Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[thomas]

As you may have noticed on our index page we're running a poll this month entitled "Do you think that the dropping of atomic bombs onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted a U.S. war crime?"

While only 49 visitors have voted so far, it seems to be clear that the majority of voters views the employment of nuclear bombs "as necessary to end the WWII".

Found this old survey by Japan Today (http://www.japanreference.com/cgi-bin/jump.cgi?ID=3185) on a similar topic:

Did the US force Japan into WWII?

=> http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=popvox&id=13

[shintemaster]

The deployment of Atomic weapons against Japan, not once but twice tells us a lot about the mindset of American policy leaders, including the President at that time. It also tells us some interesting things that the official policy hasn't wavered since that time. While it is possible to view this as meaning that the decision made was completely supported by the available data this does not seem to be the case. On the contrary, it seems more likely that revising these official positions would open up debate along lines similar to that which began this thread.
The use of the bomb on two separate occasions gives a sour taste to the claims that the bomb was meant as a kind of "warning." That the bomb could have been used in a non-civilian area as a warning of the destructive power the American government now possessed.
The much touted claims of "saving" up to 1,000,000 lives have been shown to be completely at odds with even the most drastic military estimates at the time the decision was made. Estimates which the President had at the time from his top officials ranged from around 20,000 casualties up to just under 200,000.
The Government also had concerns about Soviet entry into the war in the Pacific area and it is probable that these calculations went into the idea of using the bomb.
This is of course a huge topic and one which I have an ongoing interest in. I still have not completely resolved this issue in my own mind. The most upsetting thing for me is however the lack of true interest (by not just American society and Government, but also that of all Allied Nations) in exploring the reasons and necessity of the bomb's use in Japan. People must remember to always question what they are told about history and their own country, as well as others.

Oh, one other thing, my apologies for rambling on so much....
:sorry:

[moyashi]

ouch touchy subject for most concerned.

hmmm ....

side notes:
Japan was developing it's own Atomic bomb and was willing to use them with no remorse according to the scientist that were working on it. Deployment was to be with hot air balloons. The Germans inadvertently stopped these plans by not supplying plutonium. <<< this was in a news article in Japan Times a few years back

The results of the first bomb was reported to the military powers in control through carrier pigeon. Unfortunately, not many in the military could believe that such a powerful weapon could exist. Most of Japan was under such brain washing that nobody really new Japan was loosing the war until the first bomb hit. Also, the navy and army was at each others throats so much co-ordination of troops between the two was virtually impossible.

back to topic....
I've been asked many times in Japan why the US used the bomb. Wasn't it a racist decision? ect....

I really don't think it was pure racist, well not in as we hate Asians so let's bomb those suckers, but more likely a simplistic view of a racism that Asains were just a bunch of restless natives. Also, the added benefit of scaring Russia from entering Japan was probably high in the decision reasons. Hey, there's nothing like occupying a country all by yourself and not having to divide up a large portion of the cheese for a late comer.

I wonder how much the kamikaze scare factor also played in the decision.

Did the us force Japan into WWII?
hmmm I heard that the US sunk a passenger liner from Japan first.

Forcing Japan into WWII sounds a little foolish since the US just barely forced Japan to open it's doors at the end of the Tokugawa period (about 260) years ago. So ... why later?

If anything, I believe the US let Japan bomb pearl harbor. Isn't it a bit strange that most of the fleet was out of the harbor at the time? Hey, there's nothing like hitting an American while he's not looking. I really think the US needed a reason to enter the pacific arena and pearl harbor was just a battle cry.

I too have trouble with this topic since I'm born American but have parents from Germany (they immigrated to the states in the late 50's and early 60's), a step father in the US navy and live in Japan.

is dropping the bombs are war crime?
hmmmm ... ouch that's a difficult question.
I wonder what is the actual definition (such what types of acts and such) of a war crime.

[shintemaster]

There are some really interesting and intense issues involved. Personally for me I'm beginning to lean towards the view that it was something that was initiated prematurely. If you think about it from the idea of war crimes etc. I don't think that political considerations w/regards to the Soviet Union constitute valid justification. I'm interested in this mainly because I think that American society as a whole needs to seriously evaluate this in order to prevent the use of nuclear weapons again.
Interesting question though. Would the American leaders been so quick to use a nuclear weapon against German cities?

Hmmmmmm :bow:

[moyashi]

That's though. Bombing German would've meant bombing Jewish homes.
Although, I do believe that the thought was being considered but with the Germans shifting to the East to prevent the Russian entrance and giving way to the Americans usage would've been more difficult to prove.

Political justifications concerning Russia. Hmmm true but those times where a bit different .. don't forget the Red Hunts that went on in the States.

I really would like to see that Hiroshima peace museum be put on at the Smithsonian at least. I went there and the images of what I saw still live on in my memories. Problem is that too many Veterans probably would veto such an action. I remember watching on japanese TV a show where reporters tried to show pictures of what hideousness the bomb left behind and a lot of Veterans actually got angry and said it was all Japan's fault.

yes, this issue is very huge with lots of sides ... just hoping that such threads this could bring folks together and actually think about such consequences that war brings.

:(

[thomas]

A highly controversial topic that has to be handled with great sensitivity. I remember that on some other board issues such as the atomic bombs or the "Nanjing Incident" got completely out of hand and deviated into flaming wars. Oh, I am not afraid of things escalating on our board here, hehe.

Last march our visitors opted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not constitute war crimes, nuclear attacks were necessary to end the war.

It's been a long time since uni, but I remember that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 protect innocent civilians in war zones. Just did a search and found the entire document:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Difficult to conclude whether attacks like Guernica, Coventry, Dresden or Hiroshima/Nagasaki were war crimes. The Geneva Convention is applicable to

"persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria".

But

"persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Have to delve into these articles once again.

One thing is for sure, Shintemaster mentioned this aspect already and I have included it as an option in our March poll: the bombs were meant to be a clear signal towards the Soviet Union. Cold war had already started long before WWII was over.

I am not sure whether the use of nuclear weapons was strategically necessary, because after battle of Okinawa the Imperial Army was more or less annihilated.

"Did the us force Japan into WWII?"

Well, they certainly did not force Japan (there are always non-violent means of conflict resolution), but there obviously was something like a "strategy" that had already started in the 1920s. Take a look at this thread (http://forum.japanreference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157) where I have outlined a few unfriendly acts.

The Western imperial powers certainly weren't too happy to allow Japan at the table of international power games, a nation they had created and that had become adolescent after the victorious conflicts in China/Korea and the defeat of the Czarist fleet.

I'm rambling... there are many aspects that need to be taken into consideration.
:bow:

[thomas]

Just mentioning it briefly...

Japan remembers Hiroshima bombing victims

=> http://www.nandotimes.com/world/story/489965p-3910691c.html

Nagasaki bombing remembered, U.S. to be condemned in speech

=> http://www.japantoday.com/e/content=news&cat=1&id=225968

[moyashi]

@Dresden
My grandmother for many years had nightmares because of that horrible bombing idea. My mother was too young to remember much more than her mother in psychological pain.

@baiting.
Probably, the US baited Japan. But still the Japanese military wanted this.

@okinawa
Most likely but I remember back in the states and growing up. That the Japanese kamikaze were quite frightening. Wasn't their a mentality if the people of Okinawa battled so vehemetly that the mainland would be worse?

[JimBeam]

I think that asking who started the war is a moot point as from my understanding the war was probably unavoidable. You have to hungry nations extending the reach of their wealth and influence throughout the Pacific at some point these two would have had to come into conflict. I don't think either side would have yeilded to the other. There were many historical forces behind the dynamics off WWII, it makes my head spin trying to fit together all the diffrent angles.

As far as dropping the bombs. I do beleive that the US's 1,000,000 man bit did play a part in the decision, I know that it was much more than that. Dropping the bombs was a powerfull symbol of the US's emergance as a superpower. Also, as much as it was ment to show the US's power to our enemies I think it served an even more powerful role as declearation to our allies that we were incharge, that the US had become a shot caller, that Brittian and everyone else should know there place under the US.

Those are my thoughts the matter anyway whether it was justified or a war crime I don't know, but what I do know is that it is never right for a person to lose thier life.

[Mandylion]

Of course we have the benefit of hindsight. It is very difficult to tell what is happening in war. Look at Iraq, even with all our immediate, live, real-time info, retractions and revisions are made all the time. While we may be burdened at times by too much info, I think people on both sides in WWII had trouble due to a lack of it. In deciding to drop the bombs, the US had to look at what it had been though on Iwo Jima, Okinawa and others to predict how things would go if they invaded Japan proper. Why would they have thought Kyushu, Honshu, Shikoku and Hokkaido would have been any different?
I am not excusing the bombs as I have real trouble making up my mind on the issue, but I think often historians have trouble keeping what we know now about the state of Japan｡ﾇs forces, drive, determination, internal politics at the time, out of our interpretations when we try and understand why the US did what they did.
As for dropping the bombs on Japan, yes it may have been for the effect on the Russians, yes, it may have been easier than dropping it on Europe, but if I recall, the bombs weren｡ﾇt finished until after Germany surrendered. Certainly the firebombing of Germany et al. was just as terrible a fate and destroyed many, including Jewish (or ex-jewish), homes in the process. I think it is very difficult, but not impossible, to play a racial card with the bombing given the timing of the events in WWII and the equally terrible destruction of European cities.
As for Pearl Harbor, people probably thought something was going to happen soon, but if it was a batted attack, why let it be so successful? Why have your sailors asleep below deck rather than suited up and ready to jump on the Archie, effectively turning a surprise into a surprise? While at the risk of being pie in the sky here, if the US had pulled a fast one at Pearl, Midway, Guam, Coral Sea, most of the Pacific War could have been shortened. Lets also not forget that the Philippines, with a strong US presence and inconveniently blocking Japanese access to Indonesian oil needed for the war machine in China and Korea, was also hit on, or on either side of, Dec. 7th in an attempt to knock the US out of the war. Why would the US knowingly expose their entire Pacific force the to that?
(The carriers were out on exercises and the Navy wasn｡ﾇt yet sold on the idea of a carrier based strategy to worry enough to send them out of Pearl to intentionally prevent being sunk in the first place. Many still saw carriers as a novel and untested idea. Indeed the Pacific War proved the age of the battleship was over. Arguably if the ships at Pearl had been out at sea waiting for the Japanese, the war would have been over, but that is speculation. Let me know if you want to play that game :-) )

All that aside, I do agree with JimBeam, it is never right to loose a life. I am also impressed by the responsible quality and tone of this discussion. Lets keep it up!

[mdchachi]

> I do beleive that the US's 1,000,000 man bit did play a part in the decision,

The Pentagon estimates at the time was more like 20,000 to 50,000. But let's face it, if they thought they could save even 10,000 American lives even if it meant killing 200,000 Japanese to do it, they certainly would. Even today I tear up when I read about my first hometown casualty in Iraq yet when I hear about hundreds of Iraqi soldiers getting "mowed down" I don't give it a second thought. Intellectually, of course, I realize it's terrible.

I tend to think that, by that point, Hiroshima was more or less necessary. Or, at least, the best option they had from an American standpoint -- that is, savings American lives and ending the war on a stronger footing against Russia.

I don't know if it's a crime but I think it's "highly regrettable" that they didn't wait another week or so before bombing Nagasaki. I think it more than likely that they would have surrendered after Hiroshima had they been given enough time.

Also, it's not really clear in my mind why the nuclear bomb was so much more horrendous than, for example, firebombing Tokyo which also targetted civilians and killed tens of thousands of people. But you never hear boo about that.

[senseiman]

I am going to come right out and say that Yes I think the bombings were definite war crimes. There are a few things worth considering.

In a hypothetical invasion of Japan probably more people would have been killed than in the bombings, but this argument takes for granted both that an invasion was otherwise unavoidable and that a country can use any means necessary to win a war no matter how horrible.

Taking the first of these, that the only other option was an invasion, it seems clear that this may have been avoided. In the weeks prior to the bombings the Japanese government had been trying to negotiate a surrender through the then neutral Soviet Union. The US, having broken the Japanese diplomatic codes, was well aware of this fact. The Japanese main demand was that as a face saving gesture the emporer's position be guarunteed after surrender. But the stated objective of the war was unconditional surrender and Truman refused to enter negotiations with the Japanese government, even though in the end the position of the Emporer was maintained anyway. Had the US been willing to alter its war aims it possibly could have gotten a Japanese surrender without using the bombs or invading Japan, but this option was never pursued, presumably because of the desire to appear strong to the Soviet Union.

As for the argument that the bombings were the less bloody way of achieving American victory and therefore they were morally justifiable, I don't find this very compelling because of the rationalization of atrocities it involves. Lets take a hypothetical situation. Had Germany won the war, using the same logic they could have argued that their use of Jewish slave labour in munitions factories was morally justifiable because it increased their military prowess and allowed them to win a military victory quicker and less bloody than they would have otherwise. A rational person would have to conclude that this was an empty argument and the German atrocities were totally unjustifiable. I feel it is the same with the case of the use of nuclear weapons against two defenceless cities.

Of course, there are a lot of differences between the two cases. Germany chose to go to war while the war was forced on the US. Still, while the US didn't choose to go to war it did choose how it would fight it and how it would end it and I think it should be held accountable for its decisions.

The only reason the bombings aren't considered war crimes is that the US won and the victors certainly weren't going to put themselves on trial. While they will never be legally defined as war crimes, as an individual it is my opinion that they were just that.

[Thomas Quinton]

Attacking mainland Japan would of been the most brutal and viscious battle mankind would of ever known. The debate for the ages, was it necessary to drop the bombs? Yes it was. Just the fact that Hirohito told the citizens that the war was over, never once saying japan was defeated or we have surrendered. They would of fought to the very last man, woman and child. And millions would of been lost. I do feel for the people of these cities when i watch documentaries on the bombings, and read the tales of survivors that touched me very much, but war is ugly and brutal, and lets just hope it will never be repeated again.

[doudesuka]

I am not sure why we dropped the atomic bombs. What was the reason to drop a bomb on innocent japanese citizens who also suffered under the hands of their own Imperialist Army?
I believe the U.S. had a right to counter attack Japan though after Pearl Harbor. But, I don't believe the bombs did anything for relations between the countries. It just made a bad memory.
I know that many Japanese don't even like to bring up the situation for obvious reasons. I think there is a silent majority who think it's really their ancestor's faults but not able to express it. Well, it's history , so I believe we should just look to the future as friendly nations.

[jirzji]

Originally posted by Mandylion
As for dropping the bombs on Japan, yes it may have been for the effect on the Russians, yes, it may have been easier than dropping it on Europe, but if I recall, the bombs weren｡ﾇt finished until after Germany surrendered.

Exactly! tell me if i am wrong but i also recall that the first target was Germany, but since they surrendered, the race started to get them to Japan, next on the list. Unfortunately the japanese also capitulated shortly after, maybe not under the exact conditions of the americans, but the bombs even came after that. The nuclear program management needed a way to test the bombs at all costs.
Isn't this a crucial point in the discussion whether the bombing is to be considered as a war crime? Paradoxically, the war was already over ...

[Kiwano]

Originally posted by jirzji
The nuclear program management needed a way to test the bombs at all costs.

From what I've heard (or rather read, the Swedish school teaches you that it was indeed an exaggeration, but necessary to end the war) you are correct.

As far as I know, the Japanese tried to surrender a couple of times, the first attempt made in the middle June of 45. But America refused to accept that surrender and raised the bid by saying that the emperor had to deannounce his divinety. Initialy the Japanese refused, but when American B52s were stationed less than 400km from Tokyo and 91% of their navy was lost, they once again tried, this time through Sovjet. But the US prommised that Stalin would get free hands in Manchuria, so I was to no help for the Japanese. The third attempt to capitulation (of which I have heard at least) was again directly to the US government who responded by demanding a total and demandless capitulation of Japan (I don't know the english name for that, so I translated it directly from Swedish) meaning that the emperor would be imprisonated in the US. The Japanese government couldend accept such a demand, not beacuse that were to proud though. In fact, at that point over 50% in the government had voted for an immediate stop to the war at all reasonable costs. The problem was that they knew that the soldiers would keep on fighting if such a thing would happen.
The US had (according to Harry S Trumans diaries) decided to us two A-bombs in april of that year, the reasons being: 1. To scare the **** out of anyone with plans of assaulting the US (Sovjet). 2. Test the weapon ON REAL PEOPLE, there wasn't another way to realy find out what the radiation damages were like, 45 % of the energy of the Hiroshima bomb amd about 50 % of the Nagasaki bomb was immedeately transformed into radiation. Futhermore, Hiroshima had many wooden houses and was/is situated in a valley which allowed the shockwave to echo . I won't get in to that since it's kinda off topic. They had to use two bombs since thay had two models, the uranium and the plutonium, so Nagasaki had to be the subject of experiment. 3. The cost of the atomic bomb program amounted to 16 % of the defence budget. That hole in the budget needed an explenation, and there was only one explenation to be found, and only one thing for those who were responsible for the project to do, it had to be used.

These were the main reasons, or rather the main way of thinking (as far as I know at least). They knew that it wasn't a matter of avoiding causalties at an eventual invasion, the estimated number of american causlties was predicted to be somewhere between 25 000 - 63 000, in the best/worst case. The number 250 000, was made up, and commented by "a quarter million sounds good, doesn't it"

The days befor the news about the bombs reached the Americans, pictures of American warprisoners in Japan was showed to make sure that people were very anti-Japan when the news would reach them.

Since I wrote this much I feel like there should be some kind of conlclution at the end or something, but I'm to tired to think of one, and the the lack of sleep is starting to affect my english big time so I'll call it a night here. If you read this far, you probably feel the same way to.

[noyhauser]

I'm too tired to write another reply to another post. I discussed why surrender was not an option in 1945 for the Japanese in another thread. read it if you want another view. Japan was nowhere near surrendering in July. The atom bomb changed that. And atom bombs could be accurrately tested... they used Pigs in Alomagoro and in the later Bikini tests as well. Truman Hated russians, didn't trust them at all but couldn't stop the Manchuria campaign even if he protested.

http://forum.japanreference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3200&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

[tharealeazygsta]

There is absolutely no arguing the fact that these atrocities were war crimes because the main targets were civilian cities filled with women and children not military personnel. Yes the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor but that was a military target. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was essentially 9/11 times 100. To clarify, if the US would have dropped the bombs on m-i-l-i-t-a-r-y targets it would be different but they dropped them on c-i-v-i-l-i-a-n cities which makes these inhumane slaughters nothing more than cowardly terroristic acts and two of the darkest days in American history.

[Sukotto]

There's a book out that I attempted to read on the topic titled "Atomic Diplomacy Hiroshima and Potsdam" by Gar Alperovitz. It was kind of tuff and I only got through the intros and into the first chapter before another book came along. But I'm pretty sure the gist of the book was that the bombings were to "make the Soviets easier to handle" in the post-war world. The US did not want the Russians to invade Japan and thus have to share the occupation with them. Truman was able to 'play his hand' stronger at the Potsdam conference since the atomic bombs were in working condition by this time.

The Hiroshima atomic bomb website lists 3 reasons for the use of the bomb. The above, "making the Soviets more managable", was not one of them. Hiroshima's site, in my opinion, is very diplomatic.

I mention the above book and comments to some hard-core republicans/conservatives here in the states and they immediately denounce it as historic revisionism. I try to tell them that they author relied on the official record and even gov officials' diaries to come to the conclusion he does. A conclusion he did not set out to prove, the author writes in the into. Government officials have always told the public one thing and reasonings are not always as they are stated to be. So in a way it is a reworking of history as new information is made available to us.


peace out yo. haha.
no more hiroshimas.

[Feral-Darkness]

Did they have to be used? No.
But you must look at it as a balance, If we do not use them, this will happen, if we do, this will happen.

The fact is it was better for US to use them and honestly the fact that we did use them has changed the face of war from that point on. The fact that the weapon is so powerfull that they shrugged off the first bomb saying that isn't possiable ect goes to show its power.

I am sure that if we had not used them the war would of raged on for ALOT longer, if you added 5 more years to the war, what would the world be like today? The fact is if it had only lasted 1 year longer I would not be here to post this because my father most likely would of died. He was on a ship in route to japan when the 2nd bomb droped.

As for it being a war crime. I personaly think that they can have no true crime in war because war its self is a crime. You can only have morals in war. Is it moral to kill 1 million random people most of which are not military personal of you'r enemy to show them you have this weapon and are not scared to use it, To save you'r side 1-2 million lives, billions of dollers and all the other costs of the war?

If I was the pres at the time, I would of done the same thing. though insted I might of droped the first one on a large Mt. Or some land mark in a lower populated area.

Needless to say the fact is that any nation fighting a current super power will stand no chance in this era. With the new nuclear weapons out being 100-150X more powerfull then the bombs we droped at that time it would be pointless.

Now nuclear weapons are used as more of a deterant then a weapon. A great general once said "One day a weapon so destructive, so powerfull will come along that the devastation and pain it will cause will be so horrible that man will no longer have wars for fear of it being used" needless to say I think he was pretty much right, We will not see any more massive world wars and if we do it would be the dawn of civilization.

Also many of the reasons kiwano gave are right. The president knew no one would think a weapon like this was real unless they showed it was.

And yes the weapons were droped very LOW thus they created MASSIVE radiation, Now most nuclear weapons are detonated allmost a half mile above ground, causeing a larger shock wave effect with less rads at ground 0 "Where everything dies due to the heat / shock wave / lack of air due to all the stuff burning up so fast." and the rads being moved bye air to create even more problems where they land.

Any ways, The past is the past. Learn from it. I am sure we did and I do not forsee us useing any nuclear weapons any time soon and I don't think japan will eaither.

North korea I don't know about though.... That is a very bad situation that keeps getting worse.

