• Quote from TG "Even being “stabbed in the back” does not always justify the killing of millions of Japanese civilians. What did they have to do about it? There is no “moral high ground,” only how we see fit.

    What I’m saying is, its easy to say what a horrible thing the bombing was today.
    If you lived back then, your perspective would have been much different.
    It was a military decision that made sense and saved American lifes.
    Civilians casualties are part of war.
    How many Nations during WW2 carpet bombed a city? Just because it wasn’t an A-bomb, dosen’t make it any less “terrible”.

    A Nation, any Nation will do what it has to, to win a war.

    Maybe the Americans did drop the A-bomb for revenge.
    So what if that was the reason?

    Why did Japanese pilots slam themselves into America ships?


  • @Mr:

    Quote from TG "Even being “stabbed in the back” does not always justify the killing of millions of Japanese civilians. What did they have to do about it? There is no “moral high ground,” only how we see fit.

    What I’m saying is, its easy to say what a horrible thing the bombing was today.
    If you lived back then, your perspective would have been much different.
    It was a military decision that made sense and saved American lifes.
    Civilians casualties are part of war.
    How many Nations during WW2 carpet bombed a city? Just because it wasn’t an A-bomb, dosen’t make it any less “terrible”.

    A Nation, any Nation will do what it has to, to win a war.

    Maybe the Americans did drop the A-bomb for revenge.
    So what if that was the reason?

    Why did Japanese pilots slam themselves into America ships?

    i’m agreeing with you more and more Ghoul.
    Germany got bombed something fierce. Poor poor German civilians . . . that’ll learn them to follow a madman into the depths of depravity and EVILHOOD (yes FinsterniS, i said evil). True, if we lost the war, i suppose even having opposed Germany and Japan would not have boded well for our countries, and our grandparents would likely be living in concentration camps. This would not have made what they did wrong though. I think many Germans and Japanese people today would have difficulty arguing with that (with the obvious exceptions of the right-winged racist ones, etc.).
    Curiously, did those who bombed Coventry into desolation ever get tried for war-crimes? If they did, then i could see the engineers for the bombings in Japan and Germany being tried as well (which indeed would be hypocritical of us). If those responsible for Coventry bombing did not get tried, then this whole discussion becomes moot on the point of civilian bombing.


  • Germany got bombed something fierce. Poor poor German civilians . . . that’ll learn them to follow a madman into the depths of depravity and EVILHOOD (yes FinsterniS, i said evil).

    …serious crime were made by other people, what about England who send people from their colonies to the front at the WW1 ? What about the two bombs launch in Japan ? What about Vietnam ? The Japanese attack in Korea ? It would always be a crime, not “evil”, but a crime against humanity, still you cannot take the fact without the context, that’s what you are doing by stating bombing german civilian “will learn them not to follow madman”. Serious, and dangerous, simplification.


  • “A surprise attack in the vein that was committed is less than one that was committed under the auspices of war against a military aggressor? Those American “military” lives were worth less than those of civilians?”

    This is especially true. Many brave, American lives were lost on that eventful – they never stood a chance. We must not let their sacrifices be in vain. In fact, of those in the dwindling roaster of Japan who were involved at Pearl Harbor and survived the war, many later traveled back to Hawaii to pay their condolences to the American lives they took. They even admitted that such a surprise attack was dishonorable and not of the Code of Bushdio that many lived and died on.

    “What I’m saying is, its easy to say what a horrible thing the bombing was today.
    If you lived back then, your perspective would have been much different.
    It was a military decision that made sense and saved American lifes.
    Civilians casualties are part of war.
    How many Nations during WW2 carpet bombed a city? Just because it wasn’t an A-bomb, dosen’t make it any less “terrible”.”

    Okay, now I understand where you’re comming from. It’s so easy for emotions to cloud our judgement (though this doesn’t always makes things less “right,” and I’m sure any nation would resort to carpet bombing to win the war (see Germany, USA, Britain). Also, the comment on nuclear vs conventional bombing is true - like I pointed it out before, the raid on Tokyo inflicted more damage than either of the two A bombs.

