Does it bother you when people question the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki?

[Decker]

I'd be interested to read thier proposed solution to the problem of Japan's refusal to unconditionally surrender.

Do you know what that condition was?

[Decker]

Here are some more quotes to help us flesh out why they were against the atomic bombings:

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II


Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, quoted by his widow:
". . . I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life. . . . We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything." And – E. B. Potter, naval historian wrote: "Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."


Rear Admiral Richard Byrd:
"Especially it is good to see the truth told about the last days of the war with Japan. . . . I was with the Fleet during that period; and every officer in the Fleet knew that Japan would eventually capitulate from . . . the tight blockade."


Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy:
"I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning." [The atomic bomb] "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion . . . it was clear to a number of people . . . that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate . . . it was a sin – to use a good word – [a word that] should be used more often – to kill non-combatants. . . ."


Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces.
". . . [F]rom the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell. . . ."

There are a lot more quotes just like that from some big guns.

[Butterbean]

Has anyone seen "The War" - a Ken Burns film?

http://www.pbs.org/thewar/


Of course the maker of the doc could skew it anyway he'd like but in this he indicated that because of some cultural pride thing the Japanese would never surrender w/o something like the bomb.

[OzmO]

Do you know what that condition was?

I'm sure Japan wanted to maintain their government and military leadership at the very least.

We wanted unconditional surrender.  This surrender worked out well for Japan and the world.

[Decker]

I'm sure Japan wanted to maintain their government and military leadership at the very least.

We wanted unconditional surrender.  This surrender worked out well for Japan and the world.

Japan wanted its emperor safeguarded after the surrender.

Since all the military leaders of the day (outside of Truman) viewed the Japanese as utterly defeated and the use of atomic warfare unnecessary, who am I to argue?

[Camel Jockey]

A land invasion would have killed even more people.

It doesn't bother me. I think it's pefectly normal to feel for these things.

[OzmO]

Japan wanted its emperor safeguarded after the surrender.

Since all the military leaders of the day (outside of Truman) viewed the Japanese as utterly defeated and the use of atomic warfare unnecessary, who am I to argue?

Japan got that with it's emperor.

They also wanted not to pay reparations for the war they started in addition to not having their present government disbanded and their military limited or disbanded.  I might wrong about this in detail, but it certainly wasn't just the concern over the emperor.

Also, those military leaders, seem to have been making political motivated statements.  More people died in 1 night of Tokyo fire bombings.   And many more civilians would have surely died if we had invaded.

[Decker]

Japan got that with it's emperor.

They also wanted not to pay reparations for the war they started in addition to not having their present government disbanded and their military limited or disbanded.  I might wrong about this in detail, but it certainly wasn't just the concern over the emperor.

Also, those military leaders, seem to have been making political motivated statements.  More people died in 1 night of Tokyo fire bombings.   And many more civilians would have surely died if we had invaded.

I understood the main point of contention was over the handling of the emperor.

I think the larger issue is being overlooked:  The US caused 200,000 casualties in a war that all the major military men considered to be over.

Let the lawyers work out the details in the wording and conditions of surrender.

Using a nuclear bomb to make that decision was overkill....In my opinion.

[OzmO]

I understood the main point of contention was over the handling of the emperor.

I think the larger issue is being overlooked:  The US caused 200,000 casualties in a war that all the major military men considered to be over.

Let the lawyers work out the details in the wording and conditions of surrender.

Using a nuclear bomb to make that decision was overkill....In my opinion.

I hear your thinking

But, it was no where near over otherwise Japan would have surrendered unconditionally.   We don't get an unconditonal surrender then they stay in China, and eventually rearm.

Also they still had plenty of offensive capability that would only increase as time went by.  Granted they couldn't invade again for a while, but for how long?

[Decker]

I hear your thinking

But, it was no where near over otherwise Japan would have surrendered unconditionally.   We don't get an unconditonal surrender then they stay in China, and eventually rearm.