[KitsuneUdon]

Here's two things that I've heard argued about the dropping of the bombs:

1. Japan wouldn't have surrendered otherwise.

I don't know how accurate/inaccurate this is, but I've also heard that Japan was already crippled to the point where an invasion would have also been overkill. In other words, they may have already been on the verge of surrender. For example; Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya all received extremely heavy damage from firebombing. In fact, the death toll in Tokyo, I believe, was more than the death toll in Hiroshima.

But, then again! I've also read (fabricated?) articles about Japan's plan to send kamakazis to San Francisco, fully loaded with viles of the bubonic plauge. This was supposively to happen in late September. Did America actually know about this before they dropped the bombs?

Personally, I don't think so. As I said, "fabricated?" ???

2. Test (especially Nagasaki).

Well, how can you explain Nagasaki? Yet others will argue that it was neccessary to end the war before Russia also moved in. But I don't even think there was time to fathom what was happening in that short time. You have Hiroshima on Aug. 6th, Russia declared war on Japan on Aug. 8th (90 days after Germany surrendered), then Nagasaki was bombed on Aug. 9th. So, is there really a valid explaination? Well, Russia had only started to attack Japanese troops in Manchuria and they had plans to also invade the northern islands of Japan (including Hokkaido). Then the very next morning Nagasaki was bombed. No offical negotiation after Hiroshima was bombed, infact I believe that Hirohito barely got word of Hiroshima's devisation before Nagasaki was bombed. So what would you call it?

It was a TEST!
__________________________________________________ ______

Well, anyway... These are bits a pieces of Japanese history in the way I interpreted them.

[Trau]

Some facts:

Two separate estimates exist to rate the number of American casualties that would result from such an invasion. A joint war plans committee comprised of the army and navy came to the conclusion that 46,000 Americans would die in an invasion of Kyushu and later Honshu. The number of American wounded averaged three to one during the later years of the war, so according to this estimate, 175,000 American casualties were not out of the question. However, these figures were based on such tentative intelligence that George Marshall, the armys chief of staff, bluntly rejected them.

A second estimate proposed by Admiral Leahy was much higher. The invasion of Iwo Jima caused 6,200 American deaths, and the U. S. outnumbered the Japanese by four to one. Okinawa cost 13,000 U. S. servicemen, and they outnumbered the Japanese by two and one-half to one. These 13,000 men made up more than 35% of the U. S. landing force. Consequently, Admiral Leahy came to the conclusion that it was absurd to think that any less than 35% of the American force that invaded Japan would be killed. Based on the estimate of 560,000 Japanese soldiers on Kyushu as of early August, Leahy predicted that at very minimum over 250,000 American soldiers would lie dead as a result of an invasion of the Japanese islands.

It was later found that the troop strength on Kyushu was greatly under-estimated, and that by August 6 the Japanese had over 900,000 men stationed on Kyushu, nearly twice as many as thought. Leahys estimates that the Americans would have a preponderance, when in fact the 767,000 American soldiers who would comprise the landing force were already greatly outnumbered three months before Operation Olympic was actually to begin. By November, Japanese troop strength could easily double or triple, making between 500,000 and 1,000,000 American deaths conceivable.

These numbers do not even begin to account for the Japanese dead. In Okinawa, twice as many Japanese were killed as Americans. It is therefore plausible that between 100,000 (according to the earliest estimate) and two million soldiers would die in an invasion. This number does not include Japanese civilians dead, which could conceivably have been even higher than the number of dead soldiers.

http://oror.essortment.com/presidenttruman_rywp.htm

I believe someone begged the question, "Would the US have been so quick to drop the atomic bomb on Germany?" That answer would be yes. The bomb was being worked on by many Jewish scientists for that very purpose; thing is, Germany surrendered before the Manhattan Project was completed.

Try this essay as well: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Bethe

[Rhaven]

I owuld like to say yes it is A war crime, true warriros would not drop bombs on civilians, true the Japanese ARMY employed tatics that are equally ugly such as use of black plague on chinese civilians, but for America to show justice by using the eye for an eye method is horrible. children burned to thier mothers backs, faces gone, eyes melted, people vanished into dust!!!

How can A man authorize this then call himself human!

and the worse thing was that it was done twice and even considered being done in the korean war!



Revenge is not justice.


I htink America should learn alot from its mistakes true without one stong dominate power war would be more large scale but the use of weopons on civilians is unnecssary!.


I only wish we lived in the days of swords and spears, at leats those soldiers were not commanded to kill children and mothers.




Japan was not america's enimy, and america was not japan's enemy it is war that is our enemy but we are but men and incapable of escaping war so let us try not to give in to it as bad as we have.



A great movie to watch on hiroshima is "hiroshima" it stars that guy from karate kid

[Brooker]

I think intentionally targeting civilians is not a valid way to achieve a military/political goal, period. The ends don't justify the means, it matters how you go about achieving your goals.

[Golgo_13]

I just wonder if the U.S. would have dropped the A-bomb on Germany had the U.S. had it ready before Germany had surrendered.

No Way !

[KitsuneUdon]

I only wish we lived in the days of swords and spears, at leats those soldiers were not commanded to kill children and mothers

I'm not trying to belittle you here, but that is quite wrong. Throughout history; mass murder, rape, and plundering has always been a military/marshal tatic.

However, the rest of what you posted is rather agnostic, but you do have a point that the use of the bomb was rather unhumane. Anyway.... nuf said.

By the way, it's Ralph Macchio. :smug:

[bossel]

I just wonder if the U.S. would have dropped the A-bomb on Germany had the U.S. had it ready before Germany had surrendered.

No Way !
I think, the bomb's original purpose was to be dropped on Nazi-Germany. Only the Nazis were finished before the bomb was.

[noyhauser]

Ever hear of Dresden?

[Golgo_13]

Ever hear of Dresden?

It was carpet bombed. So?

Look at some photos of Tokyo circa Sept. 1945. Doesn't look much different.

An atom bomb dropped on Dresden (or Hamburg or Frankfurt) would have done much more damage in a split second. I doubt the U.S. would've done it.

[bossel]

It was carpet bombed. So?

Look at some photos of Tokyo circa Sept. 1945. Doesn't look much different.

An atom bomb dropped on Dresden (or Hamburg or Frankfurt) would have done much more damage in a split second. I doubt the U.S. would've done it.
The number of (direct) deaths of the Dresden bombing is comparable to Nagasaki. In Tokyo & Hiroshima twice as many people died.
Can't really see your point, are you saying Germany has been treated "better" than Japan in WWII?

The A-bomb's original purpose was to be dropped on Germany, partly because the US feared that the Nazis were developing their own bomb (another example of the US over-estimating threats):

http://www.theenolagay.com/study.html
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/info/atom1.html

[Golgo_13]

The number of (direct) deaths of the Dresden bombing is comparable to Nagasaki. In Tokyo & Hiroshima twice as many people died.
Can't really see your point, are you saying Germany has been treated "better" than Japan in WWII?


Dresden is comparable to Nagasaki? I don't see your point.
Did people in Dresden suffer the after-effects of the radiation fallout?

There were many other cities in Japan that were bombed.
Many kids from larger cities were re-located to the countryside for protection. My father was taken from Osaka to Aomori.

My point is, the U.S. had less qualms about dropping the A-bomb on Japan to kill 200,000 - 300,000 yellow race of people insatantly than on Germany simply because many more Americans are of German descent than Japanese (who were locked up in concentration camps).

[bossel]

Dresden is comparable to Nagasaki? I don't see your point.
Did people in Dresden suffer the after-effects of the radiation fallout?
Obviously you didn't really read what I wrote: "The number of (direct) deaths of the Dresden bombing is comparable to Nagasaki." Or is this so unclear?
The lowest estimate for the number of victims in Dresden is 35,000. These are the identified victims only, though. Probably up to 250,000 people died there.
There are estimates of up to 600,000, but this is not very credible for those numbers are usually put forward by right wingers.

A-bombs on Japan:
http://www.ww2guide.com/atombomb.shtml


There were many other cities in Japan that were bombed.
Many kids from larger cities were re-located to the countryside for protection.
Just like in Germany.


My point is, the U.S. had less qualms about dropping the A-bomb on Japan to kill 200,000 - 300,000 yellow race of people insatantly than on Germany simply because many more Americans are of German descent than Japanese (who were locked up in concentration camps).
Less qualms maybe. But they would have bombed German cities anyway.
BTW, there were also US Americans of German descent in internment camps, although the number is far lower than that of people from Japanese descent.

[Bandit]

I have heard alot of different points of view about this. I have heard that if the US did not drop the bombs it would have led to a full scale invasion on Japan itself, and if that had happened estimated deaths probably could have been millions if not close to a billion if u take into account the US soldiers that would have died, the Japanese soldiers that would have died, the Japanese citizens, and maybe even Russian soldiers since they entered the pacific war a couple months before it ended.
I have also heard that the US should have waited to drop them to see if there could have been some sort of legal/government settlement to end the war.
It is a very controversial topic seeing how there are so many different point of views and it is something that might never be solved because of all of those different point of views.

[zeroyon]

As for who was forcing who to start WWII, I believe that it was the harsh conditions of the treaty of versailles that lead to germany's ambitious needs... I won't go into why i think japan wanted to enter the war and sided with the axis.. (its kinda obvious, look at japan from a geographic standpoint and you will know what I mean)..

As for dropping the A-bombs, I don't think it was necessary.

However, I DO think that it was a much better alternative than invading japan. Most likey in the end, much of japan's cities would have lied in ruin, there would be millions of casulaties on both sides (especially tons of civilan casualties), and much of japans culture and hearatige that is still there today would have been wiped out. But also, I think that the USA could have dropped the A-bombs, most notably little boy (the one dropped on hiroshima) in a less densley populated area. It would have got the same message acrosss, and wouldnt have killed so many people.

I think the USA had another resason for dropping the A-bombs as well, as the USA realised the upcoming problems they were going to have to face with the Soviet Union's communist ways after the war, and they needed a way to show off to the Soviet Union the destructive power of their new weapon, and unfortunatley Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two unlucky hosts...

Also, does anyone know what the Roentgen count at ground zero in hiroshima is? like... does it still have a high radiation count (at least compared to places where neuclear explosions didnt occur)?

Also... if you want to visit an interesting website... go to http://www.kiddofspeed.com/ , its a site with pictures taken from a girl who constantly goes inside the "Dead Zone" near chernobyl, and has some pretty crazy picutres (especially the Ghost town near the reactor)... if you want the direct link with picures of the ghost town (and skip all of the stuff outside of the town before), the go to http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter11.html

VISIT THAT SITE. It will totally open up your eyes to the devastating consequences of nuclear radiation (no it doesnt have any pictures of dead bodies, or anything greusome, so you dont need to be worried. Some of the pictures are kinda scary though (of the ghost town :eek: )

[snow san]

War crime? Maybe, who is to judge? the Japanese? Americans? the French?... hope not they think dressing wrong for battle is a war crime...
didnt this happen over a half century ago? as for
(brooker): Maybe targeting civilians was wrong but you cannot justify Japanese slaughtering all over asia and the pacific theater before WWII either... Oh wait a minute thats not in the Japanese history books so it must not have happend...people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones...
and to
(Rhaven): the Japanese Army did employ tactics such as bayonetting civilians to save ammunition and then marching civillians 90 giving them little to no water... but lessons have been learned on both sides and if we had to do it all over again, I don not think that the use of nuclear weapons would be an option.

I think its funny how people like to stir the pot...talk till your blue in the face about wrong or right; you cant change what happened. No one will appologize because right or wrong is relative to what side you were on at the time. It was war, can you not just suffice it to say wrong was done by both parties, shake hands and dont let it happen again....(oh yeah) pretty please

[sabro]

General Curtis Lemay even said that if we had lost the war, he should be charged as a war criminal. He said this in response to the firebombing of Tokyo.

I read back through the last few posts, and I think we make a huge error when we try judge history out of context. I don't think think there is a relative right and wrong here, and I don't think equivalent wrong was done by both parties. I don't think the US should apologize, and I do think we would use nuclear weapons again given the same set of circumstances. I can't apply my twenty first set of values to decisions made 60 years ago- unless I consider all the facts, the background, the situation- as the people knew it back then.

From Pearl Harbor, to Bataan, to Wake Island- America formed a perception and an opinion largely based on racism, about the Japanese and what should happen to them. What the US military and the public saw in thousands of battles on dozens of islands told them that Japan would never surrender. That they would fight on with savage persistence beyond what would seem rational to the western mind. They saw fierocity and brutality beyond imagination. On Saipan, they saw women and children jump off of cliffs. On Okinawa, they saw waves of suicide pilots crash into ships and near naked men rush crude explosives up to tanks. Four years of the most savage brutal kind of combat had desensitised them into believe that whatever they could do to end a war they did not start would be justifiable. They began to reduce the country to ashes. They designed weapons to kill civillians, to burn their houses- and night after night the set out to burn every last Japanese city. They only slowed down when the supply of napalm ran low. They planned an invasion that would regard every man, woman, and child as an enemy combatant. It would take eight years and cost millions of lives. When Truman discovered he had a bomb that could end all of this he jumped at the opportunity and never lost a single night of sleep.

War is nasty, ugly and inhumane-- it is all hell, simple murder on a mass scale. Without apology from the people who did not choose to start the war, did not chose the brutal conduct of the war, but did chose to end it- we can still hope it never happens again.

[bossel]

Four years of the most savage brutal kind of combat had desensitised them into believe that whatever they could do to end a war they did not start would be justifiable. They began to reduce the country to ashes. They designed weapons to kill civillians, to burn their houses- and night after night the set out to burn every last Japanese city.
Sorry, but that's not quite correct, I think. They didn't need 4 years to come to the conclusion that bombing the civilian population was an option. Right from the start of the bombing campaigns civilian population centres were targeted. I know that in Europe cities were targeted at least from 1941 onwards. In 1942 the British cabinet officially approved carpet bombing of civilians.

"Bomber" Harris, appointed in Feb 1942 as Marshal of the Royal Air Force, had an even longer history of targeting civilians, IIRC. He had used mines & nerve gas while fighting anti-colonial insurgencies.

Even under the circumstances of WWII, even under the impression of fierce Japanese resistance, targeting civilians was illegal & the Allies knew what they were doing.

[snow san]

Sorry, but that's not quite correct, I think. They didn't need 4 years to come to the conclusion that bombing the civilian population was an option. Right from the start of the bombing campaigns civilian population centres were targeted. I know that in Europe cities were targeted at least from 1941 onwards. In 1942 the British cabinet officially approved carpet bombing of civilians.

"Bomber" Harris, appointed in Feb 1942 as Marshal of the Royal Air Force, had an even longer history of targeting civilians, IIRC. He had used mines & nerve gas while fighting anti-colonial insurgencies.

Even under the circumstances of WWII, even under the impression of fierce Japanese resistance, targeting civilians was illegal & the Allies knew what they were doing.

everybody wants to bring up the bombing of civilians, maybe its be cause the magatude of bombing warrants higher visibility on the international scale.

the only real differnance,I see, is ons side chose to kill many civilians at one time using an a-bomb
and the other side chose to kill many civilians over a long period of time using more conventional weapons

[sabro]

Bossel- you are quite right. My point wasn't that it took four years to bomb civillians, but that after bombing and roasting civillians for four years that the Atomic bomb was not much different. I don't think they considered it morally objectionable at that moment. My overall point is that we should not try to judge them by our standards without considering the context of the decision.

Snow-san- There were other conventional bombing raids (such as Dresden and Tokyo) that killed more in one night than the bombing of Hiroshima.

[Tim33]

Well as the American president back then said:
Any country to drop bombs on innocent civilians is clearly uncivilized barbarians.

Not exact speech, sadly i could not find it on the net and im not re-reading my history books.

So Whether the Americans were right to do it or not they are still hypocrits.

[sabro]

Guernica and Nanjing showed 'em how to do it.

[sabro]

September 1, 1939- Germany invades Poland. Stuka divebombers take to the air and bomb terrified civillians. Franklin Delano Roosevelt responds: "The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population...has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.... ﾊ I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every Government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations."

In 1941: Churchill responds that "...the intentional aerial bombing of civillians...is the worse form of inhuman barbarism."

When Britain swiched to bombing cities at night, "Bomber" Harris said of the Germans: "They have sown the wind, and now they will reap the whirlwind."

[Ikyoto]

The statement earlier in this thread that the US was out to reduce every Japanese city to ashes is an outright lie. Missions to bomb Kyoto were curtailed or redirected or done in daylight to prevent the destruction of it's historical treasures.

[sabro]

Kyoto was also a secondary target for the Nagasaki bomb.

[bossel]

after bombing and roasting civillians for four years that the Atomic bomb was not much different.
True. (except for the long-term consequences, but it's debatable if those were entirely clear for the decision makers at the time)

My overall point is that we should not try to judge them by our standards without considering the context of the decision.
Also true. But even measured at the standards of the time, it was a war crime. Whether the other side committed war crimes (& the degree thereof) as well doesn't really matter, IMO.

In the case of Harris we can also see that he had a history of targeting civilians long before the Nazis started the war.


The statement earlier in this thread that the US was out to reduce every Japanese city to ashes is an outright lie. Missions to bomb Kyoto were curtailed or redirected or done in daylight to prevent the destruction of it's historical treasures.
Sabro said that "They began to reduce the country to ashes." I think this is a legitimate metaphor. Of course they were not out to burn every single square meter of Japan.

Re Kyoto I have to say that IMO it's not really a positive point for them when they did not bomb historical treasures but apartment blocks.

[Ikyoto]

I stand corrected on the statement about the ashes.

Kyoto was so debated by the small group of people that one of the books I read in my asian history class had a line in it - I don't remember which of the gnerals said it, but it was along the lines of "bombing Kyoto would be like bombing the greatest museums in Europe. Even the Nazis at least stole the art before they destgroyed museums!"

[snow san]

Well as the American president back then said:
Any country to drop bombs on innocent civilians is clearly uncivilized barbarians.

Not exact speech, sadly i could not find it on the net and im not re-reading my history books.

So Whether the Americans were right to do it or not they are still hypocrits.

that is a loose very derrogatory accusation... its so offensive and obsurd it dosent even warrant rebuttal

[Tim33]

hypocrisy

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

That is what happened and therefore the statement was true.
When stating Americans i did not mean all Americans or Americans at this particular time i was refering to What was said and done during WW2. And the statement in those terms is a true one.

I meant no offence in it. I am quite willing to say that the British were at the time also.

I will apologize however as i dont think that i really phrased what i said to carefully.

[sabro]

Bombing Kyoto would be alot like bombing Dresden- it was another of those untouched museum-like cities with almost no war industry.

I am not offended by the hypocisy comment at all. I totally agree. War is immoral. We should avoid it whenever possible. It has always exacted a high price from the innocent, from childern, the elderly, the civillian... It is the excuse for doing the inexcusable, for making deals with the devil for no small gain, for comprimising every ethical and moral value a person and a society has. We pretend to have rules about who and how and when to kill, and what we should do to those who are wounded or captured...To wage war you must embrace immorality- the killing of others, the destruction of lives and property, the hate and dehumanization of your fellow man- the consequences, the "collateral damage"- and the first casualty of war, it is said, is truth.

I cannot see how, in the context of WWII, Truman would have been remotely capable of making another choice. The rules that moral, reasonable society generally follows- had long lost any relevant meaning. To focus only on the ends- the end of the war, stopping the killing- justified any means they felt necessary. It is at this point- where any means is justified that we all become hypocrites.

Sabro

[tarattara]

An atom bomb dropped on Dresden (or Hamburg or Frankfurt) would have done much more damage in a split second. I doubt the U.S. would've done it.

It's a well known fact that "Truman" insisted on dropping the A-bombs on Japan but the front-line military officers were against it, including Admiral Nimitz and General Eisenhower. Eisenhower confessed to Newsweek in 1963. http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hiro/silencing.html
http://www.aer.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=244&Itemid=46
Japan was already in ashes and she was ready to surrender and the allies
knew that well. The A-bombs HAD to be dropped, for experimental reasons and also to scare Russia off but it couldn't be dropped over Germany which is in the heart of Europe. Truman Doctrine was the use of military power to
contain communism. The development of the A-bombs began before WWII and the number of people engaged at the peak of the Manhattan project went over 125,000. It cost the US citizens billions of dollars, and the US government had a political need to use it. The A-bombs were ready by the time of the fire bombings of Dresden but never to be used over Nazis Europe, ofcourse.

Most of the the uranium used in the A-bombs came from Belgium Congo.
http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/archive/200408/04/20040804p2a00m0fp011001c.html

[bossel]

The A-bombs were ready by the time of the fire bombings of Dresden but never to be used over Nazis Europe, ofcourse.
Wrong, they were not even ready at the time of Germany's capitulation, hence the actual question whether to use them on Germany never arose.

[sabro]

Taratara- excellent articles.

On one point you are mistaken. The bombs could not have been used in Europe because they were not ready. The bombing of Dresden happened on February 13, 1945. Germany surrendered on May 7, 1945. The first atomic bomb test didn't happen until July 16, 1945- over two months later. I think it is ridiculous to charge that we would not have used it on Germany if it had been ready a year earlier. Until Allied troops crossed the German Frontier, victory was not a certainty and the bombs almost certainly would have been used.

On the other point, we disagree. Japan did not surrender after the firebombing of Tokyo March 9-10, 1945. Nor did ten more days of intense bombing of nine other cities that resulted in over 500,000 deaths result in a surrender. Neither did the sinking of the Emperial Navy including the Yamato, nor the fall of Okinawa in June and July of 1945. Japan did not surrender after the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, 1945. Japan continued to resist ferociously- taking an enormous toll on both sides. There was no indication of any desire to surrender until after both bombs had fallen.