    “Poor poor German civilians . . . that’ll learn them to follow a madman into the depths of depravity and EVILHOOD (yes FinsterniS, i said evil).”

    I wish there was some way to only bomb supporters of Imerpial Japan or Nazi Germany, however this just wasn’t people. I’m sure much of the anti-war population was bombed and killed (not to mention umpteem women and children). Also many of the people who tried speaking out against Hitler were quickly silenced and sent to political concentration camps as a sort of example to the rest of the population.


  • @FinsterniS:

    Germany got bombed something fierce. Poor poor German civilians . . . that’ll learn them to follow a madman into the depths of depravity and EVILHOOD (yes FinsterniS, i said evil).

    …serious crime were made by other people, what about England who send people from their colonies to the front at the WW1 ? What about the two bombs launch in Japan ? What about Vietnam ? The Japanese attack in Korea ? It would always be a crime, not “evil”, but a crime against humanity, still you cannot take the fact without the context, that’s what you are doing by stating bombing german civilian “will learn them not to follow madman”. Serious, and dangerous, simplification.

    i was mostly being facetious . . . basically its too simple to accuse the US of a crime against humanity for “the Bomb” when there were so many other factors involved - the Japanese atrocities, their “first strike”, the then-Japanese mentality. Further to my point the same things happened in other countries, other cities - i think that to simply point out the American’s bombing is inappropriate, considering that in war-time measure for measure, with every action there was an equal and opposite reaction (well, somewhat equal . . . ). Was it the German’s fault that they got the crap bombed out of them? Maybe. Were the allies guilty of war-crimes? Maybe. The fact is, it happpened everywhere on both sides. The fact is that no other bombing brought such a turning point to the war as those on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - not Coventry, no where. As for the English sending colonists to the front in WWI, well, if it helped the allies then win, than thank God that they did. Otherwise we might be speaking German now.


  • [quote="TG Moses VI

    Americans do show mercy. If it were otherwise, we would’ve never taken any prisoners and would not have helped rebuild the countries we shattered. Would any other not country do otherwise for its former “enemy?” Also, I’m interested in seeing what you define “horrible massacre” as. Maybe we should throw in a few thousand Americans– a few hundred thousand Americans – maybe even a million Americans – would that satisfy your need for a “horrible massacre?”* We did get caught with our pants down – so did Poland, so did France, so did China, so did many countries overrun by the Axis warmachine. Tell me, should they not have made such a “big deal” out of this? Amusing how we were still making negotiations with the Japanese diplomats when the attack happened.

    • = FYI, over 2,400 American lives were lost at Pearl Harbor – not a few hundred

    “America should not have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima had some military value but Nagasaki had NO MILITARY VALUE whatsoever. It was pure revenge. About the number of deaths there, it depends on whose records you look at. Official Japanese records claim that 300,000 people died at hiroshima and another 100,000 at Nagasaki.”

    Although many figures are quoted, it’s generally agreed that some 70,000 to 80,000 people died in the attack on Hiroshima with a like number injured (140,000 casualties). At Nagasaki 40,000 died with another 60,000 injured (100,000 casualties). [Make sure not to confuse deaths with casualties] These figures are the immediate deaths and don’t include subsequent deaths. By years end 140,000 people had died in Hiroshima from the bomb. The on Tokyo by B-29 bombers on the night of March 9/10, 1945 released 1660 tons of incendiaries. The official Japanese count found 83,793 dead and 40,918 injured. A total of 267,171 buildings were destroyed leaving one million people homeless. 15.8 square miles of the city had been burned to the ground, including 18% of the industrial area, and 63% of the commercial center. [My sources do not go into how many Japanese died of after-immediate causes].

