60th Anniversary of Hiroshima Bombing.

[Skyblade]

"The japaneese were worse than teh germans when it came to treatment of POWs." actually the german treatment of pows is the best out of any country in ww2.

Unless you were Russian.

If we win, we have peace.

Christ, this isn't a hard concept.

And if the Japanese won they'd have peace, what concept exactly? Do you believe Imperial Japan wanted eternal war? The concept that's hard to grasp is the 'killing for peace' concept as it's dished out very selectively by victorious nations. Don't misunderstand me, I was not, am not, against the bombings. It was a weighed military strike which saved GI lives. But dress it up in combats, not a white robe & halo.

Japan couldn't win. We could, and we did. We obtained peace at the minimum loss of human life possible. THAT'S the concept that you are supposed to be realizing. Oh, and don't even suggest that we should have surrendered to end the war.

I haven't tried to give it a white robe or a halo. It was a military strike, and none of us are trying to argue that it was an angelic thing to do. But make no mistake, it ended the war and brought peace, and it did a lot more than just save GI lives. Stop denying that and maybe we'll stop trying to force that idea through your thick skull so hard.

[lordblazer]

"The japaneese were worse than teh germans when it came to treatment of POWs." actually the german treatment of pows is the best out of any country in ww2.

oooo so your saying they treated russian POWs with dignity dude they were in the concentration camps with the jews.So were a few poles.

If anything the USA treated german POWs that came to the states better than its citizens(african americans). MY great grandfather told me when he was on the train getting ready to ship out they woke him up told him all N words are to get out of this car to let the german POWs in.

"The japaneese were worse than teh germans when it came to treatment of POWs." actually the german treatment of pows is the best out of any country in ww2.

Unless you were Russian.

If we win, we have peace.

Christ, this isn't a hard concept.

And if the Japanese won they'd have peace, what concept exactly? Do you believe Imperial Japan wanted eternal war? The concept that's hard to grasp is the 'killing for peace' concept as it's dished out very selectively by victorious nations. Don't misunderstand me, I was not, am not, against the bombings. It was a weighed military strike which saved GI lives. But dress it up in combats, not a white robe & halo.

Japan couldn't win. We could, and we did. We obtained peace at the minimum loss of human life possible. THAT'S the concept that you are supposed to be realizing. Oh, and don't even suggest that we should have surrendered to end the war.

I haven't tried to give it a white robe or a halo. It was a military strike, and none of us are trying to argue that it was an angelic thing to do. But make no mistake, it ended the war and brought peace, and it did a lot more than just save GI lives. Stop denying that and maybe we'll stop trying to force that idea through your thick skull so hard.

If Japan was invaded instead of having the nukes hit japan then Russian troops and americans troops would've suffered amazing casualties .It owuld've been unreal.It would've dwarfed D-day literally.But yeah we still would've taken Japan.

[Cuchulainn]

"The japaneese were worse than teh germans when it came to treatment of POWs." actually the german treatment of pows is the best out of any country in ww2.

Unless you were Russian.

If we win, we have peace.

Christ, this isn't a hard concept.

And if the Japanese won they'd have peace, what concept exactly? Do you believe Imperial Japan wanted eternal war? The concept that's hard to grasp is the 'killing for peace' concept as it's dished out very selectively by victorious nations. Don't misunderstand me, I was not, am not, against the bombings. It was a weighed military strike which saved GI lives. But dress it up in combats, not a white robe & halo.

Japan couldn't win. We could, and we did. We obtained peace at the minimum loss of human life possible. THAT'S the concept that you are supposed to be realizing. Oh, and don't even suggest that we should have surrendered to end the war.

I haven't tried to give it a white robe or a halo. It was a military strike, and none of us are trying to argue that it was an angelic thing to do. But make no mistake, it ended the war and brought peace, and it did a lot more than just save GI lives. Stop denying that and maybe we'll stop trying to force that idea through your thick skull so hard.

