Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Hiroshima, the pictures they didn't want us to see
fogonazos.blogspot.com — Photos of the aftermath of the bombings were censored by the American occupation forces because they prohibited any thing "that might, directly or by inference, disturb public tranquility". The pictures remained classified 'top secret' for many years. This is the horror they didn't want us to see, and that we must NEVER forget.
Kakkun- 6150 diggs
- digg it
- Kakkun, on 10/12/2007, -12/+212I forgot to say that the photos are very graphic.
- swiftekho, on 10/12/2007, -233/+542Hate to sound like a prick but if we didn't drop both of those about 5 times more people would have died in a mainland invasion (including civilians)
- LaueOfficer, on 10/12/2007, -118/+61I wonder who it is that's digging swiftekho down, because he IS correct.
EDIT: oops, now he's back to +5, my bad for jumping the gun like that, I should know better from experience.
Anyway, I'd like to know, was there ever an official estimate given for how many more would die? - fletchowns, on 10/12/2007, -98/+83I know it was horrible, but this is just another reason why you don't take a superpower to war. And the alternative to this was 1,000,000+ dying in an invasion of Japanese mainland. It's pretty easy to see why the President decided to use the bomb. It was their choice to bomb Pearl Harbor.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -89/+227It's easy to look at these photos and shake your head in disgust. But we'll never see photos of the alternative, and I'm thankful for that.
- schuder, on 10/12/2007, -101/+125It was estimated between 500,000 and 1,000,000 American soldiers and marines would lose their lives in the invasion of Japan. To say nothing of the Japanese military, civilian partisans, and civilians who would commit suicide and take the lives of their children as well in fear of the GI "baby eater". Thank you President Truman for making the right call.
- macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -48/+301All the battlefield pics from both world wars should be plastered all over high school history books. You would end up with far fewer gung-ho retards ready to go off and commit atrocities in the name of nationalism.
It is unbelievable the scale of the slaughter in the 20th Century. Many millions were killed. And millions of the victims were civilians. It is unbelievable that humans still let themselves get duped into participating in this kind of *****. There is no way people should continue to put up with this ***** from their leaders. - rAid135, on 10/12/2007, -68/+41@swiftekho, yes i see what you mean but don't you think the A-Bombs were a bit extreme? 5 times as many is quite unlikely...
- oriondr, on 10/12/2007, -81/+68Dropping the bombs may have been necessary, but dropping them on cities may not have been.
- IMustBeEmo, on 10/12/2007, -55/+33@macmcrae, I agree on everything you said except for this: "And millions of the victims were women and children."
I agree that killing children is wrong, but how is killing women any worse than killing a man of the same age? - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -53/+193 Since we're discussing all the things that "might have happened", allow me to contribute.
Last time we had the nuclear weapons discssion, one of the people painted an alternative ficticious scenario where he took recent events into view. He got dugg down by the way.
He proposed the scenario where Iraq indeed had weapons of mass distruction, not chemical weapons but Nukes.
Just like the US was able to fight off the invasion of Japanese, Iraqis were able to defend themselves against the US intrusion and push coalition forces all the way back to the US border. They knew US wouldn't just give up and more people on both sides would continue fighting, so they dropped 2 nuclear bombs in 2 non-militarized cities, to put an end to war.
Would that be justifiable? Would you calmly accept the fact and nod at the loss of your own men for what's referred to as a "lesser of 2 evils"?
Once again, the original post was made awhile ago on digg. Got burried, but remained unanswered. I'm curious to what people actually have to say about it. - rontal, on 10/12/2007, -95/+222"The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 250.000 people and became the most dreadful slaughter of civilians in modern history." and ".... 65% of the casualties nine years of age and younger"
And you people justify that? - doom.md, on 10/12/2007, -25/+131in war everybody involved does some pretty despicable things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre - scott1, on 10/12/2007, -44/+29@swiftekho
I 100% agree but killing all those people is still not right... - schuder, on 10/12/2007, -8/+75Not to mention we could have dropped Fat Guy on Tokyo, and Little Man on Kyoto.
From Wiki "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"
"The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".[9]
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson struck Kyoto from the list because of its cultural significance, over the objections of General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. According to Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier." On July 25 General Carl Spaatz was ordered to bomb one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, or Nagasaki as soon after August 3 as weather permitted and the remaining cities as additional weapons became available.[10]" - crh3f, on 10/12/2007, -21/+55There have been several estimates made about what an invasion of the Japanese mainland would cost (in lives.) American casualties were expected to be in the hundreds of thousands (just for the invasion), Japanese casualties even higher as the civilian population was being groomed for a fight-to-the-end defense of their homeland.
Another thing people forget is that the firebombing campaign of the major cities was much more brutal, shocking, and lethal than both atomic bombs put together. - battlecow, on 10/12/2007, -37/+57many historians have said that we certainly did not need to drop the second bomb at the very least however, even the first bomb may not have been required for VJ day. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were excelent testing grounds to see the devestation of both plutonium and uranium based bombs. Although they bombed Pearl Harbor, the country still did not deserve to be a test bed for the first functional weapons of mass destruction. At least we didn't decide to kill all those innocent japanese people from the west coast put into internment camps against their will or put them to work like the germans did to the "non arayan" race.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -49/+87Actually, there was no intention to execute the actual invasion. The Japanese intention and attempts to surrender had already been confirmed. That is why dropping the bombs became controversial.
- noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -35/+87No doubt many more lives would have been lost in a ground invasion, please note that I'm not trying to deny this. It's just interesting that this intimidation tactic (one could say its purpose was to instill fear in the Japanese government) is deemed a necessary evil, whereas 9/11, yielding a fraction of the damage, was considered abhorrent and terrible and wrong.
One is called strategy, the other is called terrorism. What a funny world we live in. - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+46Tzar Bomba was the last large scale demonstration of military might by Russia. It sent a message it was designed to send at the expense of no lives. Not a single casualty. 50 megatons. No deaths. And you're telling me that dropping the bomb on 2 civilian cities was a necessary act? That there were absolutely no alternatives? How about picking a military target at least as oppose to civilian towns? Oh yes! The planes wouldn't have made it that far. All they had to do, is reach the coast that had fewest aerial defenses and enough people to kill, and that's exactly what they did.
- Zedzero, on 10/12/2007, -45/+99to "if we didn't drop both of those about 5 times more people would have died":
do you really think this is an excuse? then anyone with enough power should bomb anywhere, and then say "well, if i didn't do that, i was gonna do something worse. thank me." - ScrabbyDoo, on 10/12/2007, -21/+205A very good comment on that page:
US Responses to Dropping the Bomb
"...the greatest thing in history."