    The bombings on the cities is still a hotly debated subject even today. I think the attacks on industrial or military centers would be a much more “justifiable” target. However, many experts say that the attacks would’ve left a much more lasting impression of the Japanese (forcing them with no other alternative but to end the war) if the attack had occurred on cities that were virtually unscathed by the war. However, since much “logical” targets were already bombed out ruins by the US Airforce, the list of “bombable” cities was relatively shorts. It’s too bad that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be ones chosen.

    “As for the crimes that Japan did, why dont we talk about America’s crimes? You won’t find this in official American government documents, but the Us government’s policy toward natives was to force them onto reserves and starve them into submission. Read an old Soviet document and you will find it.”

    It is foolish to think that America was innocent. However, it is just as foolish to make the level and intensity of American war crimes comparable to Nazi and Imperial Japanese war crimes. Also, natives on the islands (and SE Asia) America “liberated” were also subject to brutality (it is hard to find the correct “word) by the Americans (though this was mainly associated with the firefights their villages were caught up in). But if it makes you happy, why don’t we round up all the countries that served in WWIII (assuming there will be any left) and all put them on trial for war crimes? Who would be presumed fit to judge? We might need the ICC for this.

    Firstly, the source I used said 240 deaths at Pearl Harbor, which to me is not the huge massacre you make it out to be. Either you gained a0 or my source lost one of them. 2,400 is a massacre in my opinion. I wasn’t saying that Japan and Germany’s crimes were as bad as American crimes, but I was merely saying that when people look at horrible happenings in history, they rarely look at the winning countries. Some of them have done crimes as well. I think Hiroshima was a justifiable target since it had military value, but not Nagasaki. You can’t make the people pay for the military’s horrible acts. The Japanese military and government should have been hit hard for what they did in China. I’m saying that we have to be careful when we analyze history and look at the great countries, because sometimes the great countries are not as great as we think they are. Had the Americans bombed Frankfurt and Nuremburg (two random German cities), I would not be arguing about it because the German people helped Hitler in his mass genocides and crimes against humanity.

    “Americans do show mercy. If it were otherwise, we would’ve never taken any prisoners and would not have helped rebuild the countries we shattered. Would any other not country do otherwise for its former “enemy?””

    America barely took any prisoners in the Pacific because the Japanese fought to the death. Rebuilding the countries was very important in order to stop hate against America and to make sure that what happened to Germany after World War 1, when the Allied Powers did not rebuild Germany, won’t happen again.


  • Emugod

    War is horrible, all countries, im sure, are guilty of war crimes to one degree or another.You do what is necessary to win a war and protect your interests, especially if you are the one stuck at first.

    What someone calls a massacre another doesn’t.
    Is 240 people( Your source is wrong in regards to the number of dead at Pearl harbour, way off) not a massacre?
    It depends on who you asking, I guess.

    If I line up 240 children and shoot them all in the head, is that not a massacre?

    If I line up 300,000 children and shoot them all in the head is that not a massacre?

    The number of dead doesn’t matter. Would it have been ok for the states to have killed 240 Japanese citizens with an A-bomb? No massacre?

    Massacre or not, America did what they thought should be done to protect themselves.

    Who are you to judge their actions?

    You may say “How dare they drop A-bombs on innocent poeple!”
    And I may say ’ How dare they attack the U.S without a formal declaration of war!"

    Japan was doing what it thought had to do to protect it’s interests and win a war they new was coming. At the end of it all, so was the U.S.A.


  • Emu, here are sources that verify my number (2400 dead) was in fact correct:

    http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm
    http://www.buckeyewebdesign.com/pearl/pearlharbor.html
    http://www.bluejacket.com/pearl_harbor_address.htm
    http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment091101.shtml
    http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/18arizona/18putting.htm

    The list obviously goes one, but I think that 5 sources will verify my information. Your number of 240 servicemen dead is less than those who died aboard the battleships sunk by Japan. Hundreds were trapped inside the USS Arizona alone. The average age of those lost at Pearl Harbor was 23.

    “America barely took any prisoners in the Pacific because the Japanese fought to the death. Rebuilding the countries was very important in order to stop hate against America and to make sure that what happened to Germany after World War 1, when the Allied Powers did not rebuild Germany, won’t happen again.”