Don't resort to personal insults because I kill your argument. You're lucky I'm not a post warner. My points stands tall and needs not reitterated despite your insults and jadded repeatitions. The mere suggestion that killing virtually every citizen of 2 major Japanese cities was saving Japanese lives too is, quite frankly, hilarious, and an argument so below my mental stature I'd need eyes & ears on my ankles to see & hear it. Japan was on the brink of collapse anyway, General Tojo was already ousted & a civil government was coming into play. It have good ol GI lives but in the name of all that is holy don't defend the nukes with a holier than thou standpoint.

[Cloud No.9]

it must be remembered that japan was on the brink of defeat. it had already offered a conditional surrender through the russians (which the russians neglected to pass on). we were starving them with the naval blockade. their main ally was out of the war. all their enemies were no centered on them. they were getting increainly desperate and they knew the war was over.

but it prevented the cold war going hot so it was a good thing.

[Shadow Nexus]

I found this article by Noam Chomsky to be quite interesting:

http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=18656

I have been looking for the original article- in English- but I haven't found it, rebelion.org updates the Chomsky section more usually than chomsky updates his web site.

[edczxcvbnm]

It was necessary...at least the first one. Imerial Japan believed in fighting till the death...for the most part. From what I understand we moved up the time table of the second bomb because of what russia was doing with consolodating what we know as the USSR and we wanted them to stop that so take away the only enemy in Asia and then they have no viable reason to continue on with out becoming the enemy themselves.

The third bomb which was never dropped was targeted for Tokyo.

First bomb was pretty nessesary and the second one was debatable.

[Cloud No.9]

there was no third bomb.

there was the trinity test. then hiroshima and nagasaki. if japan and still not surrendered after that point we would have had to go on like we were.

in fact the trinity test was not required for the hiroshima bomb to be dropped.

[edczxcvbnm]

There was no third bomb but it was planned from what I understand. Since the time table got moved up the bomb was probably being built.

*Researches*

EDIT: It was Tokyo Bay that was intended to be a target. My bad on that one...unless someone else says otherwise.

[Endless]

Don't resort to personal insults because I kill your argument. You're lucky I'm not a post warner. My points stands tall and needs not reitterated despite your insults and jadded repeatitions. The mere suggestion that killing virtually every citizen of 2 major Japanese cities was saving Japanese lives too is, quite frankly, hilarious, and an argument so below my mental stature I'd need eyes & ears on my ankles to see & hear it. Japan was on the brink of collapse anyway, General Tojo was already ousted & a civil government was coming into play. It have good ol GI lives but in the name of all that is holy don't defend the nukes with a holier than thou standpoint.

Let me emphasize on two things in that post.

don't defend the nukes with a holier than thou standpoint

Note it, because the same person who gave us this pearl of wisdom also said (oh the irony):

an argument so below my mental stature I'd need eyes & ears on my ankles to see & hear it.

On to the main points. I'd like to see your evidence of the "civil government [...] coming into play". I mean seriously. Surely there are records or writings that defend your point of view and show that Japan would have surrendered peacefully before (let's be generous) September.
Second, because we think it was necessary or that it saved life on both side is a perfectly valid argument, akin to what happens oh so often in... medecine. You know that sometimes, to save a person, we have to remove something? Like a leg, or a kidney, or more simply, a tumor. It's painful, you lose sometimes a lot, but hey, what do you know? It saves your life. The Japanese determination to fight until the end (the "100 million deaths with honor" that the generals called for) was their way to self extermination. By breaking their will, we also saved them. They surrendered, and even better, received help to establish a government and organization that made it one of the most powerful (economically) country to this day. Ah yes, before you scream, I say it's a fact it saved Japanese lives, not the (main) reason why bombs were dropped.

[lordblazer]

it must be remembered that japan was on the brink of defeat. it had already offered a conditional surrender through the russians (which the russians neglected to pass on). we were starving them with the naval blockade. their main ally was out of the war. all their enemies were no centered on them. they were getting increainly desperate and they knew the war was over.

but it prevented the cold war going hot so it was a good thing.

of course the russians neglected to pass he's Stalin and he has to flex his muscles.


also the article shadow posted translated.

http://translate.google.com/translat...language_tools

[Miriel]

I won't get into the morality of the situation, but I will say that given the tenacity of the Japanese, the mere threat of the bomb would undoubtedly have not done much, possibly even doing more harm than good.