- Harry S. Truman
President of the United States during the Atomic Bombing
"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman
"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"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 already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
- Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."
- John McCloy
"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."
- President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945
"Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.
"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.
"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
- Stewart L. Udall
US Congressman and
Author of "Myths of August"
"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."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study
"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -37/+6The alternative is twice that number of civilians dying from battles on the ground. The regime of "freedom" 50 years later has achieved this goal...
We never seem to learn because the actions of the winning side are always justified while the losing side are reduced to mere subhuman monsters...
The effects of that decision aren't "noble" or "right". They may have been seen to be necessary, but there is no celebration in that decision. That wasn't a glorious day when the war was ended. It was the miserable last word on a miserable chapter in human depravity.
Every regime has motives and usually those motives are to make the world a better place for the privileged few (Germans, Muslims, Americans)
Once we stop trying to make the world a better place for some, and start trying to make the world a better place for all, we'll be on the path to steering clear of these type of atrocoties. - nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -32/+140People invariably seem to suffer under this delusion that a mainland invasion was the only alternative to using the atomic bomb.
IT WASN'T.
I'll keep posting this until people realize that.
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
"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."
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6There is only one reason we fight wars:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-4869921495750796405&q=the+grey+murder - stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -21/+12I've always thought this image:
http://www.iwojima.com/images/main_small.gif
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ehater/331573342/
is not something to be proud of. Simply because of what the US did to the Japanese. But for most in America, this is a strong patriotic image. That makes me shudder. - biggyfred, on 10/12/2007, -25/+16@battlecow: "Although they bombed Pearl Harbor, the country still did not deserve to be a test bed for the first functional weapons of mass destruction."
It must be nice to be able to judge what was undoubtedly one of the most difficult choices in world history so flippantly. How lucky for us to be able to witness.
"At least we didn't decide to kill all those innocent japanese people from the west coast put into internment camps against their will or put them to work like the germans did to the "non arayan" race."
At least? ***** you. When you say ***** like that, "we" aren't Americans. You need to go find some teapot ***** to wag your finger at "us" from, so you can see just how horrible us Americans are. I suggest Venezuela.
@noreturn: "It's just interesting that this intimidation tactic (one could say its purpose was to instill fear in the Japanese government) is deemed a necessary evil, whereas 9/11, yielding a fraction of the damage, was considered abhorrent and terrible and wrong. One is called strategy, the other is called terrorism."
It's apples and oranges. One was a world in which total war was not just expected, it was rewarded. The other is a convoluted place of states trying to defend their interests without all out attacks on non-military personnel. It's happened with every nasty habit put by the wayside, from slavery to democracy. They were status quo, then necessary, then abhorrent and terrible and wrong. It's part political evolution, part social evolution. - saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -55/+233Prepare your digg down button.
The fact that you people can look at these pictures and justify them with pseudo-factual rhetoric such as "many more would have died", "war is hell", and the like is just sickening. NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING justifies killing innocent civilians en masse and transforming a city into an atomic wasteland. - spidoman, on 10/12/2007, -33/+14Yup, war sucks. Yup violence has always been awful, yup it would be super if there wasn't war. But the instance one person decides to hurt someone else is the moment that weapons become necessary. If you're going to go into a fight you can't go into it thinking how it's so sad that you have to fight. You'll lose if you do that. Everyone knew that. Peace loving presidents and other leaders throughtout history have known that.
A world without war would be perfect. But enough with the impossible, peace, love, no weapons, ridiculous hippy train of thought. Face the real world. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -22/+54Bravo Saikhan!
You may get dugg down, but despite the fact that digg seems to have fewer people willing to acknowledge the truth of the matter and see it for what it is, just know that we are still out here and still pushing for peace every step of the way. - biggyfred, on 10/12/2007, -20/+50@nazuraki:
I don't get your point. You're somehow suggesting that what the Japanese felt or desired during the war should have been considered, based on your link. Some others have used cherry picked quotes that allude to the same thing, that the Japanese would have accepted a truce or treaty, even surrendered.
You clearly misunderstand how the world worked in 1944.
If you mean to surrender in the greatest and most horrific war in human history, you don't hang around hoping for terms. You beg for mercy. You plead for mercy. Your emperor gets on his ***** hands and knees and begs his enemy (which happened to be the American president for the most part) to spare him, not expecting it.
There's this racist undertone about this that bugs the ***** out of me. See, everyone seems to be generally ok with Dresden because in some way shape or form, the Germans had it coming for trying to exterminate a race of people, not to mention the laundry list of other heinous ***** they pulled. So where is that same reasoning with Japan? They massacred everyone they could get their hands on in Korea, China and virtually everywhere else they got a foothold. Is it because they're Asian, they don't count as much? I lived in Korea. Those people are *STILL* pissed about it.
So why aren't *you*? - jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -33/+33If you think Okinawa and Iwo Jima were a horror show (and it was) we could have expected that and more in any invasion of the home islands of Japan. They were stockpiling suicide weapons: manned rockets, manned torpedoes, fast boats loaded with TNT. It would have been a slaughter of unprecidented proportions.
I can honestly say that no one was proud of nuking Japan but the alternative would have been millions of deaths on both sides. - zachlutz, on 10/12/2007, -30/+21Hey, they started it.
- askldjd, on 10/12/2007, -26/+52I see that the posts that got dugg up are the ones that goes against the bombing.
My parents were born in China. And thanks to U.S., my parents are alive today.
If you ask a Chinese or Korean on how they felt about the bombing, I am sure that they will have a different opinion than an average American.
This is simply because majority of Americans are clueless on what Japan really did in WWII, like rape of Nan-king, Philippines, and Korea.
I am grateful that U.S has ended the war. And I am sure that majority of Chinese and Korean will agree.
It's not about revenge or anything like that. But I just don't have the sympathy. Sorry. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -17/+12If you have to choose between two or more evils, choosing the lesser is the only right course of action.
- BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+37@ jamessavik
Even if what you're saying is true, you're talking about people that were able to sacrifice their lives willingly - men putting their lives for their countries on both sides. Japanese Kamikaze and American Soldiers. Not civilians. There is a huge difference.
I'll say it again. Pearl Harbour was a military target. When you enlist you agree to put your life on the line in order to defend your contry. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets. They weren't even industrialized. They had nothing to do with war, other than the fact they belonged to the coutnry waging it. They were Japanese. They weren't American and that made them worthy of extermination?
