually accepted.
So, in fact, we used the A-bomb not to get the Japanese to surrender, but to remove some of their conditions. It was not used to avoid an invasion.
Given this, was the use of the A-bomb on cities, intentionally and wantonly killing hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT civilians, justified? |
Speculation with no evidence plus opinion stated as fact forming the basis for rhetorical question = obvious troll. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
I recommend everyone reading that link I gave two posts earlier. It is amazing how history seems to have been rewritten to protect the reputation of Truman. The military leadership at the time were aghast at the use of the bomb - including MacArthur - whose carreer was later trashed by our barbarian president Truman.
If there was anyone who should have been tried for war crimes at the close of the war, it should have been Truman.
Last edited by Ned on 08-08-2003 at 02:58
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I know, I read that too. Still, Dresden is reconstructed and almost as beautiful as it was now, and people keep no hard feelings, well at least the most. We only don't like people, who shrug it away or even say it was justified. |
As you can see from this thread, it is very hard for some Americans to admit they we were wrong.
Just as an aside, I was listening to a talk show some months ago. Newt Gingrich, ex Speaker of the House and a Congressman from Georgia, almost went ballistic when someone mentioned General Sherman. He said he and most Southerners did not even want to talk about Sherman.
The Civil War ended 140 years ago, but the bitterness remains.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I recommend everyone reading that link I gave two posts earlier. It is amazing how history seems to have been rewritten to protect the reputation of Truman. The military leadership at the time were aghast at the use of the bomb - including MacArthur - whose carreer was later trashed by our barbarian president Truman.
If there was anyone who should have been tried for war crimes at the close of the war, it should have been Truman. |
Bullshit. MacArthur was the rabid SOB who stated publicly that he wanted to use the bomb all over Manchuria if the Chinese interfered with American advances to the Yalu, who suggested following up the offensive into the DPRK with an offensive into Manchuria, and MacArthur was the rabid right-wing SOB who later pilloried Truman for not going along with him and for not giving him control of the bomb.
Magic intercepts were frankly not nearly as important as they have been made out to be, except when the Japanese were careless enough to rebroadcast highly sensitive military info on multiple codes. Many operational codes used by the Japanese, including those used by the IJGS, were never broken. In all cases, the magic intercepts broke down into code phrases, which were the subject of interpretation, and which were not universally agreed upon
"Higashi kaze, ame" being the first real biggie. On December 8, there was unanimity as to the meaning, but there sure as hell wasn't before that.
Truman's reputation has been trashed from both sides, but most particularly the right related to Korea, China and communism.
The revisionist history regarding FDR and Truman in WW2 has come from three general directions - the conspiracy theorists and the whole "we had exact knowledge of what the Japanese were doing leading up to Pearl Harbor and we let them do it" being the first, the Dugout Doug fanclub idolization of MacArthur being the second, and the "evil US slaughtering the poor yellow Japanese for (insert reason of your choice here)"
The simple facts are that most of these "histories" use a limited and carefully culled selection of source material, and interpretations of that source material that later turned out to be correct, regardless of whether they were the generally accepted view or interpretation.
The facts from Japanese sources, themselves culled to protect the emperor (edit - the emperor's reputation) from his knowledge of atrocities such as Nanjing and the biowarfare experimentation on prisoners, show the emperor did not authorize any offer of surrender, or negotiations for such. No cease fire was requested, no stand down made, ongoing preparations for home island defense, etc. etc.
Something along the lines of saying "sure go ahead" when a junior member of the imperial household staff says something along the lines of "should we communicate through this channel and ask them what they mean by this, and would they be willing to talk about blah blah blah" is bullshit.
You must have been one of those guys who thought every time the North ****ing Vietnamese wanted to "negotiate" the shape of the conference table, we should sit on our asses and give 'em time to resupply and reorganize their air defenses.
Monky - all I said was we should have waited a bit longer before frying the second city.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 08-08-2003 at 05:34
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
And to you, Sava the Barbarian, I give you the words of Truman's own chief of staff:
In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:
[T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .
[I]n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. (See p. 3, Introduction) |
And from your own link, right above the part you quoted from:
"MILITARY VIEWS
The Joint Chiefs of Staff never formally studied the decision and never made an official recommendation to the President. Brief informal discussions may have occurred, but no record even of these exists. There is no record whatsoever of the usual extensive staff work and evaluation of alternative options by the Joint Chiefs, nor did the Chiefs ever claim to be involved. (See p. 322, Chapter 26) "
So, gee, where the hell was Leahy at the time? Where were his pangs of conscience? And how did "all" the top military leadership oppose something your own link claims they never even discussed? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I know, I read that too. Still, Dresden is reconstructed and almost as beautiful as it was now, and people keep no hard feelings, well at least the most. We only don't like people, who shrug it away or even say it was justified. |
Now, there are no hard feeling against the Americans,
but among the Survivors there are hard feelings against Harris, who was the Father of those Terror Bombings.
I Remember that there were Demonstrations back in 1992 when the Queen inaugurated a Statue of Arthur Harris in London.
It also resulted in Protesters throwing foul tomatoes at the Queen, as she visited Dresden a year later, in 1993 
YouŽd better not imagine, what the Protestors would do to Haris, if he were still alive and would have the audacity to visit Dresden
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joseph
|
 |
Ca. USA
Feb 2000
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.
We can make debates all day long about how many lives were saved or not. The Japanese were not going to surrender unconditionally unless their was a suceessful invasion and the US was not going to give terms. The war had raqed too long and people wanted total victory. They didn't want to leave anything around to come back against them as Europe did in WWI.
The dropping of the bombs shortened the war, of that their can be no question.
Don't try to color the choices made then with your personnal feeling now. You have to look at the picture as they saw it and not as it would be viewed today. |
I was born in 1944, and how many time, have I said the above. My brother was in the War, fighting the Japanese in the P.I.
|
|
| |
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 13:00
|