    When I was talking about POWs, the scope is also widened to all fronts. Hundreds of thousand (even millions?) of German POWs were kept inside of the United States - they weren’t forced into brutal slave labor, shot, straved, or maimed. Is this a sign of mercy? I would think so. As for Japan, we tried to take prisoners, but like you said, they fought to the death. And when they knew the couldn’t win, more often then not the committed vain banzi charges (Guadalcanal), committed suicide (Saipan), or blew themselves up with grenades (Attu). This was their mentality. The Japanese soldiers were “taught” that anybody who surrendered would be shot on sight by an American (and it was in their honor to die for the Emperor).


  • I think shooting 240 children is a massacre, but whnat I’m saying is that Pearl Harbor is blown out of proportion at times. Mr. Ghoul, you are saying that it’s fine to do anything in the interest of your country. I guess you are justifying Hitler’s Holocaust of 6 million Jews and also many many Gypsies, homosexuals and other minorites. It was “in the interest of his country” just like the atomic bombso n Hiroshima and Nagasaki. According to what you just said, what he did was justified and that is something that I cannot agree with.


  • @EmuGod:

    I think shooting 240 children is a massacre, but whnat I’m saying is that Pearl Harbor is blown out of proportion at times. Mr. Ghoul, you are saying that it’s fine to do anything in the interest of your country. I guess you are justifying Hitler’s Holocaust of 6 million Jews and also many many Gypsies, homosexuals and other minorites. It was “in the interest of his country” just like the atomic bombso n Hiroshima and Nagasaki. According to what you just said, what he did was justified and that is something that I cannot agree with.

    Thats a little extreme.
    If America was dropping A-bombs on Japan before their attack on Pearl Habour, I would be singing a different tune.

    Obviously, defending what is your interest at all cost has a limit.

    I not saying what they did was “nice” but, in the interest of saving
    America lives, it was what they thought should be done.
    And I can understand and accept it.


  • @Mr:

    You may say “How dare they drop A-bombs on innocent poeple!”
    And I may say ’ How dare they attack the U.S without a formal declaration of war!"

    I agree with you so far in your post, Ghoul …

    AFAIK the diplomatic staff was delayed (some say by the US office secretaries) by half an hour in handing the declaration to the U.S. officials.

    And as well, the japanese side stopping all negotiation over the US “hostile” economic behavior has been seen by some ppl in the US government as a declaration of war. 🙂


  • 2335 people died at Pearl Harbor 12/07/1941. Maybe you hafta be an American to know that…(“240”…please!) :x

    But forget Pearl Harbor. Let’s pretend it never happened…

    Japan allied herself with Germany–a power that killed 6,000,000 people who were noncombatants, for no reason at all except her leaders hated them (and her people didn’t care enough one way or another to stop it–I love Germany today as a people, and 2 of my best friends are Germans, but this is undeniable); Japan herself was deeply involved at the time in her own genocide of millions of Chinese people. When Japan conquered (or coerced a people to join her in the case of Burma), she brutally enslaved millions of people into hard labor w/ no pay (Koreans, Filipinos, Burmese, Vietnamese…would you like me to continue?). When Japanese troops captured enemies, they were subjected to brutal tortures and even bizarre medical experiements.

    Against this, one ranges the crimes of the United States:

    1.) We (mainly Californians/Hawaiians) forced perfectly loyal and good Japanese-Americans into harsh internment camps.

    2.) We were insensitive to the cultures and homes of the peoples of the Pacific Islands we siezed.