Also they still had plenty of offensive capability that would only increase as time went by.  Granted they couldn't invade again for a while, but for how long?

I understand your point.  But here's what holds sway over my view:

Here are some more quotes to help us flesh out why they were against the atomic bombings:

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II


Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, quoted by his widow:
". . . I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life. . . . We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything." And – E. B. Potter, naval historian wrote: "Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."


Rear Admiral Richard Byrd:
"Especially it is good to see the truth told about the last days of the war with Japan. . . . I was with the Fleet during that period; and every officer in the Fleet knew that Japan would eventually capitulate from . . . the tight blockade."


Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy:
"I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning." [The atomic bomb] "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion . . . it was clear to a number of people . . . that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate . . . it was a sin – to use a good word – [a word that] should be used more often – to kill non-combatants. . . ."


Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces.
". . . [F]rom the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell. . . ."

________________________ ________________

These guys were the military elite leaders of their day.

[w8tlftr]

?  huh?

What I meant by that, Oz, is that the Japanese started a fight and lost.

The bombs dropped. It was a nasty war - people died. It is what it is.

It's not fair for anyone to second guess the order to drop the nukes. President Truman made a hard decision and it's over.

Was it an act of terrorism? Nope. Did civilians die? Yes but, like I said, it was a war.

Is it fucking lame to dwell over this? Fuck yeah.

[OzmO]

What I meant by that, Oz, is that the Japanese started a fight and lost.

The bombs dropped. It was a nasty war - people died. It is what it is.

It's not fair for anyone to second guess the order to drop the nukes. President Truman made a hard decision and it's over.

Was it an act of terrorism? Nope. Did civilians die? Yes but, like I said, it was a war.

Is it fucking lame to dwell over this? Fuck yeah.

Yeah, but this is a forum......  that's kind of what we do here!   


You point is well taken by the way, however, this will be debated from both sides for ages to come.  Decker bring up good points and so does the the proponents for dropping it.

To say it was an act of terrorism is ridiculous.

[w8tlftr]

Yeah, but this is a forum......  that's kind of what we do here!   

LOL... touchι.

[Slapper]

What most of what you guys are saying does not matter. What is OBVIOUS is that when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, as bad as it was, they bombed a MILITARY instalation.

We NUKED CIVILIANS.

There is a HUGE difference.

[w8tlftr]

What most of what you guys are saying does not matter. What is OBVIOUS is that when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, as bad as it was, they bombed a MILITARY instalation.

We NUKED CIVILIANS.

There is a HUGE difference.

And the Japanese killed plenty of them too.

My mother was in the Philippines when the Japanese invaded. They were not the nicest of people to civilians.

[drkaje]

Japan was screwed from the start we couldn't possibly fight battles on two fronts and was no way we would ever drop nukes on white people Germans. Also, we had troops in Germany.

Japan was the 'mouse that roared', essentially. They were never going to have a real (post-war) economy or rebuilding without being attacked by the US. They gambled and won.

[OzmO]

What most of what you guys are saying does not matter. What is OBVIOUS is that when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, as bad as it was, they bombed a MILITARY instalation.

We NUKED CIVILIANS.

There is a HUGE difference.

Read the rape of nanking

Or stuff on the bataan death march.

Talk to Philippinos who endure and survived Japanese occupation

Talk to american civilians who were put in prison and tortured and or had friends killed.

Talk the oppressive islanders all around the pacific who also had to endure Japanese occupation.

You are making it sound like the Japanese were honorable in war.

Just read few history books.  Any body knows, in ww2 the gloves came off on both sides.

And as far as Pearl Harbor was concerned, if you talking about fair, war was not declared.  It was sneak attack on people who were not harming Japan.  People who were just waking up to a beautiful Sunday morning.  Might as well have been civilians which part of the many casualties.

[OzmO]

Japan was screwed from the start we couldn't possibly fight battles on two fronts and was no way we would ever drop nukes on white people Germans. Also, we had troops in Germany.