People are individuals. Just cause they occupy a country doesn't mean they're automatically guilty and deserve to be pubished. It's like saying that every user on digg is equally responsible for all views presented here. Imagine for a moment that the Pirate Bay got sued, but instead of going after them, RIAA decided to sue all of digg's user base, just cause there was a hugely popular article here about the site that got numerous diggs.
Nothing justifies civilian deaths. Absolutely nothing. Argument such as "for greater good" or "lesser of 2 evils" shouldn't even apply. - borderinsanity, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9The tactical nukes were vengeance by the USA on Imperial Japan. Regrettably, vengeance is one of the more indiscriminate human emotions we express.
@macmcrae
Sometimes people don't have the means or methods to change the government; especially in the case of tyrannies. Absent outside intrusion or truly dedicated freedom fighters, the tyranny perpetuates itself. So people put up with tyrannical governments because they can mobilize an alternative.
@rontal
Well, yeah. It is justifiable. Regardless of other alternatives to defeating Imperial Japan, these nukes achieved the tactical end of making Japan think that the US was ready to destroy every city until Japan surrendered. No matter how abhorrent it seems in retrospect; it was a justifiable tactic at the time. - bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31"...if we didn't drop both of those about 5 times more people would have died..."
The head of my history department in high school claimed that Japan was already strategically defeated before the atomic bomb was dropped. The Soviet Union was already moving for a mainland invasion, the US had naval superiority and there were other advantages. The bomb didn't have clear strategic advantages in this case, though it would seem to send a political message to other nations like the Soviet Union. Dropping the bomb, from what I remember, was unnecessary and excessive.
I'd like to provide sources to back up my claims, but I'm writing on the fly. It does seem to me that Japan's military was ragged and diminished at this point and that the bomb was dropped merely to establish dominance. Surrender was approaching an inconsequential state. - nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -11/+33@biggyfred
You're attempting to insinuate that outrage is lacking over Dresden? Ever read 'Slaughterhouse-Five.'?
War serves no purpose but to affirm our stupidity, our inhumanity, our inevitable brevity as a species. There is never anything profound or righteous or romantic or sensible about it. Never.
I have relatives who died at Hiroshima. They were not at Bataan or Nanjing. They did not support Hirohito or Tojo. But they died with a hundred thousand others in that city, and with tens of millions of other innocent people in that war. It is impossible for me to think in terms of those imaginary boundaries we use to delineate casualties. It's not interesting. A dead body is a dead body - no more pitiable or empty than the next. Likewise, I refuse to distinguish my feelings for the people who murdered those human beings into vague, contrived categories conveniently grouped as either 'good' or 'bad.' It doesn't matter if they were 'good' or 'bad.' That's boring, relative and eventually our own invention. There's nothing compelling about any of it, and "there nothing intelligent to say about a massacre."
Read 'Slaughterhouse-Five' and watch 'Grave of the Fireflies.' - twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+12I'm sorry, I have to mark this inaccurate. None of these pictures are new or have they been kept from the public. These are all in many textbooks and historical documents. I saw the photos of the shadows, the watch, the mass graves, burn victims and some of piles of skulls with spines and pelvises still attached, when I was in jr. high (1970).
None of this was covered up or hidden, unless you are referring to Japan, where most of the truths behind WWII and the misfortune that befell the Japanese, has been covered up or outright lied about since the end of the war. If this is finally being shown to the Japanese, maybe soon they will learn the truth about why it happened and their roll in causing it. - origclubsoda, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Who doesnt want us to see? We've seen them! This is a retarded blog because no one is hiding how bad this was. This is the reason why we are trying to limit the proliferation of WMDs.
- daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -18/+17disgusting subhumans justifying murdering children right out of their school yard with falsified numbers of what "might" have happened and numbers that "might" have been higher.
- biggyfred, on 10/12/2007, -21/+14@nazuraki
"You're attempting to insinuate that outrage is lacking over Dresden? Ever read 'Slaughterhouse-Five.'?"
Um, no. I'm pointing out that the "outrage" over Dresden is wishy-washy. Certainly nothing near the visceral hatred still felt every single day in China and Korea. I've read Slaughterhouse-Five, thanks for asking.
"War serves no purpose but to affirm our stupidity, our inhumanity, our inevitable brevity as a species. There is never anything profound or righteous or romantic or sensible about it. Never."
Um, ok. I don't disagree, and don't really see how stating the obvious adds to this conversation.
"I have relatives who died at Hiroshima. They were not at Bataan or Nanjing. They did not support Hirohito or Tojo."
Oh. And? Would you have had American soldiers ask each individual (including the Japanese service members, since it's fairly clear a decent amount were pressed into service) whether or not they:
1. Were at Nanking?
2. Supported Hirohito?
Come to think of it, I don't remember hearing stories of the Japanese doing that either! What brutal dogs they must have been! In fact... wait... I'm realizing something here. Maybe total war is called total war because there are no boundaries... *gasp*! This fairy tale dream world where everything can be carved up and questioned as if life at that scale is somehow easy to discern 60 years later is ***** retarded. I'm pointing the finger straight at you.
"But they died with a hundred thousand others in that city, and with tens of millions of other innocent people in that war. It is impossible for me to think in terms of those imaginary boundaries we use to delineate casualties."
That's interesting. My Italian grandparents, who started WWII in Italy as Italian citizens (and poor ones at that) weren't in Italy when the Allies came through. They separately made their way to America using *ANY* means necessary. My grandfather joined the American Navy and fought in the Pacific. My grandmother came as a refugee. They met in California after the war. My grandfather, with enough prodding, will still go into half hour tirades on what a bunch of douchebags the fascists were.... and how the Japanese would fight to the last man every time.
"It's not interesting. A dead body is a dead body - no more pitiable or empty than the next. Likewise, I refuse to distinguish my feelings for the people who murdered those human beings into vague, contrived categories conveniently grouped as either 'good' or 'bad.' It doesn't matter if they were 'good' or 'bad.' That's boring, relative and eventually our own invention. There's nothing compelling about any of it, and "there nothing intelligent to say about a massacre."
I know you think that was deep, but you're ***** full of *****. Hold a weapon. Wear a K-Pot. Eat T-Rats. Stand guard at the most heavily militarized border on Earth. Then come talk to me, child.
"Read 'Slaughterhouse-Five' and watch 'Grave of the Fireflies.'"
Gimme a ***** break. - nsharp, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19@everyone who thought this was a good idea.
These were civilians. Just ordinary people going about their day to day life. - nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -15/+21@biggyfred
Ah, I see. You subscribe to that diseased sect of stupidity and moral retardation which condemns civilians for the acts of the government.