    3.) We bombed helpless cities with the purpose of terrorizing the civilians into surrender (incidentally, EmuGod–we DID level German cities in WWII–without the Atomic Bomb)

    There are many other more personal examples of American “warcimes” but these suffice for my point. As a counterpoint, might I present these examples:

    1.) We helped to defeat Germany and Japan–the instigators of the horrors of WWII…

    2.) We (practically singlehandedly) rebuilt the lands devastated by the brutalities of the war…

    3.) We–subject to the political/social/moral/intellectual constraints of the times, and to any times–attempted to prosecute and punish the worst offenders of human rights…

    Yes, Americans did commit certain “crimes against humanity” in WWII. But who is willing to step up and prosecute the people who did the good that the USA did? Does that good have any meaning to you at all?

    No one in the USA was prosecuted for the crimes we committed. But many Germans and Japanese (and Italians) got away without prosecution as well (chief in my mind being the Japanese “scientists” who “experimented” on US POWs–no one said a word about them postwar). The millions of Asian peoples who were the victims of Japanese aggression in WWII got no say in the trials…

    But when it comes down to it: Yes, the war was ugly. Yes, no one got away without guilt for some kind of atrocity. But lets face it–who in the world WANTED to prosecute Americans in 1945? I think most world citizens were focused on how to rebuild…how to heal…

    Ozone27


  • I like to think of myself who cares deeply for humans rights, but I think I will have to side with Mr. Ghoul and TG Moses on this one. I hope that nuclear weapons will never have to be used in the future, as much as I hope that the time will not come again when we do have to use them. It is frightening to think that the bombs dropped on Japan were a mere fraction of the destructive power in today’s nuclear arsenals.

    In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, America’s horrible acts were understandable. America was in this war for four straight years… four grueling years of rationing, war production, recruitment, and of neatly folded flags sent home to mourn the loss of another American servicemen 😞 . An invasion of Japan would have forced World War Two to linger on even longer, some predicted into the late 1940s. Allied planners calculated over a million American causalities, many of whom would never return home. Japan was also in dire straits. As an island nation of such immense population, it was deprived of the very foodstuffs necessary to feed its population… let alone in a wartime atmosphere. The mass bombing raids left much of Japan in ruins and orphaned families without shelter… their flimsy paper houses caught in terrible fires that engulfing entire city miles 😞 . The Emperor, still naïve to immense defeat and surrounding by military council, remained resolute.

    Not until the dropping of the two atomic bombs did the Emperor formally surrender stating,

    "But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone–the gallant fighting of our military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of out servants of the State and the devoted service of our 100,000,000 people–the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

    Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

    Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, nor to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers."

    Human life should never have a pricetag on it, but for those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was the price that was paid to ensured many more Japanese and Americans would not longer be squandered… 😢


  • Just before WWI, europe was very unstable, germany make an alliance with austria and with italy (the triple-alliance), while another alliance was formed; the france-england-russia alliance. The archduc Ferdinand and his wife Sophia were killed by a Bosniac, then Austria decide it was enough, they want to give a lesson to these serb, so they ask Germany if they could count on them, and Germany answer Yes, Austria could count on Germany if there was a war. Then (to make the story short) Austria declared war against the Serb, the Serb had ask before help from Russia, they accept to help the Serb but ask France, France accept to help Russia in case of a war, then Russia accept to help the Serb. Then the war start between the Serb and Austria, and shorty after that, between Russia-France and Austria-Germany. The war was horrible, ~20 000 000 death, but if we look at it, germany was not the “monsters” in it, sure they use gas bur France and England take people from their colonies to throw them in the frontline…

    Anyway, after the War, Germany was humiliated, his economy was shattered. Then right-wing extremist use the fear and desolation of the german people to their advantage, the Germans dissident were killed, and lots of german were anyway not so dissident…

    THIS, is a context. In no way an excuses for Nazi’s atrocities.

    Same thing goes, on a lesser scale, for the us nuclear attack. You are trying to rationalize horribles crimes, but throwing two nuclear bomb on civilian was a terror attack. Remember that without the “unconditional reddition”, the two bomb would have maybe not been necessary. Sure we own a lot to Russia and the US, it is not a reason to be blind to their crime, i am happy the USA help to get the war to and end, but Nagasaki and Hiroshima were more political/emotional than rational desicion.