Japan was the 'mouse that roared', essentially. They were never going to have a real (post-war) economy or rebuilding without being attacked by the US. They gambled and won.

Are you kidding?  We would have loved nothing better then to drop a nuke on Germany.  We would have had Berlin and had the Russians at our mercy in Europe.

As for the Japanese, they gambled on crippling our fleet at Pearl and then making a huge territory grab followed by suing for peace.  it fell apart when our carriers weren't there and 6 months later we caught their carriers at midway changing ordinance.  thier whole gambit died in 5 minutes as 3 Japanese carriers were hit and started sinking.  (the 4th later that day)

they didn't go into the war with the intention to lose and reinvent their country as an economic power.

[drkaje]

Read the rape of nanking

Or stuff on the bataan death march.

Talk to Philippinos who endure and survived Japanese occupation

Talk to american civilians who were put in prison and tortured and or had friends killed.

Talk the oppressive islanders all around the pacific who also had to endure Japanese occupation.

You are making it sound like the Japanese were honorable in war.

Just read few history books.  Any body knows, in ww2 the gloves came off on both sides.

And as far as Pearl Harbor was concerned, if you talking about fair, war was not declared.  It was sneak attack on people who were not harming Japan.  People who were just waking up to a beautiful Sunday morning.  Might as well have been civilians which part of the many casualties.

Were the Germans much better?

[OzmO]

Were the Germans much better?

nope,  it can be argued they were much worse.  But the nuke wasn't operational then and we were dealing with chruchill and stalin for after war spoils.

If in June 1944 it was operational, the war would have been over much sooner.

[calmus]

all this discussion, and I don't think anybody's said anything more than I said in the first reply to this thread.   

[CARTEL]

I find it odd that people say the Japanese were ready to surrender when Marines were hard pressed to get even a few POW's. The fighting on those islands were horrific.

These people were committing suicide rather than fail or be caught. They certainly were'nt running over to be captured like the Germans.

[Slapper]

Read the rape of nanking

Or stuff on the bataan death march.

Talk to Philippinos who endure and survived Japanese occupation

Talk to american civilians who were put in prison and tortured and or had friends killed.

Talk the oppressive islanders all around the pacific who also had to endure Japanese occupation.

You are making it sound like the Japanese were honorable in war.

Just read few history books.  Any body knows, in ww2 the gloves came off on both sides.

And as far as Pearl Harbor was concerned, if you talking about fair, war was not declared.  It was sneak attack on people who were not harming Japan.  People who were just waking up to a beautiful Sunday morning.  Might as well have been civilians which part of the many casualties.

There is a huge difference between invading a country to steal its resources (we do it all the time,) as the Japanese did in southern Asia (and as we're doing in Iraq,) and flying two planes over two large cities in order to drop two nuclear bombs with no other intention but to cause mass murder.
 

 

[OzmO]

There is a huge difference between invading a country to steal its resources (we do it all the time,) as the Japanese did in southern Asia (and as we're doing in Iraq,) and flying two planes over two large cities in order to drop two nuclear bombs with no other intention but to cause mass murder.
 

 

It that what you think it was?  they just wanted to commit mass murder?  No other reason?  Simple as that.  Truman, said, l"et's commit mass murder.  Hmmm who can we do it to?  How about the japs?  Let's kill them.  Hey, look it worked!  we killed lots people, that great, i feel good about myself.  Oh by the way is there still a war going on?"


Japan didn't just steal resources it brutalize the people they stole them from.  They also consider all those people lower species and treated them as such.  You should do some home work on the Japanese in ww2.  Although i am vehemently against the Iraq war, there's a big difference between what they did and what we are doing now.  Part of my family survived Japanese occupation.

[240 is Back]

some say we declined their offer to surrender, and wanted to display what the bomb could do, to scare the russians off.  Really depends who ya believe.