The military had specific invasion plans, and was in the initial stages of moving the men and material necessary for it. The United States economy was busy producing more incidiary bombs, and heavy bombs, as well as shells for the heavy naval guns for a protracted "softening up" campaign of Hokkaido and souther Kyushu. War spending for 1946 was set to increase- in spite of the fact that Germany had already surrendered. Japan still had millions of soldiers and many more millions of civillians who were willing and able to keep fighting for years. They may have been on the ropes, but they were still capable of inflicting damage and fighting on and on.

Admiral Leahy was the only one that expressed reservations before hand, although Truman indicated that he recommended using the bomb. No other major leader of the few that were informed in the Pentagon or on the Dept. of War raised any concerns. Sec. Stimson, Gen. Leslie Groves, Adm. Nimitz, Gen. McArthur, Adm. Halsey, and Gen. LeMay all urged the dropping of the bomb. (Eisenhower was not informed until after the decision had been made.) Many of the scientist on the Manhatten project were concerned including Oppenheimer and sent a letter to Truman to that effect, but Truman never indicated whether he even read it. I don't know what the source is but if Nimitz expressed a reservation about dropping the bomb, it must have been much, much later.

Nearly every soldier and sailor who served in the Pacific, and certainly every POW that was held by the Japanese will credit the bomb with saving their lives. We need to keep the decision to drop the bomb in context.

I don't think carpet bombing, firebombing, or the atomic bombing of civillians should ever be allowable. Certainly during World War II, it would have been incomprehensible for Americans to consider these acts as atrocities or war crimes- but they certainly were attrocious. The military leadership and the public at large believed that not only were these actions neccessary, they were justified. And it is difficult for me, sixty years later, in my safe cushiony seat to judge that attitude. These people did not initiate the conflict, but they did end it in the quickest most efficient way the knew of.

[tarattara]

I'm surprised that you are both unaware of this, why do you think the second A-bomb was dropped? The two A-bombs were different types. You're both talking about the plutonium type (uranium partly used). The test that took place on July 16, 1945 at Alamogordo Air Base, New Mexico was a "plutonium type A-bomb" same as the one dropped over Nagasaki, "Fat Man." The first A-bomb that was dropped over Hiroshima "Thin Man or Little Boy" was uranium type that does not require and was not tested beforehand and was completed by the time of the bombings of Dresden. Why do plutonium type A-bombs require test explosion?, because the firing mechanism is much complicated and you can find enough info over the net. It is fair to say that an island, such as Japan was ideal for the first A-bombs to be dropped. The immediate after effects were studied thoroughly by the US through the ABCC (Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission) set up in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[bossel]

You're both talking about the plutonium type (uranium partly used).
Are we? Where did I say so?


The first A-bomb that was dropped over Hiroshima "Thin Man or Little Boy" was uranium type that does not require and was not tested beforehand and was completed by the time of the bombings of Dresden.
AFAIK, Little Boy was only completed after Trinity was tested. If I'm correctly informed only in July 45 they had enough U-235 & only at the end of July construction was completed, more than 2 months after German capitulation.

[sabro]

I personally think the second A bomb was dropped for a few reasons, none of which minimizes the carnage and suffering of the people of Nagasaki. Certainly the fact that Japan did not respond in the days after Hiroshima would be one reason. A warning to the USSR, could be another. Completing the bluff that "we got a bunch of these, and we could keep doing this over and over," is compelling. As is the general with the new weapon who is just dying to try it- idea. Again, I agree with Bossel, that neither bomb was ready before the German surrender.

Also, it does seem unfair that the winners got to decide what a war crime was, and who would be charged, but I don't know how it could have worked any differently. You don't win the largest armed conflict in human history and then turn around and punish your own leaders.

I still am terribly uncomfortable with the rationale for dropping bombs on civillian targets.

[Kionon]

I have to speak as a member of the military here, something I typically do not do. I honestly feel that the the problem with conversations like this usually tend to leave out the fact that war, by its very nature, is atrocious. It's horrible. It's ugly, mean, violent, revolting... It is hell. We cannot really judge the actions of a group of people that genuinely felt that they had no choice but to kill millions in order to save an unspecified amount, projected numbers of casualities seeming to run much higher than the populations of the two cities combined.

We'll never know if dropping the bombs was the right or wrong decision. I don't think we ever can know.

[sabro]

Kevin-
I appreciate your comment and agree with it. I would like to believe somehow that we are beyond the need to ever wage war on such a massive scale. As for dropping the bombs being the right or wrong decision, in the context of WWII, those people had to feel entirely justified. The bombs had the exact desired effect and the war was ended. Like I have said earlier, it is way to easy to take it out of that context and be an armchair QB.

[Sr Pasta]

I'm reading "Hiroshima in America" right now. It seems to argue very convincingly that the idea that dropping the bomb was all, or even mainly, about shortening the war, is simply not true.

The firebombings not producing a peace offer is questionable: many people within the japanese regime to active steps to try to get the war over with, long before the A-bombs.

Besides, that argument can easily be reversed: if not even the Tokyo firebombings could produce a surrender, why would the A-bombs? In fact, the Hiroshima bomb didn't do it - at least not before Nagasaki - and the Russian entry into the war may very well have been enough. In either case, there's no way the U.S.G. could be sure that these specific atrocities would shorten the war.

There where lots of alternatives: make a clear agreement on the role of the emperor, wait for Russia to declare war, or show of the bomb at some desolate place. My impression is that the USG wanted to use the bomb whether it would shorten the war or not. They reaped some clear benefits of this: internationally in negotiations with Russia, and domestically in defending the A-bomb expenditures.

[Bramicus]

It's easy to second-guess. The fact is, there was a war going on, a very bitter war, and the United States government was determined to do as much as it could, whatever it could, to end the war quickly, and avoid an invasion that would have cost millions of American (and, incidentally, Japanese) lives.

You can nitpick all you want about whether it would have ended anyway, and how soon. Did they know for sure that dropping the bombs would end the war? Of course not. Were they going to sit around and wait until they were positive that dropping the bombs would end the war? Of course not. It was possible that dropping the bombs would hasten the end of the war more quickly, so they dropped the bombs. They dropped the bombs, and the war ended -- practically immediately. That's why they did it, and that's what happened.

[Sukotto]

Wasn't the decision even to build the bomb in the first place
something that went beyond the authority of
and kept in secret from the US congress?

If so a dangerous precedent that will have set.

We can take a look at post-WW2 history and
see if they've ever done it again.



This should be a prologue to any debate on the topic by those
(Americans for sure since it was our government)
that care about democratic constitutional government -
which is what they were fighting for.

[Bramicus]

Wasn't the decision even to build the bomb in the first place
something that went beyond the authority of
and kept in secret from the US congress?

No, absolutely not. Once Congress has declared war, it's the President's job to wage it as effectively as he can, however he decides to do it. As Commander in Chief, he does not have to ask permission for any military action against the enemy at all; he goes on waging war as he decides to, until Congress tells him to stop fighting.

[Sr Pasta]

The fact is, ... the United States government was determined to do as much as it could, whatever it could, to end the war quickly, and avoid an invasion that would have cost millions of American (and, incidentally, Japanese) lives.

No, it's not. Long before Hiroshima the USG knew very well they wouldn't need to invade.

They simply cared less about japanese lives than their own need to show the bomb. They had lots of other options, but actively avoided them.

[sabro]

Most of the military was actively preparing for the invasion of Japan. Even at the highest levels, very few knew anything at all about the bomb. Some like Eisenhower who was not in the loop, felt the bomb was unnecessary. The others involved were near unanimous in support of Trumans ultimate decision. As for the surrender, the proverbial ball was in the Japanese court. I am certain also that although the bomb may have saved Japanese lives by shortening the war, there was a disregard for the lives of all the Japanese civillians- whether we were firebombing Tokyo or nuking Hiroshima and Japan- the US government and people probable felt fine about extremely high casualty rates.

[Bramicus]

No, it's not. Long before Hiroshima the USG knew very well they wouldn't need to invade. They simply cared less about japanese lives than their own need to show the bomb. They had lots of other options, but actively avoided them. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for these two astounding accusations, or is this just typical left-wing Swedish anti-American claptrap?

[Sr Pasta]

Bramicus: It's very easy - if they had been interested in trying to avoid atrocities, they could have waited for the Russians to declare war instead of doing their best two drop both a-bombs before that happened. I'll cite some quotes discussed in the book I mentioned earlier.

Harry Truman wrote in his Potsdam diary: "I've gotten what I came for - Stalin goes to war on August 15 with no strings on it ... I'll say that we'll end the war a year sooner now, and think of the kids who won't be killed!". He even wrote "fini japs when that comes about." But as Byrnes recalled later: "neither the President nor I was anxious to have them enter the war after we heard of the successful test", and "it was important to bring about an end to the war - and if possible to do that before Russia came into the war." (p 149 f)

They could also have given the japanese regime a clear message that the emperor would be preserved. They were very aware of this possibility. For example, Joseph Grew told Truman on May 28 that "the greatest obstacle to unconditional surrender by the Japanese is their belief that this would entail the destruction or permanent removal of the Emperor and the institution of the Throne". Grew later reported that the president had expressed interest "because his own thoughts had been following the same line". (p 134)

They could even have showed off the bomb in public, as many suggested. Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph Bard, for example, argued that it was "quite possible" that this could be "the opportunity the Japanese are looking for" to surrender. (p 141f)

All of these options were actively rejected. There were no military risks in trying them before using the a-bombs.

To be sure, there where people who thought an invasion would be necessary. General Marshall for example thought it'd be necessary whether the a-bombs were dropped or not (though some say he thought a Soviet declaration of war would make the invasion unnecessary). (p 140) But a naval blockade was also an obvious alternative to invasion: Admiral Leahy and Admiral King, for example, didn't consider an invasion necessary. Neither did General Arnold or General LeMay, who thought conventional bombing would be enough. (p 141) Truman's later claim that his military advisors recommended using the a-bomb is misleading: most were neither strong proponents nor opposers of the a-bomb. (p 141)

[Sr Pasta]

Bramicus: I take your silence on this matter as a confirmation that you found my "accusations" to be ast least more correct than you'd thought?

Sabro: I understand your point of view, but don't you think the issues I brought up implies that the USG policy did not, in fact, save lives in comparison to other, very possible policies?

[lexico]

But as Byrnes recalled later: "neither the President nor I was anxious to have them enter the war after we heard of the successful test"...(p 149 f)Could you be more specific about the test; what when where how who ?They could even have showed off the bomb in public, as many suggested. Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph Bard, for example, argued that it was "quite possible" that this could be "the opportunity the Japanese are looking for" to surrender. (p 141f)I think this is really the heart of this discussion. Why didn't the US detonate an A-bomb over Tokyo Bay (or any visible and not too distant location, but non-residential) as someone already mentioned on this forum, several kms above sea level for all to see and be astounded by, the light, wind, wave, and fall out ?All of these options were actively rejected. There were no military risks in trying them before using the a-bombs.There must have been some logical arguments (documents or other evidence ?) why these options were actively rejected. A need to display US supremacy and to be the first to tout the nuclear muscle ? Impressive but how to escape the moral responsiblity arising for having fallen for the temptation for absolute power in the standards of the time ? Foregoing the moral argument, which can get messy just by mentioning it, what practical flaws in judgement were involved ? Was there a clearly set objective that precluded other options; perhaps "it serves the US interest to use the A-bomb" ? If so when was the decision made, and who knew ?To be sure, there where people who thought an invasion would be necessary. General Marshall for example thought it'd be necessary whether the a-bombs were dropped or not (though some say he thought a Soviet declaration of war would make the invasion unnecessary). (p 140) But a naval blockade was also an obvious alternative to invasion: Admiral Leahy and Admiral King, for example, didn't consider an invasion necessary. Neither did General Arnold or General LeMay, who thought conventional bombing would be enough. (p 141) Truman's later claim that his military advisors recommended using the a-bomb is misleading: most were neither strong proponents nor opposers of the a-bomb. (p 141) I'm interested how this argument can be countered on solid evidence, documents, memoirs, and witnesses. When given, how many of these can hold up under close scrutiny, as veritable and genuine, and which ones rejected ascribed to unclear memory or self-rationalization ?

[Bramicus]

Bramicus: I take your silence on this matter as a confirmation that you found my "accusations" to be ast least more correct than you'd thought?Sorry; my silence means I hadn't read most of it yet. Now I've read it, it's interesting stuff that I guess was in the book you're reading, but it's all second-guessing after all. Not worth arguing over what can't be proven.

[Sukotto]

We definately should look into the what the decision makers
said via government documents as well as their personal
journals and biographies. What they state five years after the fact
may be the self-justification stuff. For example the save-body
count guess.




Estimates of the hypothetical saved-body count,
however, which range from 20,000 to 1.2 million, owe more to
political agendas than to objective projections.{5}

5. In June and July 1945, Joint Chiefs of Staff committees predicted
that between 20,000 and 46,000 Americans would die in the one or two
invasions for which they had drawn contingency plans. While still in
office, President Truman usually placed the number at about a quarter
of a million, but by 1955 had doubled it to half a million. Winston
Churchill said the attacks had spared well over 1.2 million Allies.
(Barton Bernstein, "The Myth of Lives Saved by A-bombs," Los Angeles
Times, July 28, 1985, IV, p.1; Barton Bernstein, "Stimson, Conant, and
Their Allies Explain the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," Diplomatic
History, Winter 1993, p.48.)


http://members.aol.com/essays6/abomb.htm

[Sukotto]

No, it's not. Long before Hiroshima the USG knew very well they wouldn't need to invade.

They simply cared less about japanese lives than their own need to show the bomb. They had lots of other options, but actively avoided them.




I thought I read somewhere that the US had broken the Japanese code
about a year (or more) before Hiroshima and that they knew that Japan
was very worried about the emperor.

In "Atomic Diplomacy" Gar Alperovitz writes the use of the bomb was
to intimidate the Russians after the war. I may have posted this before?
Alperovitz writes that he did not plan to come to this conclusion,
but that he was merely researching what went into the decision
to use the bomb. There's nothing anti-american about trying to dig
up history. Is one "anti-american" if they point out the hypocracy
of George Washington and other "founding fathers" of the US continuing to hold others in bondage (slaves) and rhetoricing about freedom and liberty?

[sabro]

Sir Pasta and Lexico- This is all guess work, and the morbid arithmatic of killing these thousands vs these thousands can go on and on and on. Even with the scant evidence I have seen, It is hard to get into the heads of Truman, Groves, Marshall, LeMay (see http://www.dannen.com/decision/) and it is easy to second guess (would've, should've, could've)

It is also too easy to say the bomb ended the war and saved lives. You drop a couple of bombs, and Japan surrenders... there is definitely some kind of cause-effect relationship. Historians look at the battles of Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa and project casualty estimates based upon these. It is still a guess- but there is nothing to suggest in the fierce Japanese resistance, that hundreds of thousands, or even well over a million fewer deaths due to the war ending sooner is an extremely high estimate. Remember that massive firebombings were set to resume before an invasion and that full scale bombardment of Hokkaido was next. Shortages and hunger would be exacerbated by a prolonged blockade resulting in massive famine. There were other options, but all had consequences- some of which may have ended up costing significantly more lives.

Allowing the USSR to enter the war, and take not only Manchuria, but also as much real estate as possible also would have had consequences.

All of which is moot if Japan simply surrenders. Japan could have surrendered earlier in 1945, or better yet, withdrawn from China in 1941 and ended the strategic embargo.

I think this is a great discussion by the way. I find it probably one of the better reasons to study history- so that somehow we can avoid nuclear war.

[noyhauser]

Its not really hard to get into the heads of the members of the administration. One of the best books I have ever read is Melvyn Leffler's Preponderance of Power, which is an extremely detailed look into the Truman administration actions (its 600 pages long and in small type). It answers a lot of the questions.

Bramicus: It's very easy - if they had been interested in trying to avoid atrocities, they could have waited for the Russians to declare war instead of doing their best two drop both a-bombs before that happened. I'll cite some quotes discussed in the book I mentioned earlier.

Thats false. A full fledged invasion of the Japanese islands would have never happened by the Russians. They didn't have close to the technical capability for it (the Soviets had no surface navy to speak of), and it would most certainly would have become a massacre that I doubt Stalin would have considered doing anyway. If he did he would again be doing the dirty work for the western allies by expending soviet lives for the west as he thought he was doing on the Eastern Front vs Germany. The Soviet invasion was advantageous for two reasons for the US. #1 would remove the Kwantung army from existance, the best troops of the Imperial Japanese army, and fully isolate japan from the rest of the world. It would nolonger be able to rely on outside resources to continue the war effort. #2 it would politically isolate the Japanese, showing them that they were now completely alone. It showed to Japanese War Cabinet that there would be nothing but unconditional surrender, and that a third way was not possible.

They could even have showed off the bomb in public, as many suggested. Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph Bard, for example, argued that it was "quite possible" that this could be "the opportunity the Japanese are looking for" to surrender. (p 141f)

Everything up to that point had shown that the Japanese were far from surrendering. Among the lessons that were in the forefront of American Leaders heads was the lessons of 1918... that getting a conditional surrender was not good enough, because the country in question may one day seek revenge as Germany did in 1939. (remember that Truman was a avid reader of history and himself a veteran of the first world war.) Japanese entries to the russians were just seen as the 1918 armistice all over again, and unacceptable to all allied parties.

I think this is really the heart of this discussion. Why didn't the US detonate an A-bomb over Tokyo Bay (or any visible and not too distant location, but non-residential) as someone already mentioned on this forum, several kms above sea level for all to see and be astounded by, the light, wind, wave, and fall out ?

I don't think that would have any effect, and was contrary to the thinking of the time. Its pretty hard to understand the raw power of the Atomic bomb, and probably most people would not see its effects if it was simply dropped over the pacific. I don't think the world's most expensive fireworks show would have likely changed the leadership's mind. Given that the Japanese were using suicide attacks en masse, and had suffered far more grevious casualties in a shorter period of time than any other country involved in WW2, many doubted the Atomic bomb was going to stop the war. The only way to show its awesome affects was to use it on the populace. And since the americans had already inflicted far more grevious damage via firebombing, the atomic bomb was the last card they could play. Nothing up to that point showed that the Japanese were willing for an uncoditional surrender and they had no real idea about the divide in the War cabinet.

In "Atomic Diplomacy" Gar Alperovitz writes the use of the bomb was to intimidate the Russians after the war. I may have posted this before?
Alperovitz writes that he did not plan to come to this conclusion,
but that he was merely researching what went into the decision
to use the bomb.

Not really true. The Truman adminstration really didn't become fully worried about the USSR in a way to warrant the use of an atomic bomb until about Februrary 1946. The Churchill's Iron Curtain speech in March 1946 was certainly a turning point, but the Refusal of the USSR to pull back from Iran in that month was really the breakthrough because it was a clear abrogation of a previously held agreement.. Before that point Truman thought that if he gave the USSR straight talk, like when he first met Foreign Minister Molotov in late April 1945, that they would do as they wished. Truman even thought that he could work with Stalin after meeting with him at Potsdam. And if that wasn't enough Truman said that "the Russians needed the US more than the US needed the Russians."
The US supplied russia with massive amounts of war material through the Lend Lease program, such as trucks and tanks, that were vital for the war effort. At the end of the war the US accounted for over 50% of the world's GDP.Also it shows faulty logic that the americans would be happy for the Soviet involvement in the war in the pacific (into a country with an active Communist Insurgency) then want to use the atomic bomb to scare the russians into not interfering with the US sphere of influence.

Really the main concern at the time for the Administration was how to end the war in Japan as quickly and easily as possible. I'm sure a small part of the reason may have been the show the soviets, I can't possibly deny that it didn't enter into part of the Deliberations, but it certainly was not even close to the main reason at all.

But a naval blockade was also an obvious alternative to invasion: Admiral Leahy and Admiral King, for example, didn't consider an invasion necessary. Neither did General Arnold or General LeMay, who thought conventional bombing would be enough.

none of these are sufficient. First off, the US had an effective blockade running from about late 1944 onwards, and by april 1945 had actually run out of ships to sink. The silent service (the US submarine force) had essentially destroyed 90% of the Japanese merchant marine by the end of the war. Economic strangulation would achieve nothing. The airforce by July had the same problem, they had burned out almost every city out of existence except for five or so cities that had been purposely left untouched. And capitulation was still not forthcoming. Both of these service chiefs of course are going to push their option for ending the war because it would increase their prestige, and they would not have to incur heavy casualties. The Army on the other hand did not want to go into Japan because they knew that they would get mauled heavily if they did so.

[noyhauser]

Also remember that if the US was truly worried about the USSR, they probably wouldn't use their only two atomic bombs against Japan knowing that they wouldn't get the next one until a year later... it would make far more sense to keep one for later, then use it all on the russians. (but russia was not seen to be a short term threat anyway, as I have outlined above)

[komachi]

The atomic bomb of Nagasaki exploded above the Urakami Catholic Church that has a history of miserable martyrdom.
http://www1.odn.ne.jp/uracathe/hibakuzou.htm
http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/na-bomb/museum/exhibit/exhibit_b02.html

"500M from ground zero" has no meaning at all, inside the atomic bomb heat power.
Famous photographs in Hiroshima immediately after the atomic bombing
are the one after the town was cleaned.
We can not find out a body in the town at all .(in photographs of scenery of town. )

please look at thease pictures.


http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_j/visit/art/art00.html#
http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/RETAIN/burns3-j.html

[lexico]

The atomic bomb of Nagasaki exploded above the Urakami Catholic Church that has a history of miserable martyrdom.