  • Did Hirohito really say “four years” of war?
    I can’t believe that, as the Japanese were in wartime much longer, 15 years all in all, started in China (which lead to a total embargo of the US etc. etc.).


  • this is a very interesting post: I have been reading it from the beginning and I want to add a few things, forst, this started with the word ‘test’ kidna funny that way.

    no state has ever emerged morally unscathed from war, and WW2 was especually bad. So the idea of any country not doing ‘bad’ things to win is not realistic in the least.

    as for the A-bomb, civilian bombing had become common place (sadly) during the war, germany and britain, the US too. If Japan had the ability to reach our borders they would have certainly bombed our civilians, actually they did! they sent thousands of ballon bombs over the pacific to try to hit American civilians, actually a person died, but there was a complete press blackout on the matter. I think you hVave to judge the past in terms of the contemporary time, the A-bomb was a military weapon, like asuper powerful incindiery bomb, the bombing of civilians had become an accepted form of warfare by ALL countries involved so how that realistically be questioned? the dropping is regretable for sure, but they were at war with Japan, a especually viscious opponent, (bataan death march, rape of nanking and many others) , Japan also swore she would never surrender, from a military point of view, you have this new weapon, could end the war, save your peoples lives, and end the bloodiest conflict in history. i think you do it, and i think nukes are deplorable.

    and if the US didnt use the bomb that they spent a fortune building, could you explain that to the 200,00+ mothers, fathers, wives, brothers and sisters why the japanese civilians lives were more important than theirs? When Japan declared war on the US I believe it is correct for the US to place themselves first. and dont tell me that germany of japan wouldnt have used the A-bomb if they had it …… 100% sure they would have. more Chinese died at the rape of nanking than from both A-bombs put together, so gain some perspective, its not like 5 million japanese died.

    all that said, i wish it hadnt been used, so regretable, but then again i wish WW2 hadnt happaned at all, but its not like the US was teh aggressor, we tried damn hard to stay out of it.

    just some thoughts, im sure some are written incorrectly and will be torn apart but thats cool. im not saying im 100% right but try not to view things in the new post-modernism, truly analyze the WORLD AT WAR part of the game we all love to play.

    thnx for your time

    kevin

    ps- only one person died at the japanese internment camps in the US, and that was from natural causes (old age).


  • one of those stupid Japanese balloons even managed to make it as far as Saskatchewan. Nice.


  • “Did Hirohito really say “four years” of war?
    I can’t believe that, as the Japanese were in wartime much longer, 15 years all in all, started in China (which lead to a total embargo of the US etc. etc.).”

    I think Hirohito was speaking of four years of war with America. Would you like me to post the entire surrender speech Hirhito broadcasted on radio?


  • “If Japan had the ability to reach our borders they would have certainly bombed our civilians, actually they did! they sent thousands of ballon bombs over the pacific to try to hit American civilians”

    Sir KPwatkin, we must not forget that Japan often resorted to civilian bombing of the countries of China, the Philippines, Korea, and as far reaching as Australia during World War Two. Those may not have been American lives lost, but it was civilian lives lost all the same 😢


  • Quote From FinsterniS " Same thing goes, on a lesser scale, for the us nuclear attack. You are trying to rationalize horribles crimes, but throwing two nuclear bomb on civilian was a terror attack. Remember that without the “unconditional reddition”, the two bomb would have maybe not been necessary. Sure we own a lot to Russia and the US, it is not a reason to be blind to their crime, i am happy the USA help to get the war to and end, but Nagasaki and Hiroshima were more political/emotional than rational desicion."

    Like someone else pointed out, Japan wasn’t going to surrender.

    Would you expect them to negotiate till both sides are happy?
    “You just keep half of what you agressive, hostile military actions gained”

    Satisfying bleeding heart liberals, like we saw in the Gulf war , and take a moral “lets not hurt anyone” attitude could have lead to a long drawn out conflict that may have cost many more American lives.