You're a waste of my time. - d3c0yn4m3l355, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7I wonder do US-people get different history books then the rest of the world? Last time I read my history books about it, though its 10+ years ago about this topic I remember that Russia was on the verge of striking back at Japan and Japan was already collapsed. So just waiting for a little moment would have been sufficient, though the US considered doing the same Russia did a few years ago in Bosnia. At the moment US expected to 'end' the war there Russia managed to push through to the main capital and there they gave up. I remember the up-roar that occurred because of that. Now this moment seems to me very similar as Japan back then, it's pretty sure the US didn't want to end the war because of its tactical advances, but because they didn't want to loose their win against Russia.
Nobody can justify the use of these bombs, they were used on civilians not because of its tactical effect, just to know what the effect was going to be. Just a pity-full boy flexing his muscles to show the rest of the world he can do. Strange thing that now a days everybody takes a piss on this poor boy. - sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4governments ultimately rule by the consent of the governed, be that tacit or otherwise. the japanese government would have had no power without the japanese people. you can't separate a nation's government and it's people. they exist in a symbiotic (or parasitic) relationship with each other.
- DrewClayton, on 10/12/2007, -18/+17"Hate to sound like a prick but if we didn't drop both of those about 5 times more people would have died in a mainland invasion (including civilians)"
uhm
not quite, brother. - cloudsoup, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5'"The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 250.000 people and became the most dreadful slaughter of civilians in modern history." and ".... 65% of the casualties nine years of age and younger"
And you people justify that?'
I'd question those figures for a start. What was the status of the Jews, Roma, homosexuals and communists killed in the Holocaust? Civilians, overwhelmingly and more than a quarter of a million so why do you say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most dreadful slaughter of civilians? Stop and think for just a moment and you'll see it's simply not true.
And anyway, I think you're trying to contrast the horror of war with peace but peace wasn't an option, unless you somehow think that Pearl Harbour, the Holocaust, or atrocities like the Nanking massacre, should have been met with inaction by the Allies.
So, dreadful calculation time. Did dropping the bombs prevent more casualties than otherwise? Historians are generally disdainful of counterfactuals and of course there's dispute about it amongst experts but you can't win your argument simply by quoting the figure of 250,000. Yes, war is horrible but we knew that, didn't we. - Tetranitrate, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9I would honestly rather die in a flash of light than watch my hometown get invaded and see everyone I know and love shot.
- CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@swiftekho
Not really, the surrender just wouldn't have been unconditional. Japan was already trying to end the war because they knew they had lost. - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18swiftekho and bomb apologists:
You're like the minority of dumb ***** in Japan during WWII who actually wanted to die for the Emperor. Japan was defeated. They had no airforce or navy to speak of. The US had fleets parked just off Honshu and was bombing Japan with no resistance. Japan's economy was wiped out. Japanese people were impoverished and many were starving. Rich megalomaniacs who decide to drop 2 nuclear bombs on dense populations of civilians under ANY circumstances, let alone these circumstances, are at best sick *****-ups of human beings, and you're at best a huge sucker for believing in them. - GliTCH82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17All of you are ***** bricks while you're looking at these pictures, just imagine that these were 13 kiloton bombs. Hydrogen bombs, which were developed after the war, have yields that are about 100 - 10,000 times as powerful as those. They were talking about people getting incinerated a half a mile from the blast, well with the h-bombs you're talking total incineration within a 30 mile radius.
Just a thought. What we're worried about now would make those attacks look extremely weak by comparison. Let's learn some lessons here. - rabidscorpio, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6I'd like to point out that one of the reasons world war 2 even began was because germany was left virtually untouched after world war 1 and didn't have to feel the repurcusions of having instigated that war. They didn't have massive swathes of countryside and villages reduced to pockmarks of mud and rubble. Leaving Japan in a similar state as germany after world war 1 would have created a similar breeding ground of pride, frustration and hate and I'm sure that Japan would have attempted to salvage some national pride later on at the expense of some other country (probablyl not the US though).
Regardless of whether or not Japan was "about" to surrender (and no one will ever know whether this was true or not), Japan needed to be utterly defeated. Like someone quoting Ender's game below, Japan needed to be defeated so completely that we never had to worry about fighting them again.
Personally, I think it's ridiculous for people to try and second guess why or how the decision was made. - numptydumpty, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27This was a letter written to The Observer newspaper by Terry Jones, of Monty Python fame. Seems relevant in relation to people in this article discussing whether it was 'necessary' to bomb them first to prevent more deaths...
Letter to the Observer: I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush
Sunday January 26, 2003
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street.
Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours.
They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.
Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!
And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is That Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it?
How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.
It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street. - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5half of JApan would be owned by Russia during the cold war if we hadn't had dropped those, and it would've dqarfed the D-day invasion of Europe. They estimated that if they were to invade that there will be a million casualties.. On the allies, and ten times more for the Japanese.
BTW I'm still against the use of nukes. The 20th century was truly the stupid ages in terms of us ***** aorund with new tech in order to systematicly kill people. - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ d3c0yn4m3l355
Japan has history books different form everyone else. AS they don't mention the atrocities they did during WW2.. During WW2 ALmost every country involved did some of the most ugliest *****. - Liam76, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Sorry, but I have seen all those photos before (or at least very similiar ones) and I have seen much more graphic photos.
- RobertPatrick, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@askldjd : What Japanese did at Nanjing is just a little fun compared to what the Chinese government did to the Chinese population few years later....
- h2gofast, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"I forgot to say that the photos are very graphic."
Almost as graphic as the Rape of Nanking. - sspiff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Other documents recently declassified: Operation Downfall The Invasion of Japan, November, 1945
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8141/downfall.html - PasteEater, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No, we didn't drop a nuke on Tokyo. But we Firebombed the ***** out of them, killing an estimated 100,000 people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II#Firebombing - Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Who is the "They" that didn't want us to see these pictures? I remember seeing these very same photos back in the early 70's. I had a friend who was involved in the original cataloging of these photographs for the Chicago Sun Times back in the 40's and he had not only the photographs but original 16mm film from the Manhattan Project up the Ground Zero footage. This was never hidden, at least not in the U.S. I'll Digg this, but the title is inaccurate.
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Man, people sure don't know much about history. It's sad that people think the only way to end the war was to drop atomic bombs on a couple cities. Like so many before me have said, the war was pretty much over. The US had fire-bombed EVERY industrial center in Japan which certainly caused far more civilian deaths than both bombs combines. Japan had almost NO capacity to continue fighting, which is why they were trying to surrender, but could not because of a coup attempt. They may have claimed they were preparing even civilians to fight (and may have been in some circumstances) but that doesn't mean they would have.