"500M distance" has no meaning at all, inside the atomic bomb heat power.
Famous photographs in Hiroshima immediately after the atomic bombing
are the one after the town was cleaned.
We can not found out bodies in the town at all.

please look at thease pictures.


http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_j/visit/art/art00.html#
http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/RETAIN/burns3-j.htmlThank you for sharing, Komachi.

I was thinking more of 5,000 m above ground, AND near Tokyo, not in the middle of the Pacific, Noyhauser. That would have reduced the direct radiation impact to (1/10)^2 = 1/100 of what is was at 500 m above ground.
The infrared radiation (comparable to the radiation microwave ovens use for cooking, but perhaps 10,000 fold in intensity ?) would still have made the emperor's plants in his botanical garden go up in smoke; what a personal loss to the man !

But plants have no feelings, they have no relatives to mourn for them, they can regrow, although not the exact same plant. But humans... I don't know how Hiroshima bombing was different from the crematories at Auschwitz or those of Unit 731 near Ha'erbin. How were they different ? They were all essentially based on disregard for human lives which continues symbolically in the US historical views that there were no alternatives; that they were forced to do it; and that it was the wiser choice.

Yesterday I read in the papers about two recent polls in the US and Japan; while about 70% of US citizens believed a WWIII is in the future, while only about 30% of Japanese citizens believed so. A distorted perception of how the US ended WWII might be playing its little psychological trick here.

[komachi]

I was thinking more of 5,000 m above ground,

so sorry,i meant "The Urakami church is 500M from the ground zero.".
I'd like to correct it in a hurry. :relief:

[lexico]

so sorry,i meant "The Urakami church is 500M from the ground zero.".
I'd like to correct it in a hurry. :relief:Oh, sorry. I was the one who made the misreading. On the one hand, I misread what you said, thinking that the bomb detonated 500 m above ground, and then I was making a comment on member Neuhauser's reply based on my misread. Sorry for the confusion, but the basic argument remains intact. At whatever elevation the Hiroshima bomb detonated, it should have been 10 times that elevation and the bomb would still have demonstrated its destructive powers. :(

[komachi]

The crime of the old empire army is not relating to my intention.

Man who doesn't know fear of the atomic bomb will use the atomic bomb again easily in the next World War�V.
one of reasons why the atomic bomb is frightened is a mutation in genes.
The descendant of people who bathed in the radiation of the atomic bomb still　has been worried whether cancer occurs easily or not.

[lexico]

The crime of the old empire army is not relating to my intention.I agree; yet to push the justification of the use of the A-bomb has dangerous implications -- such as using it again as you mentioned in the following.Man who doesn't know fear of the atomic bomb will use the atomic bomb again easily in the next World War�V.
one of reasons why the atomic bomb is frightened is a mutation in genes.
The descendant of people who bathed in the radiation of the atomic bomb still　has been worried whether cancer occurs easily or not.I absolutely agree. The acceptance of non-proliferation of destructive & peaceful use of nuclear energy by the leading nations is rather complicated I think;

1) To monoplolise the destructive power exclusively; all nations not armed with nuclear weapons can only bow their heads in obedience in case their national policy is in conflict with an armed nation's.

2) To accept the genuine warning from anti-nuclear activist groups; or at least to appear that they are the 'good guys.'

3) To keep the superior energy production technology within the 8 or 9 developed nations while keeping the rest of the world energy-poor; there is a great market for selling energy; petrol, natural hydro carbon gas, and nuclear fuel shafts. I would say at least some of the anti-nuclear activist groups in non-armed countries who object to even the peaceful use are not

3a) concerned with the transformation of a peaceful technology into a destructive technology
3b) concerned for a nuclear-free future
3c) concerned for those who have suffered from nuclear exposure

but are either

3d) ignorant, (what a good cover !)
3e) paid operatives for the nuclearised nations' gov'tal & non-gov'tal orgs such as the energy industry, oil dealers, and whatnot,
3f) dissidents seeking the weakening of the powers they oppose.

Sorry for being negatively critical; but it raises serious questions for the doubting minds that even peaceful nuclear technology is kept under tight control. We can see that IAEA is also tainted with political interests; it is NOT dedicated solely to the benefit of mankind in general.

[komachi]

I sympathize with the sense of anti-nuclear mission of people who actually experienced the hell.

but, I am sick about anti-nuclear activists who do not oppose nuclear test of North Korea and China though it opposes peaceful use of Japan for energy and nuclear test of the United States ,France and so on.

The launch pad tower of the nuclear warhead of North Korea and China aims at Japan.
I began to feel that Japan might have to have the nucleus of the deterrent.
:( :(
However,still i say" no one must use the nuclear weapon".
The human race should learn how Oppenheimer and Einstein regretted.

[lexico]

I sympathize with the sense of anti-nuclear mission of people who actually experienced the hell.
...
But, I am sick about anti-nuclear activists who do not oppose nuclear test of North Korea and China though it opposes peaceful use of Japan for energy and nuclear test of the United States, France and so on.
...
However,still i say" no one must use the nuclear weapon".
The human race should learn how Oppenheimer and Einstein regretted.I absolutely agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The launch pad tower of the nuclear warhead of North Korea and China aims at Japan.
I began to feel that Japan might have to have the nucleus of the deterrent. While the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, roughly 10% of which were Koreans and Chinese living/working there btw, have every right to protest any kind of nuclear threat, at the same time it is really difficult to blame China and N.Korea who suffered so much under Japanese colonialist expansionst activities from the late 1800's down to 1945.

The aggression against the Chinese resulted in more than 10 million Chinese deaths in Japanese hands during WWII alone; exceeding the Holocaust figure of 6 million by 4 million by the conservative figures. So how can you blame them ?

Japan, instead of arming for 'retaliatory nuclear capability,' should issue announcements such as;

The now peace-loving people of Japan fully admit the atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese people. We fully understand why your missiles are pointed towards us considering the past acts of aggression that Japan has painfully learned to regret and repent for. And because of this understanding, we refrain, in line with the new idea of peaceful coexistence of the new post-WWII Japan, from reacting in any ill-informed, insensitive manner. Also is the wide-spread concern both in and out of Japan that Japan has not fully repented, has been whitewashing its aggressive militarist past, and that it is pushing for rearmament by using China and N.Korea's legitimate response to recent historical tragedies as an excuse.

We kindly refuse to give in to the temptation and pressures to take an active role in any military pursuit whether aggressive, defensive, or peace-keeping. We, as any people of the world, reserve the right to defend ourselves when attacked, but will not prepare for nuclear retaliation. We hope, when China and N.Korea come to understand our intentions from our self-restraint, that they too will some day remove the nuclear missiles they have been pointing at us in symbolic gestures of protest. Our loyalty is not to our emperor, the glories of our past, nor to the war-torn turmoils that we ourselves created, but towards eternal peace in the country, the immediate neigboring region, and abroad.

(signed-- by whomever can rightfully represent the people of Japan)

[komachi]

why do i need blame general people?
why can't i blame people who use their twisted and bended justice in this modern time?
why do you think so?
you　do want only to blame the Japanese,don't you ?
i'm talking about the human race 's miserable　in the future .
please do not change discussion.
I have signed on the document "Japanese Government must investigate the truth of Nanking Massacre" 10 years ago.
The number of people at that time was 300,000 people.

After all,all is politics. (T T)

and･･･,I think that to put Korea on the same line with China is wrong attitude .

[lexico]

you　do want only to blame the Japanese,don't you ?
i'm talking about the human race 's miserable　in the future .
please do not change discussion.I understand that your reference to the nuclear missiles was only a conditional of a sentence structure of concession; "though, enventhough, even if." But the second part of your concessional clause I began to feel that Japan might have to have the nucleus of the deterrent. sounded way too dangerous to me, and I could not help but respond to that "concessional condition" you were struggling to overcome. Think of it this way; just imagine for a moment that my sample "statement" came from a mainstream Japanese citizen and not a citizen of a foreign country. I say that more as a human being angered at the inhumanity of war than as a Korean citizen bitter at Japan. My being Korean only helped me to see it better, and gave me better access to the information. I have lived 1/3 of my life in the US, and had excellent Japanese friends who were often even more critical of Japan than me, who studied Japanese atrocities in the library I frequented, or whose family left Japan out of disgust for Imperial Japan's policies during the "turbulent years." I am not blind, you see ?I have signed on the document "Japanese Government must investigate the truth of Nanking Massacre" 10 years ago.
The number of people at that time was 300,000 people.I am glad you and 300,000 people were interested in historical truth; but what was the truth you discovered ? That Nanjing Massacre was a lie conjured up by Allied Powers; esp. the US ?I think that to put Korea on the same line with China is wrong attitude.What exactly do you find wrong in my statement ? I am listening, so do tell what kind of problem you have with my post. I really have a hard time understanding your reference to my "wrong attitude."

[komachi]

but what was the outcome of the truth you discovered ?
as you said,i know about the number of 10 million victims of recent report too.
they said 300,000 people in ten years ago .
Conservative people say that 　Nanjing incident was a frame up...
i've seen 10 or more photos of Nankin evidence before.
and as they said ,there were " Bazoku/horse riding gangs".

many years passed ,but people and governments still do such a thing.

why do i have to trust both of them anymore?
Why should I participate in their political history discussions?


What exactly do you find wrong in my statement ? I am listening, so do tell what kind of problem you have with my post. I really have a hard time understanding your "wrong attitude."

Do I owe you loyalty, as if I were a Japanese citizen ?
Korea lost its kings and queens to Imperial Japan. Korean princes were forced to marry Japanese brides and forced into IJA military. Of Korean youths males were forced into serving IJA, girls into working in Japanese manufacturing facilites or brothels. Why do I owe Imperial Japan/Japan any sympathy for these acts of violence ?

have you ever seen photos of old Korea?
how do you think of the fact that a lot of Korean people are judged as a war crime?

[lexico]

as you said,i know about the number of 10 million victims of recent report too.
they said 300,000 people in ten years ago .
Conservative people say that 　Nanjing incident was a frame up...
i've seen 10 or more photos of Nankin evidence before.
and as they said ,there were " Bazoku/horse riding gangs".

many years passed ,but people and governments still do such a thing.

why do i have to trust both of them anymore?
Why should I participate in their political history discussions?So basically you're saying that after the 300,000 Japanese citizens demanded historical accuracy of the Nanjing Massacre, Japanese scholars/ Japanese gov't/ you have examined the evidence and concluded to disbelive the historical truthfulness of the Nanjing Massacre ?
Are you saying that the atrocity photos were pictures borrowed from those of Chinese horse-mounted bandits ?
I believe history is less about trusting anyone than "examining" the evidence presented for yourself after seeing all the evidence and all sides of the history telling.

I may add that having different views, even extremist, revisionist, or denialist views help expand historical criticism and to become more aware or historical truths, not to fall into relativist ideas conveniently denying all validity on grounds that there are more than one theory proposed.

For an overview of IJ's involvement in Najing (Nanking) Massacre, please read these threads.

Read a Japanese History Textbook (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16498).
The broken link to Japanese Views of the Second Sino-Japanese War can be found at
Japanese Views of the Second Sino-Japanese War

Rape of Nanking (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6559&highlight=nanjing+massacre)
Has Japan killed more innocent civilians in WWII than any other country in history ? (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16290&highlight=%28Nanjing+Nanking%29+Massacre)
Documents and pictures about NanJing Massacre (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16610&highlight=%28Nanjing+Nanking%29+Massacre)

have you ever seen photos of old Korea ?You mean the poor, delapidated, and crumbling gate of Namdaemun ? Yes I have. Does that give a shred of legitimacy for IJA to march in, kill our king and queen, and plunder the country as they pleased ?how do you think of the fact that a lot of Korean people are judged as a war crime?I am sure plenty of Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan participated in IJ's war crimes; as for the war crimes commited during the Vietnam War, any violators of civilians / POW's stipulated in the Geneva Convention are equally to blame and I am not ashamed to condemn them. I am open to criticism, and willing to listen to new info that I am not aware of. Do tell me more.

[komachi]

Site of conservative group in Nanjing incident
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/unko/tamezou/nankin/alleged/chapter1.html

it was published.
but, I do not believe some of all.



You are the South Korean,right?
There is penal regulations in South Korea now if someone praised that acts of old Japanese empire　even a little .
And, the history textbook of South Korea has only one kind that the country
provided.
I cannot expect a fair discussion.....
In short, the victor is gripping the pen of the history book.

[lexico]

Site of conservative group in Nanjing incident
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/unko/tamezou/nankin/alleged/chapter1.html

it was published.
but, I do not believe some of all.Thanks for the link; I will surely look at the info.You are the South Korean, right?
There is penal regulations in South Korea now if someone praised that acts of old Japanese empire　even a little.Wrong, komachi. Perhaps in the past during the Rhee Sungman administration. We have quite a few reviosionists in Korea, and they do not go to gaol or pay a fine for praising Japan/IJ/your emperor. They only get laughed at by the population.And, the history textbook of South Korea has only one kind that the country provided.Wrong again, komachi. Maybe right after the war, Korea did not have the chance to publish more than one textbook. Now we have around two dozen publishers ? Some are pro-commie, some are revisionist, and some are nationalist... we have the whole variety that any citizen of a civilized, democratic country would deserve. Too many, actually ! :lol:
But thanks for your concern for our democracy of textbook publishing. ;-)
I cannot expect a fair discussion..... Don't worry, komachi. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial in Korea. Even the commies ! :evil:
In short, the victor is gripping the pen of the history book.You lost me again, komachi. Who is the victor :clueless:
I think that to put Korea on the same line with China is wrong attitude.I still don't understand why you think I have the "wrong attitude." Just because Korean conscripts were forced into IJA during the last years of WWII to fight for IJ/your emperor in China makes me/Korea part of IJA, and therefore not qualified to criticise ? I'm not Patty Hearst, and I'm not a terrorist, either.

And if your logic is valid, how can a Japanese person be critical of Imperial Japan ? Is (s)he also of the "wrong attitude ?" btw to call someone on a "wrong attitude" is a VERY STRONG STATEMENT. So I expect a good explanation from you, or else...(unless it is a language problem)...so please define what you meant.

[komachi]

Maybe right after the war, Korea did not have the chance to publish more than one textbook. Now we have around two dozen publishers ? Some are pro-commie, some are revisionist, and some are nationalist... we have the whole variety that any citizen of a civilized, democratic country would deserve. Too many, actually !

realy? :okashii:
i meant only for "history textbook".
every site says "唯一の国定教科書/ the only one history textbook that established by country”
Even Wikipedia say that.
it's unbelievable.


btw to call someone on a "wrong attitude" is a VERY STRONG STATEMENT.


ooh,i apologizes if my expression was too strong.
It's because my English vocabulary is poor. :sorry:
and thank you for your point. :bluush:

well...

how do you think of a pro-Japanese president, Sei Pak (Pac-chonhi/朴正熙)?
His words are a reason why i think that South Korea is not same as China.

[lexico]

realy? :okashii:
i meant only for "history textbook".
every site says "唯一の国定教科書/ the only one history textbook that established by country”
Even Wikipedia say that.
it's unbelievable.Well you do seem to have a point. According to one source, there have been 59 State-Compiled textbooks in the period 1946 to 2002, and it does seem that since 1974, only one line of history textbooks had state approval. But I have always had more than several textbooks used for references in my history classes all thru my junior-high to high school yrs; and I had access to a wealth of reference materials I got from used book stores. I'm having just a little trouble finding a list of all available history textbooks on the market, but let me list some that I was able to find on the web. There are at least 6 high school level history textbooks available for schools to choose from, but I don't have the full situation just yet. These are the stuff I found from various publications.

<국정교과서 국사> gov't approved "Korean History"
<이 겨레 살리는 통일> National Teachers' Union, "Unification for National Resusitation"
<살아있는 한국사 교과서> National Teachers' Union, "Korean History in Motion"
<한국 근현대사> Kumsong Publishing, "Modern History of Korea" high school

some companies currently publishing highschool history textbooks:
1) (사)한국검정교과서협회 (02) 3663-5409 to 5412 http://www.ktbook.com
2) (주) 교 학 사 (02) 7075-120 http://www.kyohak.co.kr
3) (주) 두 산 (02) 3398-2700 http://www.dong-a.com
4) (주) 금성교과서 http://www.kumsung.co.kr/text/branch.jsp

These are what I could find, but there should be more.
ooh,i apologizes if my expression was too strong.
It's because my English vocabulary is poor. :sorry:
and thank you for your point. :bluush:I understand; NP.how do you think of a pro-Japanese president, Sei Pak (Pac-chonhi/朴正熙)?
His words are a reason why i think that South Korea is not same as China.I'm not sure how you mean by calling him pro-Japanese. Pres. Park Chunghee was not an ideoplogue of any sort; but a politician. Unlike many presidents of stable, developed coutries, he lived thru tumultuous times that makes it very difficult to follow a single line of political ideology which can be a luxury for a nation/individual on the brink of survival thanks to the greedy yrs of colonialism. He was a brilliant leader who did what seemed best during his public service within the practical limits presented. Just because he graduated a Japanese military school and had many Japanese friends during his life time; does that make him pro-Japanese ? I think that is an understatement of what his life has shown. Does his involvement in the popular communist uprising in Yosu-Sunch'on make him a commie ? That too is too limiting of his talent and political scope. Does his role in the 1963 Korea-Japan reconciliation make him revisionist and apologist for IJ's war time atrocities including his role in the IJA ? Definitely not.

edit: What did Pres. Park say that made you think he had different ideas from the Chinese ?

[cicatriz esp]

In Japan, the obliteration of Hiroshima did not at first yield conclusive results. Japanese scientists assessing the Hiroshima damage doubted that the Americans could possibly have harvested enough radioactive material to make more than a few bombs. It was even likely, they said, that Hiroshima was a one-off stunt that could not be repeated. (This deprecation of the magnitude of the US Bomb program suggests how ineffective a demonstration would have been.) Only after the Soviet declaration of war against Japan on Aug. 8 and the second nuclear attack on Nagasaki on Aug. 9 did Emperor Hirohito, in an exceedingly rare display of direct political command, overrule some of his own military leaders, who advocated an apocalyptic fight to the finish. Citing the unprecedented destructive power of the atom bombs, he declared, "I swallow my own tears and give my sanction to the proposal to accept the Allied proclamation" - which called for Japan's unconditional surrender.

Take this article for what you will; I'm not sure how much these guys at this "Time" magazine do their research.

Oh, I know it's an old argument and I hope it's been settled, but my country was absolutely going to drop this bomb on Germany had we had the opportunity.

[komachi]

some companies currently publishing highschool history textbooks:
1) (사)한국검정교과서협회 (02) 3663-5409 to 5412 http://www.ktbook.com
2) (주) 교 학 사 (02) 7075-120 http://www.kyohak.co.kr
3) (주) 두 산 (02) 3398-2700 http://www.dong-a.com
4) (주) 금성교과서 http://www.kumsung.co.kr/text/branch.jsp

thanks for links,
well, i tried it,but finally link to
http://www.kyohak.co.kr
about the history of junior grade text.
:relief:

well.i don't know how to say in English,
朴正煕 選集 我々は今何をいかになすべきか
박정희 선집 우리는 지금 무엇을 얼마나 이루어야할 것인가

and,the radioactivity comes to South Korea and Japan when the nuclear test is done in the north direction .
i would like to ask you "Don't you frighten it?"
i'm always worry about radioactivity. :( :(

[sabro]

I got to read the Time magazine articles at the dentist office today. I highly recommend it. It leaves little doubt about the certainty of the decision to drop the bomb and its effect of ending WWII. It also leaves little doubt about its horrible and inhumane effect. In one article the moral question it raised was not the decision to drop the bomb, but the acceptance in the years before of the deliberate targeting of civillians.

[lexico]

I got to read the Time magazine articles at the dentist office today. I highly recommend it. It leaves little doubt about the certainty of the decision to drop the bomb and its effect of ending WWII. It also leaves little doubt about its horrible and inhumane effect. In one article the moral question it raised was not the decision to drop the bomb, but the acceptance in the years before of the deliberate targeting of civillians.Thanks for sharing your readings, Cicatriz, Sabro.

Crossing the Moral Threshold
Why U.S. leaders never questioned the idea of dropping the Bomb
By DAVID M. KENNEDY (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1086166,00.html)
Posted Monday, Jul. 25, 2005
From the Aug. 01, 2005 issue of TIME magazine

[komachi]

I still don't understand why you think I have the "wrong attitude." Just because Korean conscripts were forced into IJA during the last years of WWII to fight for IJ/your emperor in China makes me/Korea part of IJA, and therefore not qualified to criticise ?

After all, I couldn't find out it in English version and the title.

「朴正煕 選集　２国家・民族・私」−我々は今何をいかになすべ きか-.

【Summary】

In a word, our history of 5,000 years was a history of retrogression,
crude, and stagnation.
There were a few wise kings and some heros.
However, most of our history knelt to the powerful nation or were only sitting knitting straw .
The civilization and the economy of every country in the world had developed while we were sleeping.

******************

i would like to reply by several satire pictures instead of it.

The people in Korea were exploited by the Chinese emperor and the dynasty of Korea.
there was even no money economy, and they were very poor.
President Park said it at another time.
"Japan brought Korea the duty education.
my family was very poor,but I could have the education. "
He was an officer of the old Japanese army.

Of course,I will not say that every old Japan's conduction was good.
I think that the military in Japan of 40's was bad quality,and they were cornered to "The Net of the ABCD encirclement", and had gone mad.
※A:America B:Britain C:China D: Dutch

Colonialization was not evil thing in that age.
Excluding Japan, there were some countries which wanted Korea.
and the annexation was lawfully among international at that time .


http://nandakorea.sakura.ne.jp/img/explain.jpg

http://nandakorea.sakura.ne.jp/img/sakana.jpg

http://home.catv.ne.jp/hh/kcm/exh/photo/bigot-nichiro.jpg

[lexico]

Hi, Komachi:

I read your reply, but you still haven't given me a clear answer. After your analysis of the relationship of Old Korea and Old Japan of the late 1800's early 1900's, what is your response to my questions regarding your reference to my "wrong attitude ?"