Exactly. Even after the first bomb was dropped, Japanese scientists assessed the damage and decided that the Americans couldn't have harvested enough radioactive material to repeat what they had done to Hiroshima. And so the second bomb was dropped and even then Emperor Hirohito's top military leaders were determined to have an apocalyptic fight to the end rather than surrender. Hirohito ultimately went against their advocation and citing the unprecedented destructive powers of the bombs, he declared, "I swallow my own tears and give my sanction to the proposal to accept the Allied proclamation".

If one atomic bomb wasn't enough to convince the Japanese to surrender, how can anyone think that the war could have been ended so quickly in any other way?

[Skyblade]

"The japaneese were worse than teh germans when it came to treatment of POWs." actually the german treatment of pows is the best out of any country in ww2.

Unless you were Russian.

If we win, we have peace.

Christ, this isn't a hard concept.

And if the Japanese won they'd have peace, what concept exactly? Do you believe Imperial Japan wanted eternal war? The concept that's hard to grasp is the 'killing for peace' concept as it's dished out very selectively by victorious nations. Don't misunderstand me, I was not, am not, against the bombings. It was a weighed military strike which saved GI lives. But dress it up in combats, not a white robe & halo.

Japan couldn't win. We could, and we did. We obtained peace at the minimum loss of human life possible. THAT'S the concept that you are supposed to be realizing. Oh, and don't even suggest that we should have surrendered to end the war.

I haven't tried to give it a white robe or a halo. It was a military strike, and none of us are trying to argue that it was an angelic thing to do. But make no mistake, it ended the war and brought peace, and it did a lot more than just save GI lives. Stop denying that and maybe we'll stop trying to force that idea through your thick skull so hard.

Don't resort to personal insults because I kill your argument. You're lucky I'm not a post warner. My points stands tall and needs not reitterated despite your insults and jadded repeatitions. The mere suggestion that killing virtually every citizen of 2 major Japanese cities was saving Japanese lives too is, quite frankly, hilarious, and an argument so below my mental stature I'd need eyes & ears on my ankles to see & hear it. Japan was on the brink of collapse anyway, General Tojo was already ousted & a civil government was coming into play. It have good ol GI lives but in the name of all that is holy don't defend the nukes with a holier than thou standpoint.

Ok, first, I'm not resorting to personal insults because you killed my argument, because, quite frankly, you didn't. You ignored my argument, and have continued to ignore it. Besides, there was only one thing that could possibly be viewed as a personal insult, and that's the statement that you have an incredibly thick skull. I wasn't meaning that to be insulting, I was just trying to point out that you were still failing to realize the point that we were trying to make. I probably should have taken into account that the truth hurts, but...

As to your extraordinarily idiotic arguement, yes, wiping out two Japanese cities saved the lives of far more Japanese than not dropping the bombs would have. That's two cities out of what? Hundreds? Possibly more than hundreds? Had the war continued there would have been far more Japanese killed than there were. Your total inability to even consider this as an argument is inexcusable.

[Cloud No.9]

of course the russians didn't pass on the conditional surrenders (there were two attempts) it was greatly in their interest to keep the world busy.

"It was Tokyo Bay that was intended to be a target. My bad on that one...unless someone else says otherwise." berlin was supposed to be the target of the first atomic bomb but we won before we did that.

the reason for nagasaki. the japanese sent out a team to find out exactly the scale of hiroshima. but due to bad weather they could not take off for 24 hours. within that time of them reporting back the second bomb was dropped. if the weather was better then the report would have came back before then. the result of the report of the absolute destruction sealed the japanese surrender. if the weather hadn't been bad that day the chances are the japanese would have surrendered earlier and the 2nd bomb would have not been dropped.

so the second bomb was in fact unnecessary.