Americans know very little about WWII because they are taught very little in school and then go about their lives thinking that what they know about it is all there is to know. If Americans ACTUALLY knew about the war they wouldn't get all teary-eyed at the implications of patriotism every time they think about it. FDR pretty much FORCED Japan to attack us by imposing sanctions and cutting off the oil supplies from our allies. We were also fighting them in China with a volunteer force of American military personnel. And of course, we had always challenged their Imperial ambitions with our own growing empire of island chains and protectorates. And there's the all but unknown fact that FDR had prior knowledge of the attack against Pearl Harbor (even the History Channel recognizes this fact now). And since we were the victors, we were free to supress any notion of war crimes against the Japanese people (bombing a civilian population deliberately is a war crime, even a crime against humanity in some cases). But if I know anything about Americans, they will surely refute everything I've just said by making personal attacks and throwing the term "conspiracy theorist" around like its a four-letter-word. Then they will go back to their "life" and forget anything ever happened. - surfnfool, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8From 1937 to 1945, the Japanese BEHEADED more people with samurai swords than we killed with both atomic bombs
- mookiemookie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10Around 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the mainland invasion of Japan. The US Government didn't have to re-order any more until the year 2000.
I'm glad those American casualties were averted. Digg me down if you like. - biggyfred, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6@@nazuraki: "Ah, I see. You subscribe to that diseased sect of stupidity and moral retardation which condemns civilians for the acts of the government."
No, I don't. That's what you don't understand because you're too busy fighting a straw man to see what I'm saying. You're using hindsight, a completely detached view of history, and a moral righteousness that would make Solomon blush to point out that using the bomb was unnecessary and wrong.
Everything. In. WWII. Was. Unnecessary. And. Wrong.
The. Bomb. Was. Not. Special.
Does that make it easier to understand? - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Jesus ***** christ.
I just got my dead baby quotient for the morning. - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I don't fully understand the point of going over this stuff now. We know the destructive power of a nuclear warhead. We know the warheads we have now will make Nagasaki and Hiroshima look like a bug zapper.
Was the loss of civilian life tragic? Yes, it always is. People shouldn't have to die because their government is stubborn. However, how many lives have been saved over the last 62 years because the nuclear powers wanted to avoid such a massacre ever again? What would have happened if nukes had been dropped in Korea, Vietnam, or the USSR?
Keep in mind, the Japanese government at the time was not totally without blame. They brought the US into the war against the advise of some of their most brilliant military minds ( Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto among them ). The US had people of the opinion that Japan was on the verge of collapse, and there were those who thought contrary to that idea. Truman made a call, one I'm sure caused him sleepless nights for the rest of his life, based on the idea he was facing a very determined, resourceful, and zealous enemy. War has no easy choices. - akatsuki, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The estimates on casualties were widely overblown as Truman admitted and would have been around 45,000, not the millions that Truman told the American public. Truman also admitted that the Japanese would sue for peace without a nuclear weapon. The bombs were dropped to intimidate Russia, making Truman a butcher and a liar. Even Eisenhower admitted that there was no need to drop atomic bombs on Japan. Then again, it is not like Truman had a problem sending troops into Korea without a declaration of war either.
- returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I don't know about you, but I would have rather been gassed to death by Saddam than have an atom bomb dropped on me by the US.
- shadgenki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2These pictures make me cry. I'm sure that there's lots of photos like this from the occupation in Iraq, what with all the car bombings and all.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11People drastically misunderstand the policies and actions of the Japanese state and people during WWII.
the Japanese were engaged in systematic genocide, mass rape, and torture, and had a state policy of expecting civilians and soldiers alike to participate in these things and to fight and/or use suicide techniques to the very last person had been killed, to ensure they were not defeated.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from the worst events of World War 2, or even the worst events in that conflict - the Japanese themselves were minded to do much worse things than that, and did so.
To put that strange comment into perspective - in Nanking, estimates tend to vary between 200,000 and 400,000 civilians. If we took 300,000 as a conservative point in the middle (which is less than what the Chinese authorities estimate), that would mean more men, women and children than the entire yield of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined (including statistics for all radiation-related deaths to date) were killed by hand by Japanese forces.
Either way, even at the very least estimate (150,000), that is equivalent to twice the non-combatants, killed by hand, that a nuclear bomb going off in a densely populated Japanese city. Add to this that the number of rapes, done systematically and involving torture in front of family members, including babies, small children, the elderly and vulnerable adults such as those with disabilities as well as adult women, numbered (according to the IMTFE, the far eastern equivalent of the war crimes tribunals in Europe) between 20,000 and 80,000 human beings - pretty much all of whom will have also been killed. Japanese soldiers, if you hunt down their own accounts and those of the surviving people they took as prisoners, were ordered to enact brutal and lethally sadistic tortures on almost anyone they encountered where they had the power to do so, with various reasons and rationalizations - and Japanese people were led by their state to believe that these were what they could expect if captured by allied forces.
Not that it's worth counting up deaths and comparing them like an obscene game, but if you're horrified about the nukes, add all of this to the probability that with higher numbers and densities of Japanese people, the suicide culture and its enabling propaganda ever-present, the inevitability of motivating factors like collateral damage with conventional weapons, and a geographical landscape and set of national infrastructures (transportation, society, etc) where these people would be at a distinct advantage, one could expect a ground-based confrontation in Japan itself to involve more casualties than any previous land conflict involving the Japanese forces.
With the high density of civilian population, their placement in what would become combat zones, the powerful weaponry and relatively high civvie-count in the US forces there, and the suicide tactics Japanese people would be encouraged or forced to employ, it would have been reasonable to assume that civilian casualties would number very significantly higher than something like Nanking or the nuclear bombings. If you don't agree, fine, but from a military standpoint, it's entirely credible - more than that, really.
Had you been in charge at the time, you would have needed to stop the Japanese people fighting, and stop them planning to fight, instead of leaving these things in place because you had popped most of their ships.
If you had not bothered to do this, other people would have paid with your nuke-free conscience with their lives - quite possibly for decades to come.
The nukes were an unspeakable atrocity which everyone regrets. The land invasion would have been an unspeakable atrocity. To have allowed the Japanese to do as they wished in Asia and just walk away would have been an unspeakable atrocity.
Every path led to unspeakable atrocity, and the unspeakable atrocity they chose killed fewer people and ended the war sooner than the other two were likely to do.
If you disagree, fine, but you can't present it as a clear-cut case of gung-ho evilness as if there was a choice where nobody would get hurt. - galore, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"Hate to sound like a prick but if we didn't drop both of those about 5 times more people would have died in a mainland invasion (including civilians)"
Hey prick, then maybe a mainland invasion would have been a bad idea, too!