Originally Posted by lexico

1. Just because Korean conscripts were forced into IJA during the last years of WWII to fight for IJ/your emperor in China makes me/Korea (sic. should have said "them") part of IJA ?

2. Because of the fact that they also participated in IJA atrocities, they therefore are not qualified to criticise IJA policies and their criminal behavior 1931-1945 ?

3. Am I, as a citizen of the Republic of Korea, disqualified to criticise both the criminal behavior of IJ and IJA due to the fact that there existed collaborators, either willing or reluctant, with IJ/IJA ?

4. You, as a citizen of Modern Japan, a government succeeding Imperial Japan, are legitimately "violated" by my criticising IJ/IJA's wartime crimes ?

In summary, after reading your response; what is your point ? Your words are many, but a conclusion I see naught !

note: Your first two pics are not showing; and the last funny pic means what ?

[komachi]

what is your point ? Your words are many, but a conclusion I see naught !


well....O.K.

my point is there were many Korean people who had a Japanese name in China.

I do not mean that Japan did not do cruel things to the Korean people.
People who testify, "Old Japan improved Korea" are thrown one after another into the prison in South Korea.
South Korea treated the book as a harmful book in 2001,"Defense for the pro-Japanese sect" .
The writer is a South Korean man,Kim Wansop.
He was arrested because of the book.
He was accused with "national affairs crime", and became immediately before the capital punishment.
And, "Law that traces action of pro-Japanese" was enacted in 2004,right?
i can understand a political reason why South Korea delete parts that depended on Japan.
so,I am holding back to your political contexts ....


July, 1931(Two months before Manshu incident. )

500 Chinese farmers attacked 200 Korean people who migrated to Manshu in mt.Mampouzan of Manshu. In the scramble for water. Old Japanese Government advertised it on a large scale by using this for propaganda.
the Chinese was slaughtered in a Korean peninsula various places.

http://www.mf10.com/dreamtale/gyakusatsu.jpg

倭（Jap)奴(slave)嗾（tempt)使(use)鮮人（Korean)惨� E(massacre)我(my)同胞(brother)之(of)血痕(blood)
Is anyone here help me to translate Chinese sentence please?

the law that make the family name in 1939 .
The change of first name is a permission system.

(There is a theory that Korean people who lived in Manshu requested changing name to the Japanese style strongly .
after the war the Korean lieutenant general,Kou Shoku, was no evidence and executed.
He never changed his name because his Ethnic pride as the Korean.
He was neither a Korean royal family he was nor an aristocrat.. )

It was in 1938 that volunteers from Korea was recruited.
Photos of the Korean volunteers that dry run at street fighting was published.
in magazine "Asahi graph" on March 29, 1939.

The the government-general recruited 6,300 Korean soldiers in 1943.
300,000 over more Korean applied.

朝鮮人特別志願兵応募状況 (Korean special volunteer application situation)

年次別 採用数 応募者 倍率
１９３８年（昭１３） ４０８ ２，９４８ ７．７
１９３９年（昭１４） ６１３ １２，３４８ ２０．１
１９４０年（昭１５） ３，０６０ ８４，４４３ ２７．６
１９４１年（昭１６） ３，２０６ １４４，７４３ ４５．１
１９４２年（昭１７） ４，０７７ ２５４，２７３ ６２．４
１９４３年（昭１８） ５，３００ ３０３，２９４ ５６．７

内務省資料（the document of the Department of the Interior of Japan,may,1945
(昭和２０年５月）より
ttp://toron.pepper.jp/jp/20cf/touchi/sigan.htm

↑
However, this material might be notorious "Imperial H.Q. announcement".
but there is not evidence of no truth either.
I want to keep having the concern of this.


Old Japanese Government ordered the military service to the Korean as a duty in 1944.


*************************
I agree with a opinion that "Don't beautify old Japan army."
I think it's no doubt that there were many idiot in the top of management of Japanese army around the end of the war.
Japan must never become axis of evil.
this is my opinion as a modern Japanese.

[lexico]

I still don't see what your raw data would translate into as your reasoning that I showed "wrong attitude" in saying,While the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, roughly 10% of which were Koreans and Chinese living/working there btw, have every right to protest any kind of nuclear threat, at the same time it is really difficult to blame China and N.Korea who suffered so much under Japanese colonialist expansionst activities from the late 1800's down to 1945.

The aggression against the Chinese resulted in more than 10 million Chinese deaths in Japanese hands during WWII alone; exceeding the Holocaust figure of 6 million by 4 million by the conservative figures. So how can you blame them ?

Japan, instead of arming for 'retaliatory nuclear capability,' should issue announcements such as;The now peace-loving people of Japan fully admit the atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese people. We fully understand why your missiles are pointed towards us considering the past acts of aggression that Japan has painfully learned to regret and repent for. And because of this understanding, we refrain, in line with the new idea of peaceful coexistence of the new post-WWII Japan, from reacting in any ill-informed, insensitive manner. Also is the wide-spread concern both in and out of Japan that Japan has not fully repented, has been whitewashing its aggressive militarist past, and that it is pushing for rearmament by using China and N.Korea's legitimate response to recent historical tragedies as an excuse.

We kindly refuse to give in to the temptation and pressures to take an active role in any military pursuit whether aggressive, defensive, or peace-keeping. We, as any people of the world, reserve the right to defend ourselves when attacked, but will not prepare for nuclear retaliation. We hope, when China and N.Korea come to understand our intentions from our self-restraint, that they too will some day remove the nuclear missiles they have been pointing at us in symbolic gestures of protest. Our loyalty is not to our emperor, the glories of our past, nor to the war-torn turmoils that we ourselves created, but towards eternal peace in the country, the immediate neigboring region, and abroad.(signed-- by whomever can rightfully represent the people of Japan)
You can't quote a long list of historical bits alone, and let the data speak for themselves. Please verbalise what they mean to you so that your post becomes intelligible. Please tell me what you found troublesome with my post, and why, so that you would feel the need to digress into the details you quoted; these are not clear to me at all.

[komachi]

as an example, when Japan occupied Hong Kong in 1941, Korean people who had put on the uniform of Japan army raped women.
residents hated Korean people more than Japanese army.

Is damage country of old Japanese empire a acquittal position to past wash?　

Is damage country of old Japanese empire a acquittal position of nuclear use?

Don't you forgive me usage of my word,"wrong attitude" yet?

what the document is that?

Mr. Einstein said ,

I don't know new arms used in the WW�V.
But, I know arms used in the WW�C.
It will be sticks of trees.

[lexico]

as an example, when Japan occupied Hong Kong in 1941, Korean people who had put on the uniform of Japan army raped women.
residents hated Korean people more than Japanese army. Two questions for you;
1) What edivence do you have on the 1941 Hong Kong incident you stated ?
2) By saying that "Korean people who had put on the uniform of Japan army raped women.
residents hated Korean people more than Japanese army," what do you intend to say ? And how does that (I still have the slightest idea what it is) make my post problematic ? Please don't expect me to put words in your mouth because I can't; and even if I could, those would be my words, not yours.Is damage country of old Japanese empire a acquittal position to past wash ?　
Is damage country of old Japanese empire a acquittal position of nuclear use ?I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you please restate these so that I can understand ?Don't you forgive me usage of my word,"wrong attitude" yet ?You apologised about the "strength" of calling me "wrong," which I said was not a problem. But you went on to give me details, supposedly explaining why you said that. It's less about forgiving; there is nothing to forgive. But I simply cannot follow your logic because you provided raw data without stating what you wanted to tell me by the quotes. Could you maybe explain your meaning (=your interpretation, conclusion) ? I really don't know what you are trying to say.what the document is that ?Which document are you talking about ?Mr. Einstein said ,

I don't know new arms used in the WW�V.
But, I know arms used in the WW�C.
It will be sticks of trees.I think I understand what you mean by this; that if there is a WWIII, that will destroy our civilisation globally. But I was only lucky; I would appreciate it if you would stop treating me like I am super smart. I might understand the literal sense of one quote; but I cannot induce your intention/idea solely from it. :sorry:

[komachi]

Two questions for you;
1) What edivence do you have on the 1941 Hong Kong incident you stated ?
2) By saying that "Korean people who had put on the uniform of Japan army raped women.


i quoted some lines from this testimony book,written by a Honkon person.

『日本軍は香港で何をしたか』 　謝永光 :著　森幹夫:訳

"What did the Japanese army do in Hong Kong?"

ttp://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/4784503420/250-1235148-0423445

The author of this book experienced the Hong Kong occupation by the Japanese army.
he was a doctor of the Orient medicine (Haricuu/shinkyu/針灸).

"What did the Japanese army do in Hong Kong?"

↓QUOTE　

During Japan occupied Hong Kong,
many Korean wore the uniform of Japan army.
The Korean were taller than the Japanese,and used violence very much.
Koreans did intrude Hong Kong residents' houses , and raped women .
Hong Kong residents held heavy hate to the Korean more than Japan army.


　香港占領期間中、多くの朝鮮人が日本の軍服を着てい たが、一般の日本人よりも背が高く、
日本の正規軍よりも、もっと凶暴だった。このとき民家 に乱入して婦女暴行を働いたのは、
日本人の手先となって悪事を働いていた朝鮮人であった 。
当時香港住民は日本軍に対するよりも、もっと激しい憎 悪の念を彼らに抱いた。



Could you please restate these so that I can understand ?

sorry,i tried it.↓

Is　the use of the nucleus　acquitted because they are victims of Old Japan?

　Which document are you talking about ?
↓ What is this group?
signed-- by whomever can rightfully represent the people of Japan

[lexico]

i just quoted some lines from this book,written by a Honkon person.

ttp://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/4784503420/250-1235148-0423445

The author of this book experienced the Hong Kong occupation by a Japanese army.
he was a doctor of the Orient medicine (Haricuu).

『日本軍は香港で何をしたか』
What did the Japanese army do in Hong Kong?

　　謝永光著　森幹夫訳

↓QUOTE　

　香港占領期間中、多くの朝鮮人が日本の軍服を着てい たが、一般の日本人よりも背が高く、
日本の正規軍よりも、もっと凶暴だった。このとき民家 に乱入して婦女暴行を働いたのは、
日本人の手先となって悪事を働いていた朝鮮人であった 。
当時香港住民は日本軍に対するよりも、もっと激しい憎 悪の念を彼らに抱いた。If what Mr. Xie Yongguang is saying is true, it would be necessary to investigate the so-called Korean war crimes against the Chinese. I wonder if any of the crimes was touched upon in the IMTFE trial of Tokyo or the Chinese militray tribunal. If not, this would be another example of war crimes not being exposed at the time or immediately after the war, but becoming public only after more than 50 yrs.

But my question was also, "So how does that invalidate my post ?"

sorry,i tried it.↓

Is　the use of the nucleus　acquitted because they are victims of Old Japan ?I see now. I think the question may have had two parts;
1) Is the US gov't innocent in using the A-bomb on the Japanese civilians because the US suffered attacks and war losses with IJA ?
2) Will the Japanese gov't remain innocent in its possible future use of the A-bomb against a possible nuclear onslaught by a foreign country such as N.Korea or China ?
↓ What is this group?
signed-- by whomever can rightfully represent the people of JapanI wrote it; I probably should have dug up an anti-nuclear writing by a Japanese citizen, but I just wrote something that I thought any conscientious person with some understanding of the cruelty of 1) the IJA atrocities and 2) the A-bomb could have written. I believe I was clear by saying that I was giving you a sample statement; in fact I referred to it as an "example," or "sample" several times.

I understand better what you said; but how does that make my statement "wrong ?"

[komachi]

Japanese and Korean invaded China and other Asian countries for release from western country together.
the Korean was forced ,but they were Japanese.
and Korea had profit from Japan in early annex age.
(Of course, the latter half of IJ was terrible, i know.)
so,I think Korea and China is not completely same situation at WW2.
this is my personal opinion.


i know as a result, the Asian citizens　was brought richness and freedom by the U.S. .

at the same time,i think two different type atomic bombs still leave a few problems.


124,711 citizens died only by the air raid on Tokyo on March 10, 1945.
10,000 citizens or more died in Osaka by the air raid of several degrees
till August 14.
there were 1000 or 2000 dead scale air raid on many cities of Japan.
ttp://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~un3k-mn/kusyu.htm


I guess if the U.S.'s purpose was not experiment,the U.S. should have urged surrender threateningly at first, before Hiroshima,

"We have terrible new weapons.
Next we will be Tokyo, or other place.".

if U.S. did so, there was no "the 2nd atomic bomb attack".

After all, victor's atrocity is not judged as for the rule of the world.
And, the human race might repeat the war.
I do not want to hate any country.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/kyoiku/learning/editorial/20050318/index.htm

[lexico]

Japanese and Korean invaded China and other Asian countries for release from western country together.
the Korean was forced ,but they were Japanese.
and Korea had profit from Japan in early annex age.
(Of course, the latter half of IJ was terrible, i know.)
so,I think Korea and China is not completely same situation at WW2.
this is my personal opinion.You are making claims bold enough to start another war in my opinion: in a word you are just another revisionist /denialist who thinks that Japan has been the victim all along. I could go on, but shall leave you to the sharks. :evil:
So be it for now. How does "that" opinion of yours make my post no.81 problematic ?
Where did I ever claim that "Korea and China IS completely same situation at WW2" ?
Even if I concede to your outrageous claims; what does that have anything to do with my post ?
Does it comfort you to have had Korea as your ally in WWII ?
But aren't you forgetting Korea was a colony, without a ruling government excercising its soverignty ?
Your logic can be likened to incest; or having sex with a doll.
Instead, please state clearly your reasoning as in "because so-&-so is such-&-such, therefore lexico's post no.81 has a problem," or "lexico's post no.81 is incorrect in that blaa is blab."i know as a result, the Asian citizens　was brought richness and freedom by the U.S.If as you say that Japan and Korea invaded China and other Asian countries to "liberate" them from western powers, why was there any need for the US to intervene to the point of "reliberating" them ? Are you naive enough to belive that countries are so concerned with other people's well being as to go to wars in deadly competition, to be the greater benefactors in the wars of liberation ? The fact that war is profitable is the reason why countries go to war. The winner makes more money whereas the loser loses money or doesn't make as much eventually.at the same time,i think two different type atomic bombs still leave a few problems.

124,711 citizens died only by the air raid on Tokyo on March 10, 1945.
10,000 citizens or more died in Osaka by the air raid of several degrees
till August 14. There were 1,000 or 2,000 dead scale air raid on many cities of Japan.
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~un3k-mn/kusyu.htmAlthough the civilian victims have all the sympathy they deserve, you have failed again to state how that invalidates my post no. 81.I guess if the U.S.'s purpose was not experiment,the U.S. should have urged surrender threateningly at first, before Hiroshima,

"We have terrible new weapons.
Next we will be Tokyo, or other place."
if U.S. did so, there was no "the 2nd atomic bomb attack".
I also think the US should have taken all other workable possilibites into consideration before deciding to take the route of straight dropping the A-bombs. I would truly like to believe that possibility, but US views deny that as said in the A-bomb related threads on the forum. After all, victor's atrocity is not judged as for the rule of the world. Well here's your chance; go ahead with your accusations, and you have all my support although the forum is not a court of law. At least you can have the satisfaction of stating your claims, backing them up, and countering any views advocating the inevitability of the use of the A-bomb by the US.
And, the human race might repeat the war.
I do not want to hate any country.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/kyoiku/learning/editorial/20050318/index.htmSure, I believe you, although you have presented some dangerously inaccurate views here, we seem to agree that using A-bombs on civilians was, is, and shall be deemed wrong by all standards.

[komachi]

what do you mean by "sharks"?

does it mean anything a scary thing?

anyway,
i thought you said that Japan must not complain even if China and North Korea drop the nucleus to Japan because of 100 years ago ,in your #81.

I seriously worry about slaughtering the Japanese in the near future.

I might be nervous for a moment because the trend of N&S Korea and China are insisting,"you can do any things to Jap. Because they are Jap.".

[lexico]

what do you mean by "sharks"?

does it mean anything a scary thing ?Nothing like anything threatening; I meant to say something funny... There are people who are highly critical of views reflecting revisionism/minimalism/denialism. I was looking for a word to express that, but they are decent people with a stronger sense for truth, justice, and logic compared to me. I admit it was a bad word choice; yet it was not a threat on you or any disparaging word on those excellent individuals.anyway,
i thought you said that Japan must not complain even if China and North Korea drop the nucleus to Japan because of 100 years ago, in your #81.Where did I say that ? Please reread my post no. 81 and tell me what I said regarding the "positioning of nuclear missiles in N.Korea/China in Japan's direction."I seriously worry about slaughtering the Japanese in the near future.

I might be nervous for a moment because the trend of N&S Korea and China are insisting,"you can do any things to Jap. Because they are Jap.".That would be below us. We would rather die than engage in such vile acts. I am only an individual, but ask any Korean, southerner or northerner. Ask any Chinese with whom you are able to establish stable contact and ask them the question. Slaughter ? I believe, of CJK, Imperial Japan was the only nation capable of the vile acts of violence due to its aggressive expansionist/imperialist/racist ideas. Please do not project your self-reflection on IJA and the imperiliast machine that drove it to commit the atrocities on others.

As much as it is wrong to hold modern individuals responsible for committing the atrocities themselves, it is also wrong to assume that you are somehow obligated to defend IJ ideas and IJA's past actions because the majority of Japanese citizen of Imperial Japan were also victims of the war machine. I believe the majority of Japanese citizens of that time were also forced into becoming accomplices to those crimes; their sin/responsibility lies not in active participation of those criminal behavior, but in not resisting orders and pressures to follow inhumanity. However to continue defending what even you despise would amount to perjury as a willing accomplice, and to continue in the inhumanity. What is your choice ?

[komachi]

I meant to say something funny...
I got relieved. :relief:
You are so logical.
and you seem native English speaker to me.



it is really difficult to blame China and N.Korea who suffered so much under Japanese colonialist expansionst activities from the late 1800's down to 1945.

The aggression against the Chinese resulted in more than 10 million Chinese deaths in Japanese hands during WWII alone; exceeding the Holocaust figure of 6 million by 4 million by the conservative figures. So how can you blame them ?


↑
These are dangerous and frightening sentences for the Japanese.
These made me so nervous.
The atomic bomb is not the world of movies for the Japanese.

you said 10million. or 6 million by 4 million by the conservative figures.

A conservative group doesn't say 4 million people.
isn't it a mistake of "maximum is 40,000"?
I know China have started to say 10 million people recently.
but ,
Is this figures with academic proof?

China government doesn't allow the scholar in Japan to survey Nanjing.

figures is important.

a false rumor causes the slaughter.

as you said,There is a underside in the war .
After the war, there is a underside also in processing.
The just cause is necessary also for the victorious country.
Can you say that there is no country that make operate the casualty toll in the civil war and the number of victims of suppression ?

The Japanese is surely massacred in near future if you said even these sentence are dangerous.

To tell the truth, hate crimes (slaughter incidents) by Asian already occurred in Japan .
one of them said that "we can do any things because they were Japanese."

even a doubtful story like a tabloid newspapers is becoming historical and
true .
"Because it was old Japanese empire army,
No one can trust it. No need to check.
hey ! Apologize instead of them! "

I will reflect more about our race's history if "10million. or 6 million by 4 million" is true.
However, if it is propaganda of the country somewhere,
it is outrageous mad story.

It is very effective for the unity of the country to make the common foe.
Old Japan did it.

I　talked with you about Korean people at old time.

you said the insecure evidence I took out a testimony and the national material.
Didn't you held bad feelings ?

I would like to point out the possibility that if North Korea became the camp of so-called freedom,China request apologis to United Korea.

If this would come,probably you think as a U.Korean ,
"We must apologize if it is true.
ahh,････but is it true?"

I have such a doubt and a conscience.

[sabro]

Komachi-

This is familiar information that has been gone over on this forum again. It is also one of the reasons for the continuing strong sentiments regarding the activities of the Imperial Japanese Army seventy years ago. The Japanese continue to undercut every attempt at apology with historical revision, excuses, and minimization of the role she played in the most violent chapter of human history.

The invasion of China, including attrocities committed in Nanjing and other places, and including the use of biological weapons is well documented. The figures will never be exactly known, but they are high. China will give you figures in excess of 10 million, but the difficulty in estimating the exact number- and fairly ruling out those from the civil war and other causes.

When you speak about the things remeber the context during the darker days of the last century and realize that it was the unilateral actions of Japan and Japan alone that set into motion the entire Pacific war.

[komachi]

The United States took away materials data of unit731.

By the way,

In Korean War, the United States did the biological warfare by using the material confiscate from unit.731 .

We have information that the U.S.Army was making hundreds of women forced　women　 to provide sex brothels for the U.S. soldiers at military during korean War.

Moreover, a lot of sex crimes happened, 30,000 victims or more were
generated every year.

↑
a lot of such like these site of Asian Japanese are existing.

please try it "google" with
朝鮮戦争　細菌戦　七三一　アメリカ .

↓

朝鮮戦争・Korean War
細菌戦・bacteriological warfare
七三一・731
アメリカ. America(The U.S.)


The U.S. deny it as a negative propaganda of communism.

of course I know about unit.731.
Japan is not denying experiment in WW2 .
Is not it permitted to Japan to demand proof　of figures?
Asian people still live in the information war of the Cold War .
how can we believe everything?

Is it impossible that the Japanese appeals for the abolition arms　of the worst in the history of mankind ?