    Does dropping an A-bomb make this a terrorist action.
    Should they have just carpet bombed the two cities?
    Just like every other major nation involved in the war did.

    I just think some Europeans are sensitive when it comes to the" America Cowboy" bravado. :lol: and dont like their confident attitudes.

    I dont think any Nazi was tried from bombing Allied cities.


  • I still believe that the bombing of Nagasaki was wrong. One of the remaining military targets, even if it would have been a city with civilians in it as well, would have been a better target in my opinion, because the aim is not to kill civilians intentionally but to wipe out a military base where civilians are casualties, which happens in war. I think Nagasaki was horrible, but Hiroshima was better because it had military value. If the US had told Japan that the next target would be a civilian target and Japan would have refuses to surrender, I might understand. But the US simply made civilians suffer for no reason.

    I’m happy that the US saved American lives and ended the war quickly, but I still think there should have been an alternative to Nagasaki. You’re right in saying that all countries had bombed civilians, but two wrongs don’t make a right.


  • Launching nuclear bomb was essentialy a terror attack, it was not to undermine Japan’s productivity nor economy, it was not an attack against military infrastructure, it was an attack against civilians. While i do not doupt any minute that if Hitler had this kind of weapon in hand he would had use it, he is certainly not an exemple to follow.

    Also the Japanese were already defeated, the “they would have not surrender”, is a very bad excuse…

    The “Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. … The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.”

    Chief of staff to the president, Adm. William D. Leahy

    “Japan was already defeated. …It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

    Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Japan would have surrender, only if they knew the Emperor would have stay in power, the Japanese people fear the “unconditional surrender” which threatened the Emperor. For a shintoist, the Emperor is like Jesus for Christian, i am sure to protect Jesus a lots of Christians would have done the same thing.


  • @FinsterniS:

    Launching nuclear bomb was essentialy a terror attack, it was not to undermine Japan’s productivity nor economy, it was not an attack against military infrastructure, it was an attack against civilians. While i do not doupt any minute that if Hitler had this kind of weapon in hand he would had use it, he is certainly not an exemple to follow.

    Also the Japanese were already defeated, the “they would have not surrender”, is a very bad excuse…

    The “Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. … The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.”

    Chief of staff to the president, Adm. William D. Leahy

    “Japan was already defeated. …It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

    Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Japan would have surrender, only if they knew the Emperor would have stay in power, the Japanese people fear the “unconditional surrender” which threatened the Emperor. For a shintoist, the Emperor is like Jesus for Christian, i am sure to protect Jesus a lots of Christians would have done the same thing.

    1. Hindsight is 20/20. i think we could look back at just about any event and say “well, that wasn’t really necessary”. Put yourself in Truman’s shoes for a moment, survey all that has happened, and all that COULD happen.
    2. I don’t know about other Christians, but if Jesus Christ acted as the emporer of Japan, i believe you’d find Christianity decline extremely quickly - if only for the sheer hypocracy. Also we would have little fear as to what might befall him if indeed he had subjected to unconditional surrender, but this is all pointless speculation. The fact is that the allies could not be assured that having that individual in place as head of state would not preclude another messy war. I’m guessing that’s one reason for the “unconditional surrender”.

  • FinsterniS wrote,

    “Also the Japanese were already defeated, the “they would have not surrender”, is a very bad excuse…”

    No, it is a very GOOD excuse (though I wouldn’t call this an “excuse”). Let’s take a look at those, quotes you used shall we?

    “The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. … The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.”

    This Chief of Staff seems to be contradicting others of the Allied Planners. First Hiroshima was a major military target, as stated by President himself. Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of ‘Banzai’ the troops leaving from the harbor.

    The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries. Nagasaki was the home to the very important Mitsubishi torpedo factory and Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works.

    Truman wanted the Atomic bomb to be a military weapon, not some weapon of malice to purposely spite the Japanese. Truman’s feelings that the bomb can be seen in his diary on 25 July 1945, in which he recorded that he had told “Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use [the atomic bomb] so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.”