What about trying less deadly alternatives instead? Like blockades, strong defense, negotiations. But you probably think that this is for wussies and real men don't waver and throw the bomb. Doesn't matter how many people die (this just matters, if Saddam gasses the Kurds because _only_ he is evil - but I am sure there is an equivalent of swiftekho in Iraq who can rationalize that gassing just as "well"). - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@returnofmalv
You obviously have never seen the effects of chemical weapons. Nerve gas, blood agents, and blister agents (blister agents kill if inhaled) can be far worse methods of death. At least with a nuke you have a fair chance of dieing extremely quick, and probably painless due to the instant vaporization.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemical_weapon_agents - LJRod82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There's actually a really good book called "The Burning Mountain" by Alfred Coppel that explores the "what if" scenario for Hiroshima. It starts with the failure of the Trinity test in Los Alamos, NM. It's a pretty good fictitious account about how an invasion on Japan would've been. You can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Burning-Mountain-Alfred-Coppel/dp/0441089356/sr=8-1/qid=1170860840/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8433487-8605647?ie=UTF8&s=books
- thewaz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"It was their choice to bomb Pearl Harbor."
That's like saying its the choice of Americans to bomb Iraq, or of all Muslims to carry out 9/11
Wether the Nukes saved lives in the long run of not, the fact remains that america killed all those innocent civilians who wanted the war to end as badly as we did. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"I can honestly say that no one was proud of nuking Japan but the alternative would have been millions of deaths on both sides."
Well, at least in that speculative case, there would have been more soldiers involved than in the Hiroshima catastrophy.
Perhaps more deaths, but most certainly more noble deaths in a more noble action. - OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Great shots. Sad affair indeed nevertheless, all of this could have been avoided had Japan not awoken the Sleeping Lion.
- FishPoisonCon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Ever read 'Slaughterhouse-Five.'?"
um..that's fiction (yes, it does mention actual places and some actual events, but it was fiction)
btw... why can't we reply to individual comments... the thread is like 3 comments with a gazillion replies - doesn't make sense - skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@ BESTenemy
An assinine analogy at best. The whole reason the US announced the invasion of Iraq was because we (along with the UN) believed they were housing nukes in defiance of nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Unfortunately the US has yet to show credible evidence to justify the invasion. However, Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't carried out on any such pretense. - jambox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@skyshock21
If you believe that then you're a fool.
I mean BY NOW it should be obvious that the whole WMD thing was cooked up. Doesn't it ring any bells that Bush and Blair made all these claims, staked their reputations on them, used them to kill hundreds of thousands, even though they turned out to be untrue?
Doesn't that sound just a LITTLE bit fishy to you?
You massive, massive *****. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"You would end up with far fewer gung-ho retards ready to go off and commit atrocities in the name of nationalism."
I think that adequately describes the average feelings towards the US military here on Digg....thats pretty sad that you think that. - BGFeltenink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It may or may not have been needed to end the war, "fast." However, at least the Japanese had the decency to attack a military target. Ultimately I think both sides were more than just wrong, but inhuman. Ozzie said it best;
"Times seen untold aggression
And infliction of pain
If thats the only thing thats stopping war
Then thank God for the bomb"
No one was right in this conflict. Zealotry and bigotry seems to be all that guided the decisions of those in charge. As always, only those that had nothing to gain from the conflict paid the price with their lives. Truman and the Emperor both lived. There was once a day where leaders actually *lead* their forces into battle. - wakaseoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1To those who justify these horrors by the fact that there would have been more civilian victims with regular weapons: After "Little Boy" destroyed Hiroshima, it seemed clear to everyone that the US had a military supremacy thanks to a new kind of terrible power. Japan was clearly going to surrender. Can you explain why "Fat Boy" was detonated three days after on Nagasaki?
- BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ askldjd:
"I see that the posts that got dugg up are the ones that goes against the bombing.
My parents were born in China. And thanks to U.S., my parents are alive today.
If you ask a Chinese or Korean on how they felt about the bombing, I am sure that they will have a different opinion than an average American.
This is simply because majority of Americans are clueless on what Japan really did in WWII, like rape of Nan-king, Philippines, and Korea.
I am grateful that U.S has ended the war. And I am sure that majority of Chinese and Korean will agree.
It's not about revenge or anything like that. But I just don't have the sympathy. Sorry."
That is such *****. You should be sorry. Those children that got killed or mutilated by the two nuclear bombs had nothing to do with the Rape of Nan-King and other atrocities. If you can't feel sympathy for them, I feel sorry for you.
I was born in Ukraine. During WW2, the Nazies killed a quarter of Ukraine's population. Yes, every fourth man, woman and child. I've heard many first-hand horror stories from my grand parents and other WW2 survivors. Entire villages getting rounded up into a barn and burned alive, 13 year old girls gang-raped, hospital patients rounded up and shot in the head, etc. These stories certainly made me hate the Nazies. On the other hand, I still feel sympathy for all the innocent German civilians that got killed in Allied fire-bombings, massive Soviet artillery bombardments, as well as all the German women and girls that got raped by vengeful Soviet soldiers. A lot of these people, especially the children, had no responsibility for the madness of their leaders and did not deserve to be brutalized.
As far as the nukes being necessary to end the War... that is highly disputed. Just read some of the arguments in the posts above. - BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Can you explain why "Fat Boy" was detonated three days after on Nagasaki?"
Yes. They tested the effects of a uranium implosion type of a nuclear bomb on a large populated city, but then also needed to test the effects of a plutonium gun-type nuclear bomb. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"""at least the Japanese had the decency to attack a military target."""
You really need to understand the history before you start trying to weigh up the different high-magnitude conflicts of World War II, because once you've done some research on the actions involving Japan during that War, corroborated by both victims and perpetrators themselves, as well as their approach to treatment of civilians and captured soldiers, you'll probably discard the phrase "the Japanese had the decency to... " from sentences before typing them.
Contrary to the rosy picture painted by some people, every country involved did ugly things during WWII, and that includes Russia, France, Great Britain, the USA, Australia and so on. One thing to understand about what separates the Japanese from the pack is that there was simply no institutional effort in the direction of humanity. The position of the authorities on civilians and captured prisoners was that they were subhuman, and far from being worthy of any sort of humanitarian treatment according to government/international guidelines, various dictats from on high specified that they should be brutalized to death in the most painful, noisy and high-profile ways possible. The reasoning behind this seems quite varied - if you research some accounts from Japanese soldiers in WWII from easing the burden on the japanese purse and military infrastructure by deterring people from capture, to lowering the morale of the enemy.