Why are not arms that melted 300,000 persons in one moment exhibited in Smithsonian of The U.S. of God's justice yet?

After all,everything is politics.

[sabro]

As far as I know- yes the US took materials and data from unit 731. The US military continues to profit from this information and has based both offensive and defensive systems on findings based on unethical research.
No, they (US Military) did not use biological weapons in the Korean War or any other war.
No, the US military has not run brothels since the Civil War, and does not engage in the sex slave trade. They did however schedule RR flights to cities with well known sex industries.
Yes Japan should appeal for the abolition of nuclear, chemical and biological arms.
Yes Japan should demand proof, and admit wrong-doing when it is proven.
Yes, don't believe all the cold war propaganda.
The atomic bombs which killed about 130,000 people in two moments combined- amd many thousands more in the days, months and years afterwards, are exhibited (in photos and replicas) at the Smithsonian because they are historically important and helped to end WWII. A temporary exhibit was not without a lot of controversy- and many WWII American Veterans found it too sympathetic to the Japanese.

I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make...

[ArmandV]

The United States took away materials data of unit731.

By the way,

In Korean War, the United States did the biological warfare by using the material confiscate from unit.731 .

We have information that the U.S.Army was making hundreds of women forced　women　 to provide sex brothels for the U.S. soldiers at military during korean War.

Moreover, a lot of sex crimes happened, 30,000 victims or more were
generated every year.

↑
a lot of such like these site of Asian Japanese are existing.

please try it "google" with
朝鮮戦争　細菌戦　七三一　アメリカ .

↓

朝鮮戦争・Korean War
細菌戦・bacteriological warfare
七三一・731
アメリカ. America(The U.S.)


The U.S. deny it as a negative propaganda of communism.

of course I know about unit.731.
Japan is not denying experiment in WW2 .
Is not it permitted to Japan to demand proof　of figures?
Asian people still live in the information war of the Cold War .
how can we believe everything?

Is it impossible that the Japanese appeals for the abolition arms　of the worst in the history of mankind ?

Why are not arms that melted 300,000 persons in one moment exhibited in Smithsonian of The U.S. of God's justice yet?

After all,everything is politics.


Gee, you forgot the hundreds of North Korean P.O.W.s brought over to Area 51 for cross-breeding experiments with alien survivors from Roswell, New Mexico. :rolleyes:

[komachi]

I'm not an anti-nuclear activist.

And, I don't want to be considered to be an anti-nuclear activist.

Because, anti-nuclear activists are easy to arrive anti-Japan and anti-U.S. .

I only wanted everyone to know fear of the nucleus.
at least let depiction of movie make improve please.
Because there are heroes alone who are not exposed to radiation because the
wind is opposite,in the hollywood movies and drama.
For example,"THE SUM OF ALL FEARS","24hours",and so on.
they are pathetic ignorance info about ｎucleus.
they seems no one know even "black rain".

i thought "so, people using depleted uranium munitions" and　"the next WW3".

i was not supposed to discuss about the history.
because it can do nothing but bring doubt and hate.

Where did I miss away from the subject?

yes,it was since my #82.

though Chinese paper began to insist that "Okinawa was mine".
but here seem to be a lot of people who think the cold war was already end.




Gee, you forgot the hundreds of North Korean P.O.W.s brought over to Area 51 for cross-breeding experiments with alien survivors from Roswell, New Mexico. :rolleyes:

hi,ArmandV!
Of course, it's your joke,isn't it?

[lonesoullost3]

I haven't read the thread, but I ran across this reading bbc:

Hiroshima: Then and Now
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/asia_pac_hiroshima_then_and_now/html/1.stm

[sabro]

I read about the poignant, somber ceremonies marking this year's anniversary. if i find a reference on line I will post it- but the newspaper article was very sobering.

[sabro]

I just visited the D-Day museum in New Orleans. Excellent War in the Pacific wing- including an atomic bomb display. Well worth seeing.

[nurizeko]

Simply based on the fact that two cities and the life of it was whiped out so coldly without mercy pretty much does all the explaining for me, the Atomic bombs were war crimes, it is no different from taking a whole city of civillians and shooting them in the head, every last one of them, and destroying their city.

Only this way is more efficient at it.


There was no real reason to drop nukes on japan, especially two, blah blah blah stop the war, blah blah blah, save lives, BS, America dropped two nukes on civillian centres, they wernt strategic bombing raids against factories, they knew how powerful it was going to be, and they intentionally whiped out two cities and the lives of the innocent people living there.

The American leadership back then made a mistake, gladly, they never let it happen again.

[lexico]

Well said, Nurizeko, but this remark could be contested;The American leadership back then made a mistake, gladly, they never let it happen again.We must not forget the 1954 U.S. hydrogen bomb testing at Bikini Atoll in the South Pacific that showered fallout on the crew of a Japanese trawler. Was the US still intent on knowing the destructive powers of nuclear weapons, and threatening the rest of the world with it ? What a shame.

Here's a mock trial held recently on the 1954 testing (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7172&highlight=bikini+hydrogen+bomb). Was that a third bomb to strike the Japanese ?

[sabro]

Back to the illegal argument- was the atomic bombing any more illegal than fire bombing 80 other cities? And what were the other options? I can arm chair monday morning QB this thing all I want, but the decision was consistant with the hellish inhumanity the war created and Americans accepted. In the context of WWII as horrible as it was, it was the quickest way to end a very bloody war. Consider the consequences of two or more years of fighting on Japanese soil, along with continued bombing, shelling and an embargo starving the Japanese into surrender.

This whole thing was criminal and awful. I would love to turn back the clock and have the Japanese not only NOT bomb Pearl Harbor in 1941, but NOT invade China ten years earlier. I guarantee the bombs would not have incinerated anyone 60 years ago this month.

[nurizeko]

As a japanese girl was quoted as saying on a website i read:

"Japan shouldnt have started the war by attacking pearl harbour, but America shouldnt have finished it with two atomic weapons".

Japan was in no real position to offer any serious resistance, America was free to faff about the pacific doing what they wanted.

The only reason they didnt nuke tokyo is because they needed the top brass to sign surrender documents, if they had, my girlfriend would never have been born.

Jerks.

And as stated, two was a pointless i mean, even the most nationalistic japanese couldnt dispute the fact the americans had the bomb after the first one.

[noyhauser]

You might want to read the thread before you come in here and just state your opinion. Your view doesn't really reflect the reality of the time at all. People making statements about what is right and wrong according to values that are 60 years removed from the situation at the time is pointless and enlightens nothing.

[Sukotto]

Have fun all you scholars and interested peoples

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 162
Edited by William Burr - 202/994-7000
Posted - August 5, 2005

[nurizeko]

You might want to read the thread before you come in here and just state your opinion. Your view doesn't really reflect the reality of the time at all. People making statements about what is right and wrong according to values that are 60 years removed from the situation at the time is pointless and enlightens nothing.

Care to tell the survivors, and their families that the atomic bombs were right?, good luck.
Japan was loosing the war, it was a matter of time and nothing more, but because of this race to end it, thousands upon thousands of japanese died in the most inhuman fashion.

Im sorry, i ussually try to considor the motivations of all sides to a debate but i just cant get my head round why American leadership thought genocide of japanese civilians was in anyway acceptable, that kinda behaviour was meant to be the reserve of facism and history, not of the liberator of the free world...

It doesnt matter if it got japan to surrender, it doesnt matter if it ended the war sooner, it doesnt matter if it stopped russia getting a larger grip in asia, IT KILLED INNOCENT PEOPLE.

Please, try to tell me that school-children were willing supporters of an evil regime.

Just as millions of americans have no real say or effect on government, and are just living their lives, most of the japanese dead in hiroshima and nagasaki were normal people going about their normal lives.

Think of it like this, would you be willing to accept two nukes on american cities to end an american war by another country, taking out the vast majority of innocent people in those cities, just to get america to surrender?...do you think it would be fair that they died without say or appeal for an american foreign war?, would it be fair that american children who didnt even know WTF was going on, let alone the "noble" sacrifice of dying for ones country, to die in such a manner?.


Just because they were foreigners and died 60 years ago, DOESNT justify murder, they were innocent HUMAN-BEINGS.

I dunno, i know war is a sad fact of human existance, and sometimes its justified, but, i draw the line at atomic weaponry being used against civilian populations, just a thing called human respect.

Theres no-one to blame, they probably didnt fully relise what they were doing, and they probably did regret the decision afterwards, and its proof the world learned its lesson by the fact a nuke has never been used against another people ever since, still, it doesnt change the fact that at its bare bones, dropping nukes on a city is wrong, killing thousands of mostly innocent people is wrong, so though there is no-one to really blame, and it happened, and it taught the world a lesson, it will never justify fully the fact japanese people were murdered in such an inhuman fashion.

At least we can all agree world war 2 was a situation in which eevery side of the conlfict did regretable things, and wrong things and dwelling on it doesnt solve anything, but yeah, sometimes i feel it would be nice that instead of arguing over statistics and military strategic nitpicking, everyone could just appriciate the fact people died, and that they deserved better then that.

[EdZiomek]

The sadness of history, over and over: When humans fight each other, and justify killing each other. Why not have a soccer game, or a poker game instead? No, that would be too simple.

Mankind (or humankind) seems to need wars, and then more wars, and then more wars. The benefit of the nuclear bombs... one recent opinion is that yes, it hastened the end of the war, but two... it was a message to the Soviets... butt out of Japan, we WILL USE THIS WEAPON ON YOU TOO!

But as one person posted... how can we argue 60 years after the tragic facts of the war, and all the insanity, and all the inhumanity on all sides? I suppose, the world is more civilized now, as all of us can injure and maim with napalm and white phosphorous and land mines and bioweapons and suicide planes and dirty bombs and ... etc. etc. Are these any more civilized than nuclear bombs? They all make me sick.

Have you noticed how Japanese veterans and American veterans meet on the same battlefield today, and shake hands? How is that possible? Answer, because we now see each other as human beings, not insects.

When we are at war, we are taught to de-humanize the enemy. They are animals, not worthy of living?!? History tells us we are virtually identical DNA... we are family fighting more family. Nagasaki... wasn't the closest building to the detonation of the 2nd nuclear bomb, a Christian elementary school?

Isn't it a Chinese proverb... "The cheapest way to fight a war"... Wait 20 years! If 20 years doesn't work, "wait twenty more years".

Pray for understanding among all peoples, we are all so much the same.

[lexico]

Mankind (or humankind) seems to need wars, and then more wars, and then more wars. The benefit of the nuclear bombs... one recent opinion is that yes, it hastened the end of the war, but two... it was a message to the Soviets... butt out of Japan, we WILL USE THIS WEAPON ON YOU TOO !Neocolonialism is colonialism in the lambskins of ideologies - same old greed in continuation. The greatest reason the Soviets had to be checked was that the late realisation of the US that the 3 million storng Kanto Army in Manchuria was weaker than expected, hence asking the Soviets to enter the war was a mistake. To check the mistake, another was made, no, two.Have you noticed how Japanese veterans and American veterans meet on the same battlefield today, and shake hands? How is that possible? Answer, because we now see each other as human beings, not insects.Sorry to differ. The main reason they can do it is because the victor sees it fitting and profitable... for now.Nagasaki... wasn't the closest building to the detonation of the 2nd nuclear bomb, a Christian elementary school ?I randomly recall one of the reasons of choosing Nagasaki WAS that there were a sizeable Christian population there to prove... TO PROVE that the US was not being genocidal -- discriminating on the mostly Buddhist-Shintoist population of Japan. Can you believe that ? To be called fair, they chose the most Christian city in Japan. Reverse discrimination in extremes, but it doesn't change that they were still mostly Japanese. Wise trick, damned hypocrites - want to get credit by killing Christians.Pray for understanding among all peoples, we are all so much the same.I think the best cure comes from education, and education comes from penalising to ingrain the trith that crime does not pay. To avoid that, should come apology. But the US won't give it because of pride and compensations. Prayer in the attic won't do anything to change that.

[Dutch Baka]

Last week it was 61 years ago that the bombs fell on the cities. I hope everybody can just take some time to think about what happened, and what you can do to change the world.

Please do not forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and be happy with what you have.

* I will maybe post more in here next week, because I will go to Hiroshima for a couple of days.

[Han Chan]

Please do not forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I agree!

Some 20 year ago people were very concerned about nuclear war. Now where more countries have the A-bomb and the likelihood of the weapons could actually be used is greater - hardly anyone seem concerned. I find that we should actually be much more concerned about the risk of nuclear warfare than terrorism.

[Sukotto]

[QUOTE=Han Chan]Originally Posted by Dutch Baka
Please do not forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I agree!
QUOTE]


Also,
From the US gov't on the surface there appears to be concern about the spread of nuclear weapons. But the US gov't has or threatened to get out of anti-nuke treaties (it's hard to keep track sometimes) and even mentions it will attempt to build so-called "usable" nukes; "bunker busters".

A test near Las Vegas will be the Pentagon's "divine strake". A "regular" bomb test that many figure will be used to calculate how much power will be needed to bust a bunker. Then convert it to a 'small' amount of nuclear power.


Given that the US was the only one's to ever use the bomb.
US is the only one to ever cross that thresh hold that many US military
leaders at the time thought was some what disgusting.
Who would most likely be the ones to use it next?

[Ewok85]

A "regular" bomb test

Conventional is the word you are looking for.

Read - http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24606
Also - http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?p=240452#post240452

[GodEmperorLeto]

No, they (US Military) did not use biological weapons in the Korean War or any other war.
On a technical basis, that's wrong. We learned from the English and Spanish to give smallpox infected blankets to Native American tribes during our wars with them.

But that's me just nitpicking. On all other counts I agree with your statements.

Simply based on the fact that two cities and the life of it was whiped out so coldly without mercy pretty much does all the explaining for me, the Atomic bombs were war crimes, it is no different from taking a whole city of civillians and shooting them in the head, every last one of them, and destroying their city.
A lot of people like to agree with you, both within the United States and outside of it. My question is, have you ever been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There aren't even craters there. There's no residual radiation, the cities are alive and kicking. More people died in the Tokyo firebombing than from the dropping of both bombs.

The American experience of capturing Okinawa convinced many of the top brass that Japan would not surrender without forcing the United States into a war of genocidal proportions. They were arming their own people with bamboo spears and telling them the Americans would rape and murder them.

People are very quick to judge the actions of the United States, saying the bomb-droppings were cavalier and to scare the Soviets. The fact remains that we demanded exactly the same terms as we demanded of Nazi Germany: unconditional surrender, and the Japanese refused. One of the ways to win a war is to deprive the enemy of their will to fight. If less lives were to be lost dropping two atomic bombs than in a full-scale invasion or continued firebombings, than perhaps it wasn't the heinous war-crime many people depict it to be.

Honestly, I don't care if the Japanese forgive us or not. It was a war without mercy on both sides. I do not believe I, or anyone else on earth, has the right to level moral judgement upon the leaders of Japan or the United States in regards to their behavior towards one another, especially since almost none of us were alive back then. I feel that such atrocities as the Bataan Death March are none of my business to forgive, it didn't happen to me, and few alive in Japan today are responsible for it. I feel the same way about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Finally, no one seems to consider that the United States may have learned a horrible lesson about the power of the bomb. One of the men on the Enola Gay was quoted as saying, "My God, my God, my God!" in horror when he saw the destruction one single bomb did, and that bomb was incredibly small and ineffective compared to the tactical nuclear weapons of today, or even an atomic bomb from the mid-50s. Truman, the man who dropped the bombs on Japan, refused to use them against the Soviets and the Chinese during the Korean War. Nobody ever considers the fact that the United States never made another nuclear attack on another country ever again.

I used to be very much against the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, the more I learned about the conduct of the war, the more I learned about the death tolls on Okinawa and the absolute terror of European veterans regarding the Pacific, and the extreme brutality of the Pacific War compared to the German front, I realized I was mistaken. The use of atomic bombs was horrible. It was a weapon that was used against civilians. It was not a precision-guided munition and it killed anyone within it's effect-radius indiscriminately (either in that moment, or weeks later from radiation). But I no longer disagree with the decision to use it. Especially since, after I learned how close the Germans and Japanese were to developing their own, I knew those countries wouldn't have hesitated to use them against us.

[leonmarino]

The bombs should never have been used. I am in Nagasaki right now and I've been to Hiroshima last year. I visited both peace parks and A-bomb musea. I saw the horrible pictures of dead bodies, burnt corpses or even worse, childeren carrying their dead siblings in search for other relatives.. I can't imagine someone seeing those pictures and still think the bomb was a good idea.

There is in my opinion a difference between a war between soldiers and the indiscriminate killing of a people in a certain area. The latter is a war crime, and thus is the droppings of the A-bombs a war crime to me.

Anyway, although some of us will agree on the legitimacy of the dropping of the bombs, I hope all of us living today agree that these kind of bombs should never be used again.

[GodEmperorLeto]

There is in my opinion a difference between a war between soldiers and the indiscriminate killing of a people in a certain area. The latter is a war crime, and thus is the droppings of the A-bombs a war crime to me.
It wasn't indescriminate. Those sites were selected after reviewing other possible target zones.

Since many of you are so quick to judge, I'd like to ask this: what would you have done? Would you have advocated a full-scale invasion of Japan, and watched as a quarter million American soldiers and one million Japanese civilians died in Operation Olympic alone? Would you like to pick up an M-1 Garande and stand in the front line shooting at Japanese civilians charging you with bamboo spears? Would you like to watch as your comrades torch those charging civilians with a flamethrower, or see artillery shells hit apartment complexes and residential areas that refuse to surrender? You should look up photographs of Japanese civilians throwing themselves off of cliffs because they were told that the Americans intended to butcher the men, rape the women, and enslave the children. Because that was the mentality we were going to go up against--death before surrender.
Japan was not like Europe. The German civilians did not resist the American and British soldiers marching into their cities and towns. They may not have liked the invaders, but they didn't resist them. Japan was an entirely different situation.

Perhaps your attitude towards the lives lost in combat is so cavalier because those lives were, after all, American.

"That operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population."

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan. --Wikipedia, "Operation Downfall" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall)

"Now, some historians have stated incredulously that Marshall's estimate of up to one million casualties for the invasion of Japan significantly exceeded those sustained in Europe. But while the naval side of the Pacific War displayed the broad, sweeping moves so loved by historians, land combat in the Pacific had little in common with the maneuver warfare that went a long way toward keeping casualties comparatively low in France and the central German Plain."

"On 29 July 1945, there came a stunning change to an earlier report on enemy strength on Kyushu. This update set alarm bells ringing in MacArthur's headquarters as well as Washington because it stated bluntly that the Japanese were rapidly reinforcing southern Kyushu and had increased troop strength from 80,000 to 206,000 men, quote: 'with no end in sight.' Finally, it warned that Japanese efforts were, quote: 'changing the tactical and strategic situation sharply.'"

"On October 9, 1945, a similar typhoon packing 140-mile per hour winds struck the American staging area on Okinawa that would have been expanded to capacity by that time if the war had not ended in September, and was still crammed with aircraft and assault shipping- much of which was destroyed. US analysts at the scene matter-of-factly reported that the storm would have caused up to a 45-day delay in the invasion of Kyushu. ... If there had been no atom bombs and Tokyo had attempted to hold out for an extended time- a possibility that even bombing and blockade advocates granted- the Japanese would have immediately appreciated the impact of the storm in the waters around Okinawa."

"As for the Imperial Army itself, it was in somewhat better shape than is commonly understood today. Moreover, the Japanese had figured us out. They had correctly deduced the landing beaches and even the approximate times of both invasion operations, and were thus presented with huge tactical and even strategic possibilities." --Transcript of "OPERATION DOWNFALL [US invasion of Japan]: US PLANS AND JAPANESE COUNTER-MEASURES" by D. M. Giangreco, US Army Command and General Staff College, 16 February 1998
(http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm)

So, I must ask you again, which do you advocate? And please do not tell me to accept a conditional surrender. None of our countries (including yours) accepted anything less than complete disarmament and unconditional surrender from Germany. We had no reason to treat Japan any differently.
Now, which would you choose?

Anyway, although some of us will agree on the legitimacy of the dropping of the bombs, I hope all of us living today agree that these kind of bombs should never be used again.
And hopefully they never will be. But I imagine that a few certain nations, who have been backed into corners by their neighbors, and who have found themselves bereft of allies, would seriously consider the use of nuclear weapons in order to prolong their own survival.

For the record, I have seen many photographs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have spoken with a survivor of the Hiroshima bomb personally. And it is with a heavy heart that I believe that the bombing was necessary. I find no joy in the fact that civilians died. But I'm glad that millions of both Americans and Japanese survived because of the bombings.

Nevertheless, they were fighting an unjust war. And I doubt many Europeans would shed a tear if the United States found itself the victim of nuclear attacks for fighting unjust wars. Indeed, many of you would sit comfortably in your chairs at home, smirking with satisfaction because it "served us right".

[caster51]

I think it is not a problem of forgiving or not forgiving.
there must not be Grudge there against someone.
Even if they hate United States as war crime, it does not become the resolution of a problem.
The wish for Japan is those abandonments.
Today many coutries have A-bomds.
maybe So dose terroists.
they dont have a moral and a nation......

It is regrettable many ppl are not good at a philosophical idea.

[GodEmperorLeto]

I think it is not a problem of forgiving or not forgiving.
there must not be Grudge there against someone.
Even if they hate United States as war crime, it does not become the resolution of a problem.
The wish for Japan is those abandonments.
Today many coutries have A-bomds.
Actually, I completely agree with you here. People need to put their grudges aside.

I'm not happy my country used the A-bomb. And I'm not happy that civilians died because of it. Hell, I'm not happy that World War II was fought at all!