[Miriel]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there Cloud No.9.

Like I already said in my post, the Japanese scientists did evaluate the damage done in Hiroshima and they decided that this was a one-off stunt that couldn't possibly be repeated. And the Japanese military leaders were all set to battle it out to the end. They're tenacious like that. It was only after the second bomb was dropped that the Emperor went against the advise of his officiers and gave the Allies Japan's unconditional surrender.

[Cuchulainn]

Let me emphasize on two things in that post.

Note it, because the same person who gave us this pearl of wisdom also said (oh the irony):...etc

Do you know the meaning of irony? There is a huge difference between sanctimonious and confidence in ones own knowledge of a chosen subject. If you are not sure about the difference let me explain. Sancimonious is the firm belief, no matter how absurd, that one or one's country is always in the right. It derives from the latin word for Saint. My standpoint was a flash of, at worst, arrogance, backed by my immense knowledge of World War Two. Ponder that, if you will while I move on to the next statement.

On to the main points. I'd like to see your evidence of the "civil government [...] coming into play". I mean seriously. Surely there are records or writings that defend your point of view and show that Japan would have surrendered peacefully before (let's be generous) September.

Certainly is, I could provide links but I'd prefer you dig for it yourself, it's more self satisfying. The fact that General Hideki Tojo's Military Government was ousted is absolutely no mistery at al. It was ousted in July 1944 and replaced by General Kuniaki Koiso, an office who openly wanted peace but was torn between satisfying the Japanese Military and the United States. Koiso was succeeded by the final wartime Prime Minister of Japab during the conflict, the moderate Kantaro Suzuki, who from as early as 1937 was opposed to any war with the United States and spent his term as Japanese PM Persuading his cabinet colleagues and the Emperor to sue for peace. It is also no secret he was making changes to the Cabinet, ousting Military Officials and bringing in Civil Servents (hence in the surrender footage you see Japanese Officials signing for Peace as opposed to Generals). Despite being an old ill man he refused to relinquish his Ministry to a General and held out for a Civil Servent. His wishes came in 17 August 1945 when Prince Higashikuni succeeded him. The last two PM's, despite being seasoned military commanders, spent their terms in office trying to find the best way for Japan to surrender. This too is absolutely no secret. So yes, there is writings & books on it, you just need to look further than National Review Dot Effing Com & read.

Second, because we think it was necessary or that it saved life on both side is a perfectly valid argument, akin to what happens oh so often in... medecine. You know that sometimes, to save a person, we have to remove something? Like a leg, or a kidney, or more simply, a tumor. It's painful, you lose sometimes a lot, but hey, what do you know? It saves your life.

Are you seriously trying to find an anology between organ removal and the death of hundreds of thousands of people in two nuclear attacks? How on earth you equate that?
'Dear Mrs Honda,
The United States Government deeply regret the death of your son, who was bearly in school, but think of his death like the removal of an organ. We had to kill non-combatants to save our combatants lives. We're sure you will understand, please find attached some chocolate and a picture of the GI who is now alive thanks to your son's death.
Yours
General Marshall

The Japanese determination to fight until the end (the "100 million deaths with honor" that the generals called for) was their way to self extermination. By breaking their will, we also saved them. They surrendered, and even better, received help to establish a government and organization that made it one of the most powerful (economically) country to this day. Ah yes, before you scream, I say it's a fact it saved Japanese lives, not the (main) reason why bombs were dropped.

Words are just words, you need to understand that. Do you remember Sadaam's men's words before both Gulf Wars? 'They will drown in their own blood' etc? What about the German Wehrwolves whom Goebbels said would fight in the Harz mountains forever? Public Statements never ever reveal the true sentiment, that is reveleaved in secret talks, and anyone who knows anything about wartime governments knows that.


EDIT: And Cloud is right. Japan went to the Stalin Government several times to sue for peace, it was rejected & never passed on. It was useful for Stalin to invade Manchuria (or Japanese Manchuko), more territory to own. Not to mention making sure China became Communist not Nationalist.