    “Japan was already defeated. …It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

    The second comment is fruitless. It would take a damn fool to notice that Japan had not been defeated by 1944, some say right after Midway for that matter. However, there’s a difference between being defeated and actually admitting it (ie surrendering). Even a defeated Japan was not ready to give in that easily. The Japanese began the stockpiling of aircraft, amassed a giant conscripted military force, and commenced the creation of a civilian army. This awe-inspiring army included "so-called ‘Sherman Carpets,’ children with dynamite strapped to their bodies and trained to throw themselves under American tanks. The Allies would be faced with the enormous task of destroying an armed force of five million and five thousand suicide aircraft, belonging to a race that had already amply demonstrated its ability to fight literally to the death.

    Also, FinsterniS suggested showing the power of the bombing by dropping it in a desolate area with international observers or the dropping of the bomb on an unpopulated area of Japan. This alternative was brought up twice, once on 31 May 1945 at the Interim Committee Lunch and again in the Frank Committee report on 11 June 1945. The recommendation by the Scientific Panel (presided over by the four principal physicists involved in the Manhattan Project–Fermi, Lawrence, Compton and Oppenheimer) was to use the bomb only in “direct military use.” This recommendation was collectively embraced by Stimson, Truman, Byrnes, and others because they feared that the bomb might turn out to be a “dud” and thus prove counterproductive toward intimidating the Japanese, and also because there was a severe limit to the materials on hand. Stimson later wrote “we had no bombs to waste.” Also logistical problems had to be overcome. Allied military and political advisors were not sure the Japanese observers would be allowed to report the demonstration to the Japanese Emperor accurately (which was virtually a hostage of the Japanese Military War Council).

    “Japan would have surrender, only if they knew the Emperor would have stay in power, the Japanese people fear the “unconditional surrender” which threatened the Emperor. For a shintoist, the Emperor is like Jesus for Christian, i am sure to protect Jesus a lots of Christians would have done the same thing.”

    Again this is pure speculation. This option was discussed by many American officials, such as Joseph Grew and Harry Hopkins, who both believed that Japan was already on the verge of defeat. Admiral Leahy recommenced to Truman on 18 June 1945 that the demand for unconditional surrender be modified. Truman commented that he would think it over. In the end Truman did not accept this recommendation mainly because he feared that such a modification might “embolden the Japanese to fight on for better terms.”

    As mentioned I before, the Emperor was more of a dupe to the Japanese War Council. On July 25 1945, Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki announced to the Japanese press and the Emperor that the Potsdam declaration of “complete annihilation” was to be ignored. The Magic Summaries (highest levels of Japanese code) further revealed that throughout June and July 1945, Japan’s militarist leaders were adamantly determined that they would never surrender unconditionally to the British and the Americans.

    The Emperor later admitted it himself a quote regarding to the stormy sessions with the war advisors right before Japan surrendered. “There was no prospect of agreement no matter how many discussions they had…I was given the opportunity to express my own free will for the first time.”

    If Japan had agreed on a Conditional Surrender, would the Japanese War Council (which were the real rulers of Imperial Japan) be tried for war crimes or granted amnesty? Would the “conditional surrender” leave those in power responsible for Japanese atrocities committed since the start of the Sino-Japanese war in 1937?


  • CC wrote,

    “2) I don’t know about other Christians, but if Jesus Christ acted as the emporer of Japan, i believe you’d find Christianity decline extremely quickly - if only for the sheer hypocracy. Also we would have little fear as to what might befall him if indeed he had subjected to unconditional surrender, but this is all pointless speculation. The fact is that the allies could not be assured that having that individual in place as head of state would not preclude another messy war. I’m guessing that’s one reason for the “unconditional surrender”.”

    This is true. Many people forget that the Emperor was an instigator of the Sino-Japanese War that was the main cause the led up to all these terrible events. If you want to try the people who dropped the A-bombs for war crimes, shouldn’t he also be tried?

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

68
Online

15.8k
Users

37.4k
Topics

1.6m
Posts