The point is, rather than laying blame, or saying, "This country has done war crimes," or "that country has done war crimes", we need to accept the past for what it is, learn, and move on. People need to stop laying blame, because laying blame begins to lead to attitudes of vicimization, and victimization does not encourage forward progress.

Let the past be the past. Learn lessons. Move on.

In fact, this thread, and the "Why Other Countries Hate Japan" (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23256) thread serve no purpose except to upset people and foster feelings of victimization and injustice. Their very purposes are, in my opinion, not constructive.

[Sukotto]

a very substantial number (of historians) also disagree with this view. One of the most respected, Stanford University Professor Barton Bernstein, judges that all things considered it seems “quite probable–indeed, far more likely than not–that Japan would have surrendered before November” (when the first landing in Japan was scheduled.)

It is the belief of some that a change in the surrender conditions,
to allow Japan to retain the Emperor as well as the Soviet Union
entering the war would have ended the war within the
three months before the scheduled invasion.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm

besided Eisenhower having been against it,

The well-known “hawk,” General Curtis LeMay, publically declared that the war would have been over in two weeks, and that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with bringing about surrender.

President Truman’s friend and Chief of Staff, five star Admiral William D. Leahy was deeply angered: The “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.

--
Nor is this a simple left-right debate. In recent years liberals have been critical of the decision. At the time The Nation magazine defended the bombing while many conservative publications criticized it–including Human Events, and later, the National Review.

[inkink]

I am not happy with any civilian killing, by traditional military or terrorism, including the A-bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I've seen the pictures of victims in the two cities, especially children, which puts things in the throat every time I remember them. In my mind civilians, especially children suffering can never never be justified.

The sad reality is these days the TV tube is filled with similar pictures. I saw, just yesterday, pictures of children burnt to charcoal in the middle-east. Time like this fills one with frustration, outrage and (I hate to admit it) a sense of hopelessness.

I don't agree, though that talking about the painful past can only be negative. Many problems in todays world are exactly attributed to the lack of or ineffective communication: wide-spread anti-Americanism among muslim countries is just one example. There are historical and practical reasons why teh muslim countries may perceive the UK, US and Israel as oppressors and sworn enemies, but the US for one has allowed the animosity to feed on itself and form a vicious cycle by not engaging the Arab countries with more grass-root level communication.

From my perspective, the mere fact that we are debating the history, re-examining the scars instead of trying to hide them, may very well be the beginning of reconciliation.

I understand that Americans in general want to be politically correct and positive. But a mere positive atmosphere per se does not help anyone learn the follies of the past. We need to put in a mechanism to fix the things that went berserk the last time around. Avoiding them doesn't help get them fixed.

Whether facing those problems and discussing them are constructive, destructive or pointless, depends on our motives for entering such discussions, and whether we are wise enough to avoid the easy traps of allowing ourselves to hate. Regardless of our views of the past, in general we all love life, people and peace, and ultimately we all want to be good people. I believe if we try harder to refrain from hate, and help others, including your opponents to do so as well, we will all be fine.


Actually, I completely agree with you here. People need to put their grudges aside.
I'm not happy my country used the A-bomb. And I'm not happy that civilians died because of it. Hell, I'm not happy that World War II was fought at all!
The point is, rather than laying blame, or saying, "This country has done war crimes," or "that country has done war crimes", we need to accept the past for what it is, learn, and move on. People need to stop laying blame, because laying blame begins to lead to attitudes of vicimization, and victimization does not encourage forward progress.
Let the past be the past. Learn lessons. Move on.
In fact, this thread, and the "Why Other Countries Hate Japan" (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23256) thread serve no purpose except to upset people and foster feelings of victimization and injustice. Their very purposes are, in my opinion, not constructive.

[Crazy Russian]

I've found an article concerning Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I should like to emphasise the following excerpts from it:

'The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.'

'...others think that he [Truman] was trying to intimidate Stalin or even prevent the USSR from invading and conquering Japan before the United States could.'

'The U.S. government has killed civilians for well over a century. During the Civil War, General William Tecumseh Sherman waged war on civilians in Atlanta. During the Philippine Insurrection at the turn of 20th century, U.S. forces killed about 200,000 civilians, and even had a policy to shoot anyone more than 10 years old who dared to resist the U.S. occupation of the Philippines. During World War II, the Allies ruthlessly firebombed Dresden and Tokyo and other cities in Germany and Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent noncombatants.'

'Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. government has continued to treat civilians and combatants as roughly indistinguishable. During the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon carpet-bombed Cambodia, killing hundreds of thousands of peasants. The first Bush and Clinton administrations devastated the lives of Iraqi civilians, bombing civilian infrastructure and imposing UN sanctions with the express policy goal of destroying civilian water treatment facilities and starving the Iraqi people into submission, in hopes to incite them to rise up and overthrow Saddam.'

'On 60 Minutes in May 1996, Leslie Stahl asked Clinton’s UN Ambassador, Madeline Albright, point blank: “We have heard that [B]a half million children have died [from the sanctions]. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And — and you know, is the price worth it?”
Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."

'Three years after Albright’s frightening admission, Clinton went on to drop cluster bombs on Serbia, knowing full well that civilians would endure the most suffering. In regard to Gulf War II, the U.S. government has shown a complete apathy toward civilian dead in Iraq, refusing even to keep and publicize an accurate body count.'

'Let the past be the past. Learn lessons. Move on.'

Unfortunately, the American politicians, to all appearances, have the different opinion. They've kept on killing innocent civilians. Nothing has changed.

I don't believe that killing civilians can be justified. Let only soldiers die in wars. It's their job.

The article:

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0408b.asp

[Crazy Russian]

Originally posted by GodEmperorLeto:

'I believe that the bombing was necessary.'

Bullsh!t.

I believe that it wasn't. Have you read the article? Its author also believes that the bombing was not necessary. Why do you think that you are better historian than he is? Why are you so biased? Why do you so blindly justify what your country's done? It is not 'okay' for a historian. For such a smart guy, you must understand it.

I'm sorry, but I think that you are bad historian. I don't trust you any more.

I've read your amusing commenting on the philosophy of Nietzsche. Could you comment on the article, pleezzz.

[GodEmperorLeto]

I believe that it wasn't.
You are entitled to your opinion.

Have you read the article? Its author also believes that the bombing was not necessary.
I hadn't read the article when I posted. And I hadn't replied to you, either.

Why do you think that you are better historian than he is?
Because he's not an historian. He is a politician.

Why are you so biased?
You are so certain that because I don't agree with you, I am biased? Perhaps that's a common trait in Russia? It would explain why anyone who disagreed with Stalin or Khruschev ended up shot or in a gulag.

Why do you so blindly justify what your country's done?
I'll ask you what you asked me. Do you think you are a better historian than D. M. Giangreco, who wrote the presentation I quoted? Did you even read the articles I posted? Or even skim the stuff I wrote?

Nope. Instead, you resort to ad hominem (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html) attacks, such as "I think you are a bad historian." Honestly, I think you are incredibly biased. And you have admitted being as much against the United States in general.

Could you comment on the article, pleezzz.
Okay, I will. Anthony Gregory is obviously a politician, a bleeding-heart, and highly misinformed. Although I am a registered libertarian, I completely disagree with his article.

Look, Crazy Russian, I am honestly sick and tired of debating these topics. And I am weary of your curmudgeonous behavior. You are incredibly young and misinformed, and what is worse, you enjoy being misinformed. You have failed to attack the information I posted. You have only voiced that you feel there was no reason to bomb anybody.

The facts, however, stand. The Japanese were not willing to surrender unconditionally. They were arming their civilians to fight against us. Civilians who refused to fight or commit suicide rather than face occupation would have been killed by Japanese soldiers.

Okinawa’s anguish over the widespread civilian suicides has been sharpened by the deep belief here that soldiers from Japan’s main islands encouraged Okinawan civilians to choose suicide. In a display at the Okinawa Prefectural Peace Memorial Museum, a spotlight highlights a glinting bayonet held by a fierce looking Japanese soldier who stands over an Okinawan family huddled in a cave, the mother trying to smother her baby’s cries.

“At the hands of Japanese soldiers, civilians were massacred, forced to kill themselves and each other,” reads the caption. Nearby, a life-size photo shows the grisly aftermath of a family killed by a hand grenade.

Soldiers seeking refuge from the naval shelling forced civilians out of limestone caves and, during the fighting, out of the island’s turtle-back shaped tombs, according to captions. About two weeks into the battle, the Japanese military commander sought to suppress spying by banning the speaking of Okinawan dialect, a version of Japanese often unintelligible to nonresidents. Armed with this order, Japanese soldiers killed about 1,000 Okinawans, according to local historians.

Two mainstream Japanese history textbooks from the 1990’s that talk of Japanese soldiers “coercing” civilians to kill themselves are on display. Now, Okinawans fear that this history will be dropped from the national consciousness.
--Japundit--The Battle of Okinawa (http://japundit.com/archives/2006/01/06/1824/)


I can present an endless roll of facts. Facts you fail to attack.

You did not live back then. You didn't fight in the war. You've probably never spoken to a veteran of the Pacific War, either. You've never seen footage of Okinawa. And you refuse to learn the truth, instead preferring to listen to politically-charged spin.

You obviously don't know about how Russian soldiers massacred and raped German civilians and pillaged German towns they occupied on their way to Berlin. There's a reason the German civilians were happy to see American and British soldiers march through their towns. It was because that meant Soviet ones wouldn't be.

I'm tired of arguing these points with you. We all know you hate the United States. You've shown yourself to be little more than an America-bashing curmudgeon with little other interest in Japan except for how much you can use it to fuel your arguments against the United States. It is doubly-insulting because you are using the pain and suffering of hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese soldiers and civilians in a bloody and hideous war for your own agenda on this thread. Enough already. Just shut up and take it someplace else.

[Dutch Baka]

Keep it nice you guys! let everyone have their opinion, with respect.

[Kinsao]

Forgive me for butting in here without reading the whole of the arguments :bluush: but I think that the killing of the civilians in a time of war is wrong, no matter whether that is in firebombings, massacre, A-bomb or any other way. I also think that the brutal and inhumane treatment of prisoners-of-war is wrong. In my view, there is no way you could say it was right to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. :souka:

You can argue until the cows come home about what might have happened if they had not been dropped, the possible consequences, and it won't change my view on the matter. However, it is possible to say that there could exist some mitigating circumstance, that 'the US' as a whole isn't under a 'blame' for the actions (I don't know how to put it very well ><). I guess what I'm trying to say is that all war crimes and brutalities against people are instrinsically wrong, circumstances don't make them become ok, neither do intentions, because you have the big chain of events: 'if such-and-such country hadn't done this, then we wouldn't have had the need to do this, and therefore...' - the chain can go on right to the beginning of conflict, and other people's actions are always the 'justification', that by acting in your way, you can save more lives from being lost... therefore something becomes a 'better' option because fewer lives are lost...? Ethically it's difficult, because it's always a preferable that fewer lives are lost rather than more, but it doesn't make any of the options right... to be simplistic, if I go into a school with a gun, it is 'better' if I just shoot the teacher than if I gun down a classful of kids, but that doesn't make it a 'good thing' that I shoot the teacher...? :worried:

P.S. I knew someone who was a prisoner of war in Japan and who suffered terribly at their hands, including some health problems enduring for the whole of his life; I am aware of some of the things that went on and the terrible things done on the Japanese side as well, so I am not trying to paint a picture of 'good' or 'bad' sides. :bluush: There is a saying "two wrongs don't make a right"; it's a simple saying that we say to children, but there is truth in it. :bluush:

[Crazy Russian]

"Mais que diable allait il faire dans cette galere?" :lol:

Okay. It's my last post on the thread.

Thanks for your post. I have always said that any reply (including gruff, stinging and rude ones) is much better and politer than keeping silence. All I wanted was your commenting the article.

'Okay, I will. Anthony Gregory is obviously a politician, a bleeding-heart, and highly misinformed. Although I am a registered libertarian, I completely disagree with his article.'

It is not what I wanted. Of course, I respect your opinion. But I'll rather believe Mr Anthony Gregory. And I will necessarily read the transactions by Mr D. M. Giangreco.

'You have only voiced that you feel there was no reason to bomb anybody.'

Actually, I follow only philosophical considerations.

'You obviously don't know about how Russian soldiers massacred and raped German civilians and pillaged German towns they occupied on their way to Berlin.'

You obviously don't know that German soldiers HAD done much worse things with innocent Russian women and children. Though I hate revenge.

'We all know you hate the United States.'

I am tired of arguing about my liking the Americans. Probably, it is much better and easier for you to think that I hate both the USA and the Americans. Okay, it's your right. You live in the free country, don't you?

In fact, I like the Americans and many things about America.

I love Ken Kesey, J. D. Salinger, Ernest Hemingway, Jack London, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., several books by Stephen King and so on...

I love American comedies, e.g., 'Roman Holiday', all films feat. Jim Carrey, 'Back to the future 1,2,3', 'Jackass', 'Home alone 1,2', films by Quentin Tarantino (except for 'Kill Bill') and so on... :) :)

I love American music: Jimi Hendrix, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Louis Armstrong, Glenn Miller, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Metallica, folk music and so on...

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

I dislike ONLY American politicians and MacDonald's.

'You've shown yourself to be little more than an America-bashing curmudgeon with little other interest in Japan...'

Actually, my sole purpose of visiting the forum for the first time was congratulating the Japanese on Japanese figure skater's winning the golden medal. And I was not going to post more than 1 message.

However, I did. But not because I hate America.

Misinformed? About the role of the USA in history? I'm not sure. But it doesn't matter.

Okay. Let's shut up together... :lol:

And good luck. :wave:

[yamada]

U-boat to Japan was captured by U.S. warship before starting Japan vs. U.S. war. Inside of it, there was a material for a nuclear fuel which was also available for a-bomb.

[kamaru]

Let the past be the past. Learn lessons. Move on.
I guess you're ready then to forgive those who killed 3000 people on 9-11..no hard feelings ,no grudges...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's just stupid to say that the killing of innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the solution to end the war...
I find it weird how those who spread the philosophy of war and make use of power to solve issues can also talk about human rights and the respect of life ...
War is not the answer.. killing civilians , children for a guilt they never committed is just wrong ..My opinion might seem too ideal but how complicated is the idea of "live and let live" ? How hard is converting the use of these billions of dollars invested in producing weapons , into helping the poor ?!
If the belief of "the most powerful is always right" continues then I must say that I picture the world sinking in a darkness where the bullet :gun: is more powerful then a child's tear:67: ...

[sabro]

I doubt that the Germans produce enough fissionable material to light a light bulb, much less build a bomb. They did try to ship rocket and jet engine technology to Japan late in the war.

Japan had already built three underwater carriers that could have been used to bomb the Panama Canal and the West Coast, but the war was already lost and it would have been a one way trip.

In a perfect world, there would be no bombs or guns and no wars...

But in 1945, the United States was engaged in the bloodiest conflict in history and facing years of bloody engagement in which the objective was to kill as many of the enemy as possible. And although the enemy was nearly defeated they had shown themselves to be formidable and ruthless. They had brought the US into the war with an unprovoked attack and had expanded their influence for over a decade taking lives both military and civillian, and property throughout Asia. As their new empire collapsed they tenaciously defended themselves using tactics never before seen. The taking of Japan would be a bloody, protracted continuation of this conflict. In that context, the bomb probably seemed like a very good idea.

[Sukotto]

How hard is converting the use of these billions of dollars invested in producing weapons , into helping the poor ?!


Here's documentary, streaming online titled "Why We Fight"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8494.htm

basically it is about the military-industrial-congressional-complex.
Huge arms contractors have factories in all 50 states so the congress
persons will vote to keep jobs in their district.



~no war, ever again~

[kellymich]

I think that asking who started the war is a moot point as from my understanding the war was probably unavoidable. You have to hungry nations extending the reach of their wealth and influence throughout the Pacific at some point these two would have had to come into conflict. I don't think either side would have yeilded to the other. There were many historical forces behind the dynamics off WWII, it makes my head spin trying to fit together all the diffrent angles.
As far as dropping the bombs. I do beleive that the US's 1,000,000 man bit did play a part in the decision, I know that it was much more than that. Dropping the bombs was a powerfull symbol of the US's emergance as a superpower. Also, as much as it was ment to show the US's power to our enemies I think it served an even more powerful role as declearation to our allies that we were incharge, that the US had become a shot caller, that Brittian and everyone else should know there place under the US.
Those are my thoughts the matter anyway whether it was justified or a war crime I don't know, but what I do know is that it is never right for a person to lose thier life.

I think the majority of credible historians, both western and eastern agree that Japan’s Imperial ambitions were the main cause of the war. The militarists in japan at that time were trying to forge a greater Japanese empire which would span much of asia.

The Japanese military began an aggressive push (conquest) into China and Manchuria. The United States and Britian told them they must stop the military aggression or they would put an embargo on Japan’s oil supplies -- which they did. Then the Japanese attacked at Pearl Harbor, killing 2,403 americans, and seriously damaging the American Pacific Fleet. The aggression in China and Manchuria, and the attack at pearl harbor, is pretty clear cut.

The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did put an end to the war. But some people feel that the Americans did not give the Japanese sufficient warnings of the power of the bomb so that the Japanese could have the opportunity to surrender without the devastation of the bomb. During the potsdam conference however shortly before the dropping of the bomb, Roosevelt made it clear to Japan that they must surrender or face “total destruction”. This had absolutely no effect on the Japanese militarists who were in power.

Some people have suggested that the bomb should have been dropped in an area where its power could have been displayed to the Japanese – They have suggested that America did not try hard enough to not drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There may be some truth to this.

However, the fierce fighting on Okinawa, the Kamikaze attacks which destroyed around 400 american ships in a last ditch effort by the Japanese to stop the Americans from advancing toward Japan, showed that the Japanese militarists at that time were not inclined to surrender or give up easily at all. A land invasion of Japan, like the invasion on Okinawa, would have been extremely bloody, it would have cost millions of lives - both American and Japanese.

Nevertheless, I do wish that America had given a demonstration of the atomic bombs power to the Japanese and given the Japanese a chance to surrender. The pain, suffering and brutality that the war caused to millions of people on all sides of the conflict was a terrible thing. But to those who did not live through this very bloody War and want to condemn America I would say – the world was engaged in a titanic struggle at that time in history and America did display a generosity toward the countries it vanquished which japan and germany in that time in history would not have displayed toward America and other nations had they won the war. The war was about whether nazi germany, facist italy and imperial japan would create vast empires by carving up other countries. America decided, it was something worth fighting against and around 310,000 to 400,000 of America's best young men lost their lives in this conflict and around 670,000 were wounded.

To put things in perspective below is a causality list of world war 2. Taken from "world war 2 for dummies".

The Soviet Union lost the most with 25 million deaths, but only about a third were combat related.

China's death toll is incomplete but estimates are between 15 and 22 million.

Poland had 6 million deaths including 3 million Jews, roughly 20% of its prewar population.

Germany lost 4 million soldiers and 2 million civilians, many of them women.

Japan had 1.2 million battle deaths and another 1.4 million soldiers listed as missing, almost 1 million civilians were killed in the bombing raids between 1944 and 1945.

Over 1.7 million Yugoslavs and 500,000 Greeks died in the war.

France lost 200,000 soldiers and 400,000 civilians.

Italy lost 330,000 people.

Hungary lost 147,000 men in combat.

Bulgaria lost 19,000 in combat.

Romania lost 73,000 in combat.

Great Britain lost 264,000 soldiers and 60,000 civilians in bombing raids.

The United States lost 310,000 soldiers.

The Dutch lost 10,000 soldiers and 190,000 civilians.

Australia lost 23,000 men in combat.

Canada lost 37,000 soldiers.

India lost 24,000 men in battle.

New Zealand lost 10,000.

South Africa lost 6,000.

These totals do not include the 6 million Jews who perished in the Final Solution of Nazi Germany or the 17 million dead as a result of Japan's policies in Asia from 1931 to 1945.

[Sukotto]

To put things in perspective below is a causality list of world war 2. Taken from "world war 2 for dummies".

"world war 2 for dummies" is maybe leaving some countries off the list?
for ex:

In the Second World War, Australian forces used East Timor as a shield against the Japanese advance. As many as 80,000 Timorese (http://www.etan.org/et2003/august/24-31/25etblood.htm) died fighting alongside Australian soldiers in a war that was not theirs.

[kellymich]

"world war 2 for dummies" is maybe leaving some countries off the list?
for ex:
In the Second World War, Australian forces used East Timor as a shield against the Japanese advance. As many as died fighting alongside Australian soldiers in a war that was not theirs.
That’s interesting, thank you for that.

Yes, what can one expect from world war II for dummies.:wave:

If you look at a map of imperial japan at the height of its power no people and no country in the pacific was safe from Imperial Japanese domination. They were gobbling up nations and peoples right and left. And Imperial Japan was considering expanding all the way to austrialia.

I would humbly suggest that the war may have been as much East Timors war as Austrialia’s war.

The only alternative for Australia and the United states would have been to not engaged Japan in a war and allow the Japanese Miltarists their empire.

As an aside, I hope people don’t take my posts as anti Japanese. I love the Japanese people and culture. But the facts of world war II are the facts of World War II. Certainly, I don’t have all the facts and all the information and the western powers are not saints. Still, in world war II, I don’t see any good alternatives for America, Australlia, China, and many other peoples than to go to war and attempt to stop the Japanese Militarists who were carving up asia.

A japanese pacific empire might have been an interesting thing, perhaps even better than what exists now. The japanese are a very creative people. But I doubt there would have been much room for the chinese, the koreans, the manchurians, the timorese or the austrialians.