As part of the official "tactics" of Japanese forces, you had things which seem to me absolutely senseless from a military standpoint - mass rapes which family members were forced to watch before being killed themselves, mass beheadings, soldiers being ordered to perform horrific sex attacks on babies, women and old people, people burning prisoners to death slowly with rice, implant and growth of bamboo plants from seed inside the wombs/abdomen of people of all ages so they would die an agonizing death over a period of six months or so, grown men being sodomized to death with snapped-off broom handles, etc. etc.
There were, in fact, acts of kindness on the part of Japanese soldiers on an individual basis, Japanese people are people. However, these were a departure from what they were supposed to do, and are said to have been exceptional.
Those folks who haven't done so, should read about it - and consider chatting with any war vets you know - they can tell you of their own experiences, which is just about the best way you can understand what the personal experience was. The Japanese forces of the time were not behaving in the nice amiable way we see the Japanese as behaving now - nobody was. - bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"one of the reasons world war 2 even began was because Germany was left virtually untouched after world war 1"
Actually, the reason Hitler got into power was because Europe refused to rebuild Germany after WWI. Germany struggled to rebuild and establish it's economy again amid contempt. The Germans, in their desperation, began to support a ruthless young politician (Hitler) whose opponents routinely ended up dead. He stirred up fervor in the working class and expanded his control. He offered a grand vision of Aryan pride while scapegoating "impure" ethnic groups as the source of economic failure. It was desperation and a social wasteland that created the conditions for a thriving Nazi party. - mrFREEZE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You guys don't understand... OF COURSE it was unnecessary to drop two a-bombs on Japan; The message was for the "other" superpower who we would surely face in a long, drawn-out proxy war after WWII was over.
"Not to mention we could have dropped Fat Guy on Tokyo, and Little Man on Kyoto."
You mean Fat Man and Little Boy? :) - BEEMERBMW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Quote - Best Enemy
Since we're discussing all the things that "might have happened", allow me to contribute.
Last time we had the nuclear weapons discssion, one of the people painted an alternative ficticious scenario where he took recent events into view. He got dugg down by the way.
He proposed the scenario where Iraq indeed had weapons of mass distruction, not chemical weapons but Nukes.
Just like the US was able to fight off the invasion of Japanese, Iraqis were able to defend themselves against the US intrusion and push coalition forces all the way back to the US border. They knew US wouldn't just give up and more people on both sides would continue fighting, so they dropped 2 nuclear bombs in 2 non-militarized cities, to put an end to war.
Would that be justifiable? Would you calmly accept the fact and nod at the loss of your own men for what's referred to as a "lesser of 2 evils"?
Once again, the original post was made awhile ago on digg. Got burried, but remained unanswered. I'm curious to what people actually have to say about it."
There's a little thing called a nuclear treaty, and unfortunately, anyone not in that treaty that possesses nuclear weapons, is violating international law.
- RandomHugs, on 10/12/2007, -10/+91"There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever."
Thomas A. Edison- Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+66Still waiting on that last bit.
- SEMW, on 10/12/2007, -4/+89The Edison quote reminded me of another:
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter to Harry S. Truman - DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4I do believe that Hobbes got it right several centuries ago - "the state of nature is the war of all against all." Granted, human beings are becoming less war-like as time progresses, but I dare say that a new war is brewing.
"It's not generally remembered in the United States that China was one of the few countries where students lit fireworks and celebrated through the night when the Sept. 11 attacks occurred. Many explanations were offered, but the most plausible is the deepening resentment this ancient but wounded nation bears toward the brash superpower of the United States."
-- http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/10/INGT5KU2FK1.DTL&hw=world+view+of+attacks+varied&sn=001&sc=1000 - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It's true. How many nuclear powers have been attacked by another country since they developed "the bomb?"
Look at India and Pakistan . . . bombs make buddies. - shortcircuit13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This weapon isn't nuclear.
It'll be biological.
For maximum efficacy, a fast-changing, slow-killing airborne virus.
(or, if you've read World War Z, then that virus) - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4One of the most powerful quotes about wars for me is:
"All wars are civil wars because all men are brothers."
* François Fenelon
- Nickatnite101, on 10/12/2007, -14/+79That was possibly the toughest decision anyone ever had to make.
- hyperstation, on 10/12/2007, -20/+33It's a sad that we live in a world where we can't avoid these man-made genocides.
- hyperstation, on 10/12/2007, -21/+7it's sad*
- mikesty, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18It definitely was. No doubt many involved in the Manhattan project were haunted for the rest of their lives.
- kymo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+42@hyperstation,
I think what is truly disappointing is that we can avoid these man-made genocides - we just choose not to. - kakwakas, on 10/12/2007, -33/+15I agree. To anyone who feels that it was a terribly evil thing to do; You have to realize that Japan was working on their own WMD's and would've done the same thing to the US if given the chance...
- IMustBeEmo, on 10/12/2007, -30/+5Someone explain to me how we can't avoid situations such as those?
Make love not war. It's simple really. - uberdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23-1 for using the acronym WMD
- balloot, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7@mikesty
I don't know why those who worked in the Manhattan project would be ashamed. They gave us the ability to end the war quickly and save hundreds of thousands of lives. - IMustBeEmo, on 10/12/2007, -24/+3Digging me down doesn't help anything. The question is still unanswered. By digging my above post down, you just prove what I'm trying to say. But go ahead, keep promoting ignorance.
- hyperstation, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5@ Emo
Because sometimes old white men in power can be irrational. - balloot, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5@hyperstation
Not rational? Dropping the bomb was easily the most rational choice. The bombs killed around 200,000 people. The other choice was to invade the Japanese mainland and fight battles which would have killed many times that number.
If anything the irrational view is the "How could you kill sweet innocent children?" view. In some way or another, massive amounts of people were going to lose their lives. We picked the way that minimized that number. End of story. - Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9uh, those who did work on the manhattan project were horrified at its power and use
- hyperstation, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7@balloot
I'm sorry, but a bomb killing civilians is just not rational. I understand the situation. I understand that japan attacked a military base of ours. I understand we then proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians. I understand your viewpoint, I just can't rationalize murder. - sheasie, on 10/12/2007, -19/+10*****. the japanese had already surrendered. the US just wanted to flex its muscle. everyone knows that.