[kellymich]

Here's documentary, streaming online titled "Why We Fight"
basically it is about the military-industrial-congressional-complex.
Huge arms contractors have factories in all 50 states so the congress
persons will vote to keep jobs in their district.
~no war, ever again~

Yeah, Gore Vidal, one of the authors of this book … I like Gore on a lot of things, he was a friend of Tennesse Williams, but I think many of his political views are hopelessly bad and naive.

His fiction writing is pretty mediocre too.

Gore’s problem, in my opinion, is that he has no sense of measure in many of the political ideas he has.

I am no traditional american conservative by any means, but many people on the more liberal (if you can still call them that) side of the political spectrum have gone somewhat batty over the last 30 to 40 years. I think Gore Vidal’s political views are a perfect example of this.

For a time I took seriously ideas such as his but I am disillusioned by the gore vidals, the noam chomskys, the susan sontags, the NPR and PBS parade of depressives, troubled intellectuals, neo socialists, rabid anti westerners, identitity politicians, etc. etc. I realize it is a huge generalization, but I don't think many of their ideas or their politics have given the world what it needs, or made life much better for westerners, or for anyone else.

[Sukotto]

Yeah, Gore Vidal, one of the authors of this book …
For a time I took seriously ideas such as his but I am disillusioned by the gore vidals, the noam chomskys, the susan sontags,


Gore Vidal, It's funny my online Libertarian 'friend' is probably the one who agreed with Vidal the most. Talking about the "republic" not being any more and such.

Chomsky's often dissed as conspiracy theory, but he's really only doing institutional analysis. Such analysis never gets mainstream coverage so it sounds other-worldly, especially in sound-bites.

Susan Sontag- I have no idea who that is.

You should read what someone like John Stockwell has written.
He is the highest ever CIA to become dissillusioned and write about it.
He also sat on the National Security Council for a bit with Kissinger under..?
Maybe even email him. I'm sure he be kind enough to write you back.

[kellymich]

Gore Vidal, It's funny my online Libertarian 'friend' is probably the one who agreed with Vidal the most. Talking about the "republic" not being any more and such.
Chomsky's often dissed as conspiracy theory, but he's really only doing institutional analysis. Such analysis never gets mainstream coverage so it sounds other-worldly, especially in sound-bites.
Susan Sontag- I have no idea who that is.
You should read what someone like John Stockwell has written.
He is the highest ever CIA to become dissillusioned and write about it.
He also sat on the National Security Council for a bit with Kissinger under..?
Maybe even email him. I'm sure he be kind enough to write you back.

Oh, I don’t doubt that some of the things they say are true. I understand what realpolitik is.

But I would doubt the analysis, for example, that the reason we go to war is because of the military industrial complex who have installed “their” politicians into office.

Again for me, it is simply a matter of measure and perspective.

I worked on wall street for a while … I don’t have many illusions about big business or government. This is not to say that I believe that business and governement is always nefarious. Quite often they are benificial. But uh, they do have their problems.

Nevertheless, I am not one of those people who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because they discovered that the bathwater is sometimes dirty. I'd rather try to clean up the water, and save the baby.

I am sure that Henry Kissinger believes that what he has done has been for the good of the nation. And who knows, many of his policies, may have benefited the nation. It is a dangerous world. The fact that america has been able to keep relative peace and prosperity is no small thing.

[Revenant]

I've been to the Hiroshima Peace Park. Kids with pieces of flesh hanging off them, people desperate to drink from radioactive water, and the after effects of the bomb were just miserable. No, I don't think the bomb was justified.

I'm no historian, but as I understand it, in part the reason for the bomb was that the Japanese were negotiating a conditional surrender with the Soviets, and already Soviet troops were making their way down the Sakhalin Islands.

The U.S. needed the Japanese to surrender unconditionally soon, very soon. Thus the bombs were dropped, and it was made out like the U.S. had more bombs to drop. Perhaps Japan would be very different today had the Japanese succeeded in a conditional surrender with the Soviets, or had the Soviets entered Japan via Hokkaido while the U.S. entered via Kyushu.

[kuuzo]

The one thing that can't be forgotten is context - the Japanese proved over and over that they were willing to fight and die to the last man. The invasion of Okinawa was a massacre on both sides with casualties in the hundred-thousands. In war, the objective is to win, and to not waste the lives of your own troops. The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Allied lives. They were not in a position to care about the Japanese, who, as previously mentioned, would have fought to the last man, woman, and child.
Anyone in a position of power who would choose a bloody invasion that would cost their own side hundreds of thousands of casualties over another option that would not kill thier own troops would be unforgivable. In that context, it really can't be argued. The emperor surrendered without the approval of the military. The military was ready to fight and die. 60 years of hindsight is good for moral argument, but in 1945 they didn't have that luxury. End the war with massive Japanese casualties, or end the war with massive Allied and Japanese casualties? At that moment in history, I don't see the decision being all that difficult. Sometimes in the middle of a bloody war, understandably the "moral" implications are set aside for the quickest and easiest victory. Just a thought.
The russians were poised to invade, (not negotiate) so I am sure that also had bearing on the decision - the Russians had already claimed half of Germany, along with Poland, and so the US may not have wanted the same thing to happen to Japan (even if it was just because of a loss of a strategic base in East asia). Would a Japan under russian control (a communist Japan) have been much better than a thriving world superpower that Japan would eventually become? Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that the battle of Okinawa (along with the rest of the islands) already proved to the leaders at that time who had to go on the info that they had available (namely body counts) that Japan was not going to go quietly.
The Japanese civilians were as much a victim of thier own government as the nuclear bombs. They had no say in anything their government did. And they paid dearly for this fact.

[Revenant]

They were not in a position to care about the Japanese, who, as previously mentioned, would have fought to the last man, woman, and child.The casualties probably would have been high, but actually a lot of Japanese weren't eager to die for their country, and it was only a select few that did things like fly kamikaze airplanes.

[kuuzo]

The casualties probably would have been high, but actually a lot of Japanese weren't eager to die for their country, and it was only a select few that did things like fly kamikaze airplanes.

Like I said, hindsight is 20/20 - the Allied leaders would have no way of knowing that - what they would have is 4 years of experience with the Japanese soldiers who would choose death over surrender, and the most recent experience in Okinawa that I mentioned. Information that at the time would have pointed to the Japanese fighting to the bitter end.

[Sukotto]

There's actually a wealth of research that points to relatively low casualities estimated, many if not most high military were opposed to it, that Japan was ready to surrender, etc...

[craftsman]

Sometimes when looking at major events in history like the atomic bombs - hearing directly from the people involved gives a new perspective - especially when they all say the essentially the same thing.

Firstly it is worth re-quoting President Truman’s chief of staff, Admiral William D. Leahy, who wrote that using the “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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons”. He lamented that the US government “had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages”.
(Quoted, Anthony Gregory, ‘Targeting Civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

The US Strategic Bombing Survey, which interviewed 700 Japanese military and political officials after the war, came to this conclusion:
“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” (Quoted, Howard Zinn, The Zinn Reader, Seven Stories, 1997)

As was referred to in an earlier post - in 1963, former US president Dwight Eisenhower actually told Newsweek that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing”. (Gregory, op. cit)

Brigadier general Carter Clarke, the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables for president Truman and his advisors, commented:
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs." (Gregory, ibid)

There's nothing like the own words of the people in power at the time to incriminate themselves in committing the worst of all war crimes!

[kuuzo]

Too bad we can't see how it would have played out if the bombs hadn't been dropped. It would end a lot of the back and forth bickering that still goes on after 60 years. Another theory holds that it was done to scare the Russians. Pretty much any reason they had had some sort of validity. I kinda doubt the thought process was "we just want to kill people, so let's do it yay~!" but who knows. If they really thought Russia was a threat (And general Patton suggested that they take up the German army regulars and fight russia back out of germany and poland into russia) and it seems they did, that might have bee all of the validation they needed. Just can't help but think the 4 year nightmare across the pacific wasn't of some influence on the decision. Regardless, It isn't a decision I'd want to make :relief:

You also can't ignore that maybe after the fact, these people felt guilty and wanted to pass the blame by saying "Even at the time, I didn't really think we should have done it."

[Sukotto]

If you really want to delve into it, you can read either of the following
that author Gar Aplerovitz has really done his research. Or track down
his email online and ask him for some articles he wrote in the matter.

"Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam" 1965

"The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb" 1996

[zeroyon]

I know this topic is quite old, but I kind of want to point something important out.

Japan would have developed the A-bomb before the USA if japan took over hawaii. The USA destroyed Japan's a-bomb research facility during the firebombing of tokyo.

America would probably be a parking lot right now if the americans didn't get the upper hand in the war, and had to fight between the west coast and hawaii. The Japanese started before america did on their atomic program, were further along than America before war broke out, and probably would have had an operational bomb first (remember the shipment of weapons-grade uranium from germany to japan that was intercepted?)

After all, I think some can agree that the japanese forces were a lot more evil than the USA forces were in WWII, and you can bet your *** they would have used the a-bomb on america. The Japanese used several thousand balloon bombs to just kill SEVEN Americans on the continental united states, so you can probably guarantee they would have gone to much further extremes to kill even more Americans.

I also find it sort of ironic that it seems like most people who complain about the A-bombs being dropped on Japan are not Japanese, but are mainly European. At least, it seems this way from posts I have seen on the internet and people I have talked to. It is especially ironic since the USA saved them from the Nazis or Soviets, if they live a bit west of where Berlin is. I've been to Hiroshima, one of my best friends is from Hiroshima, my girlfriend was born in Hiroshima, and none of them hate me or the USA for dropping the bomb on Japan. They understand the reason behind it. My grandfather flew a bomber for the USAAF during the war, and they don't hate me or my grandfather as well. They understand that my grandfather was only doing his job, and I had nothing to do with it. We need to put things into perspective here. This is also why I find it rediculous that a lot of Chinese and Koreans still hate the Japanese for things done during WWII. Almost no one alive today in Japan had anything to do with those events...

All in all, I think some things we need to think about are:
1) If Truman went ahead with an invasion, which would take many, many, american (and japanese) lives, and then the American public found out that Truman could have used the a-bomb on Japan to end the war without risking american lives... how would have THAT played out?
2) If the Americans didn't end the war there and then, would the Soviets have invaded through Hokkaido, and would we have a North Japan and South Japan, much like the North and South Korea Today? (we kind of actually have this situation with the Russians STILL occupying the 2 Japanese islands north of Hokkaido even today)

There is no question that it was a terrible toll on human life to use the atomic bombs, no question there... but what would have been the alternative?

[caster51]

2) If the Americans didn't end the war there and then, would the Soviets have invaded through Hokkaido, and would we have a North Japan and South Japan, much like the North and South Korea Today? (we kind of actually have this situation with the Russians STILL occupying the 2 Japanese islands north of Hokkaido even today)

do you know the battle of russo-japan after WW2?
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=8XGjkyZU2oY

[Dutch Baka]

Today's the 62nd anniversary of the Hiroshima bomb, and hope that nobody ever forget what happened there.

There is no meaning, IMO, to talk about why it happened because I guess everyone has their own opinions about it. So far more important than that is that we should know what happened.

Let's hope something like this will never happen again, and that people have learned what happened in there... For everyone who is going to visit Japan, this is a place that you should visit in my opinion...

Peace, I think you will have a better understanding of this meaning after you have been to the museum in there.

[madhamster]

it is necessary to drop the bomb, more deaths would occur if they were to invade japan mainland... just imagine the kamikazes....

[Seon-a Kim]

Just finished this: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B6qFlks6Rig

Posting it here because of two things....

1) I was Googling to see if I could find some quotes related to the events to add to the Youtube comments and stumbled on this topic in Google (didn't add any quote though)

2) Now that I'm here, I would like to know if this is worthy of a tribute/memorial montage for this. ...and if I should have added or left something out. For example, I didn't want to include to harsh or shocking images as in gore and mutilation, because it isn't supposed to shock or in some cases (sadly) entertain people. Kinda wondering to if this gets the message across in the right way it is meant to be.

[TuskCracker]

-
I always suprised that the fireboming of Japanese cities is rarely mentioned.

On March 09-1945 the firebombing of Tokyo occured. The death toll was at least 80,000, and perhaps exceeded 100,000. This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and the firebombing of Dresden.


There was a third raid on Tokyo on May 26-1945.

[Han Chan]

-
I always suprised that the fireboming of Japanese cities is rarely mentioned.
On March 09-1945 the firebombing of Tokyo occured. The death toll was at least 80,000, and perhaps exceeded 100,000. This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and the firebombing of Dresden.
There was a third raid on Tokyo on May 26-1945.

FYI: I started a thread about the firebombing of Tokyo. It is sad, but true, and should never be forgotten.

http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31180&highlight=savage

[tokapi]

A 20-year old female Japanese student @ Akita International University of Akita Prefecture ( in Japan ) wrote ....


アメリカが広島・長崎に原爆を投下したか。それはその行為に利益があったから。２０億を投資した研究の実験 結果のためでもあり、北海道を欲していたロシアへの牽制もある。

同様に日本だって７３１部隊の細菌兵器によう中国人の無差別大量虐殺を始めとする陵辱行為をし てきた。

America's A-bombs dropped in Hiroshima & Nagasaki,act of self-interest.Experimental result of a $20 billion ( in Japanese yen calculation ) research cost, restrained Russia's desire of Hokkaido.

Similarly to Japan's genocide of Chinese indiscriminately done in the germ weapon lab of 731 ( in Manchuria ).

[centrajapan]

Baka Gaijin. I agree with you. USA knew the concequences and dropped first Hiroshima and saw what happened then Nagasaki prior to the bombings Japan was already ready to surrender thus making the A-Bombs one of the worst humanitarian crimes in world history ranking right up there with the genocide of the Native Americans, Slavery, Holocaust, Nanking.

[ArmandV]

Baka Gaijin. I agree with you. USA knew the concequences and dropped first Hiroshima and saw what happened then Nagasaki prior to the bombings Japan was already ready to surrender thus making the A-Bombs one of the worst humanitarian crimes in world history ranking right up there with the genocide of the Native Americans, Slavery, Holocaust, Nanking.

Where's your proof that Japan was already about to surrender before the a-bombs were dropped?

[scorpion da black]

the greatest and ugliest genocide of the modern world....
i wonder how the Japanese and the Americans can still manage to be friends now days after hearing what history has to tell bout the American evil deeds. if i was Japanese i would have hidden hate against the Americans.
not that i am preaching hate, the complete contrast.. what i am saying is i admire the Japanese for their power to forgive....i cant do the same neither will i ever do.

[bakaKanadajin]

Where's your proof that Japan was already about to surrender before the a-bombs were dropped?

craftsman's post (#156) seems quite convincing and well-sourced.

[Pachipro]

Although this is an old post, I find it relevant to resurrect it if only for the sole reason that, as I have stated in previous posts, that "history is written by the victors" and that those too young to know or understand, will never know the truth if the "comittee of 'they' (ie your government) do not want you to know it.

I find it quite interesting that the most horrendous atrocity in modern history was comitted 63 years ago yesterday and tomorrow, and not one single person commented on it on a forum of the only country to be bombed by nuclear weapons where thousands of innocent civiliens were extingusished in a nanosecond. Not one person! How sad and pitiful as most people here seemed to be concerned only about idols, music, anime, work, rights of foreigners in Japan, etc., etc..

Nor did I even hear it on any of the major news media of the US save for a one-time blurb here and there on a few major stations. It should of been the lead news of every major news media outlet in the world. But nary a word was mentioned in the media or, especially on Jref! And not even the president of the US who is on an "Asian Tour". Very sad.

I guess everything I have read and researched about conspiracies and the control of the comittee of "they" and the power they have to change public opinion and education is true as no one even mentioned it, not only on this site, but a few others concerning Japan that I also visit.

It is very sad how people are so easily brainwashed into thinking about other things. In a matter of years I guess most will be even questioning whether the A-bombing ever occured and they will be so brainwashed and not taught the real history that it will become a myth.

I really feel sorry for the brainwashed sheeple that are being reared today as they will only believe what they are taught or what they are fed in 7 second sound bites on TV and never do any research on their own, and for those that do, they will be considered "nuts" living on the "lunatic fringe". I can see it 50 or even a hundred years from now someone saying, "Japan was bombed by nuclear weapons about 150 years ago and the sheeple saying, "You are nuts! If that was true it would've been taught to us and we would hear it on the news. You don't know what you are talking about!"

Yes, it's very sad that not a single post was made concerning the most horrific atrocity in modern history.

And please save me the BS that millions of lives were saved because the US did what they did. The fact is not a single person even knew of the destructive power of nuclear weapons at the time and their aftermath for those that survived. Their thinking was just that it was a very powerful bomb and they tested it on Japan much to their chagrin.

[senseiman]

Its kind of interesting when one of these old threads come up and you can see what you wrote about over 5 years ago. I think this was one of the first threads I posted on after becoming a member.

I don't know how much you can read into the fact that nobody else made a post on the subject this year. Looking over the history of this thread its obvious that lots of people have made comments over the years on the subject and it may simply be that nobody felt they had anything to add to what they had previously written.

IN my case, reading over what I wrote about the subject five years ago (on the first page of this thread), I think my opinion has probably changed a bit since then.

At the same time though I don't think I really want to get back into the whole justified/not justified debate, which sometimes just descends into the message board equivalent of people trying to shout over each other to no real purpose. Suffice it to say that the bombings had horrific effects on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the important thing is to hope that nuclear weapons are never used again.

[GodEmperorLeto]

Pachipro,

I'm going to preamble this with the statement that I respect you a lot. And I do agree that this is a generation of kids raised on soundbites and who are more interested in anime and pop idols.

I will also state that I am an historian and I have studied World War II, as well as many other periods of history, and I have been, until recently, knee-deep in the American academic liberal arts world. With that being said, I will now tackle some of your statements.

Firstly:
I guess everything I have read and researched about conspiracies and the control of the comittee of "they" and the power they have to change public opinion and education is true as no one even mentioned it, not only on this site, but a few others concerning Japan that I also visit.

As I said, I have spent a great deal of time in academia--indeed, I have made it my life. The historical community is quite politically liberal, and such voices as Howard Zinn's scathing A People's History of the United States are much more representative of the social sciences than the output of your standard-issue conservative think-tank. Historians have come to consider the atomic bomb as a horrible sin from which the United States will never be redeemed.

Secondly, I believe people have lost perspective on things. Today, we view war in a different way than they did during the forties. Indeed, for some reason the war against the Nazis and the bombing of Dresden are overshadowed by the destruction of Japan. I would argue that, because the Germans were white Europeans and ostensibly Christian, the wholesale slaughter of German civilians by Allied forces (as perpetrated both by Soviets and the British infantry units, as well as by Allied bombing raids) has been ignored, despite the fact that more German civilians were killed than Japanese. Indeed, the Japanese slaughtered more Chinese, Koreans, and Manchurians than the Nazis killed Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals. But because they were not white, liberal arts scholars deem their crimes to have been forgettable in the face of American bombing.

The truth is that it was a war. As an historian, I believe I must attempt to, as Thucydides advised, supress my political ideologies and seek to demonstrate the truth of an event. To that end, I try to regard war neutrally. Civilians have always been casualties in war. It's a sad but true fact. And war is an incredible evil. But sometimes, as the ancients understood well, sometimes a bad war is better than a worse peace. All of Chamberlain's proclamations of "peace in our time" in the 1930s were rendered moot by Dunkirk.

You can make these moral pontifications about "history written by the victors" but as an historian, I have to emphasize the fallaciousness of that statement. There are plenty of accounts by the losers extant, especially in modern history. And, indeed, although Japan lost, their history books are surprisingly bereft of accounts of the atrocities they committed, while your average American history textbook for high school elaborates atrocities perpetrated by Americans against Natives Americans and the controversies and crimes of the Vietnam War. Indeed, the so-called "winners" have recently begun to delve into the histories of the "losers" and a deep interest in "marginalized factions" has grown in historical study, with the result of a proliferation of information regarding the deeds and accounts of the "defeated," especially if the defeated were literate societies and left records that were preserved despite the outcome of the conflict.

As a result, we have a very clear picture of what precipitated the dropping of the atomic bombs. However, political ideologies obfuscate the truth of the bombings. I'd like to point you to Plain Speaking, a biography of Harry Truman, if you want to know why he bombed Japan--to end the war, plain and simple. Maybe the generals, politicians and other leaders had numerous other reasons, but the end result was the same--a horrific and destructive war was brought to a sudden and decisive conclusion. The U.S. economy was beginning to suffer from the fighting, soldiers were exhausted, and the casualty projections for Operation Olympic were exhorbitant. Nobody cared if innocent Japanese civilians were going to die in the bombings, that much is true. They didn't care because they were at war, a War Without Mercy (cf. book by John Dower), mutually waged by both sides.

Was the bombing evil? Absolutely. But, then again, war is evil, and those who fight wars often do whatever it takes in order to win. I don't think you, nor I, have much of a right to judge whether or not it was justified, especially since we were not present at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, nor were we present at Nanking, nor were we waiting to be the first off the landing craft at the beaches of Kyushu (a veritable death-sentence).

And as a final note, the old argument that the bombs were dropped to scare the Soviets is specious since it assumes that the Soviets were a joke (as is often assumed these days), and that the entire Cold War was a political farce perpetrated by the likes of Linden Johnson and Ronald Reagan. These assumptions could not be further from the truth. Stalin had made an alliance with Hitler over Poland--an alliance that Hitler foolishly betrayed--proving his untrustworthyness. The Berlin Blockade and subsequent invasions of southeastern European nations prove that the Soviets were aggressive and belligerent and that the "free world" had just cause to fear them. The raped and massacred a bloody swathe through Eastern Germany en route to Berlin, and carried their bloodlust to the Japanese in Sakhalin and other territories previously held by the Japanese Imperial government. You are damn right we wanted to scare the Soviets, because it was quite possible that World War III would be fought against them, and very soon after World War II had just ended.