- balloot, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31@hyperstation
It's good to see that you're concerned about civilians. Japan killed approximately TEN MILLION Chinese civilians over the course of the war. They were killing people in occupied countries at an alarming rate. They wiped out most of the Chinese city of Nanking, raping and killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process. By causing their unconditional surrender, we most likely saved hundreds of thousands of civilian Chinese and other Asian lives, in addition to the war casualties that were going to come from the mainland invasion. - night141, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17"*****. the japanese had already surrendered. the US just wanted to flex its muscle. everyone knows that."
Oh ok, so I guess the Japanese refusal of the Potsdam Declaration was their way of surrendering, right? - twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19By the way, the Japanese killed more people with Samaurai swords than were killed with bullets and bombs in the Pacific, during WWII. They were killing and eating Chinese civilians as well as Allied bomber pilots. The germ warfare "experiments" they carried out on Chinese civilians and Allied POWs were horrifying. Surgeries without anesthesia, just to see what would happen if you took out someone's organs while they were alive. Unleashing populations of bubonic plague infected fleas and rats on the Chinese, having it backfire and wipe out their own troops.
We tend to overlook that the Japanese were not just guilty of bombing one of our military bases. They attacked Pearl, the Philippines, Guam, Wake, and many other places brutally and without mercy for the defending forces or the civilian populations. The Japanese only had one word for those who were not Japanese and it roughly translates to "others" or "less than Japanese/human". The racism or genocide, as has been attributed to the Allies, is nothing compared to that which the Japanese believed and visited upon those they attacked.
There are many well intentioned people here armed with very little actual knowledge, making a great many ***** comments. My uncle was in the USN and was captured in 1941 on Corregidor. He spent the entire war being brutalized, tortured and used as slave labor building the airport and industrial docks/rail depots at Japanese prison camps 1 and 3 at Fukuoka, Japan. When he was returned to the American forces, he was 6'2" and weighed 96 lbs. I have grown up understanding why many things happened the way they did.
If you would like to know more, there are 2 books you should read:
"Flags of our Fathers" and "Flyboys". They are very fair and unbiased histories of events in the pacific. They take both sides' cultural background and political structures into account. Very enlightening. - rtini, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"That was possibly the toughest decision anyone ever had to make."
Yep... murder hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, or come up with a smart plan. Tough call. - michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Yeah, we get it. The Japanese army was brutal. They killed and tortured millions of chinese civilians.
They invaded islands all over the Pacific.
How does that justify the US burning women and children alive?
Are you saying we are no better? We should use our enemies tactics?
Why fight this enemy in the first place if we are so similar in how we treat civilians?
- justn519, on 10/12/2007, -83/+31Why don't you show some pictures of the Pearl Harbor Massacre????
Have you forgotten what the Japanese did to the U.S.??- hyperstation, on 10/12/2007, -25/+36Death is death. They are people too, believe it or not.
- Nickatnite101, on 10/12/2007, -41/+7that's part of the reason it happened. But i see what your saying, eye for an eye.
- hyperstation, on 10/12/2007, -21/+33will leave the whole world blind.
- Nickatnite101, on 10/12/2007, -36/+7Well if there blind they wont forget, and make the same horrible mistake again.
- brocklese, on 10/12/2007, -15/+12yes it is too bad that this had to happen but war is hell, and inevitable. Which truly is a horrific thing but it was after a really tough and tragic decision.
- SurrealDream, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44I doubt Kakkun had a Anti-American political agenda in posting these photos on Digg.
Nobody has forgotten Japan's attack Pearl Harbor either.
These are photos that should be shown to the world for purposes of education. We're not here to argue the causes and justifications of either America's or Japan's attacks. - cookiemonster01, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13It makes me sad to know tens of thousands of children and woman lives were ended in an instant.
- elsnow77, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16yeah, but it's okay for all the men that died. It's sad that anyone's life ended in an instant
- BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+40Pearl Harbour was a naval base. It was a military target. The Japanese attack wiped off much of US Navy. It was a loss of life of those men that were in the military - those that were willing to put the lives on the line for their country. When you get enlisted that's what you agree to. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian towns. They had nothing to do with the war. The attack was a deliberate statement. A demonstration of power through terror. Some call it terrorism. It's the kind of thing that happens when some people choose to fly commercial airliners into office buildings.
- ddcrandall, on 10/12/2007, -20/+5The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not terrorism. Terrorism is an act perpetrated by an individual, or a group, such as Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. What the United States perpetrated was a military attack. 9/11 was an act of terrorism, because it wasn't done by a government, but by a group of people. Terrorism is not defined by those that do it or the victims. It doesn't matter if it is against civilians or a military base. If it is a country or its military that does something, it is not terrorism.
- superbonbon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@cookiemonster. The fate of those who survived was much more tragic. I'd rather die in an instant than suffer a slow excruciating death from the aftermath of radiation and intense burns.
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Was is NOT inevitable.
Stop saying it.
Stop thinking it. - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@ddcrandall
Quoting your comment:
"9/11 was an act of terrorism, because it wasn't done by a government, but by a group of people. Terrorism is not defined by those that do it or the victims. "
Ahem... and what the hell are we doing in Afghanistan and in Iraq then, if what you're saying is true? Why did we declare pre-emptive wars then? Somehow we're exempt from some logic when giving terrorism a face and gluing it to a country. Osama isn't even a country's leader, for crying out loud. Not a president, not a pime minister, not even a Mayor. He's just a leader of a group of religious fanatics.
I'm getting a feeling that the reasoning is built upon the conclusion and the conclusion is: "US never makes mistakes. It always does the right thing. It's either us or them. We know better what's in everyone's best interest."
I'm human. I'm right alot less often than I think I am. I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. I am willing to admit it. And I'm having trouble believing that the country I live in never makes mistakes.
I have no problem admitting that dropping the bombs was in our best interest. What sickens me is when someone tries to protray it as "in everyone's best interest" model. We're so eager to represent countries that we can't even find on the map. We're speaking here on behalf of Japanese. How many of us are Japanese? How many of us are qualified to speak for the dead?
I'm not. But I'm willing to take responsibility for actions of my grandfathers. I believe we made a mistake and the best thing we can do at this point is to prevent mistakes like this from happening again.
If we can justify our actions, that means that nuclear attacks are justifiable, as long as the cause is firmly believed in by people that posess the nukes. Who's then to say that other countries aren't allowed to have nukes? Why are we criticizing North Korea and Iran then? It was fine when we did it.
They got crazy dictators and such. Sure. At least all that comes out of them is threats. We're the only ones actually doing the damage. We are the only country that ever used nukes like this. I'd say that makes our record worse than of any other country with a dictator.
I'd like to keep this discussion going. What are your thoughts? - jsmith5520, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1so because their Government attacked us that somehow makes it ok for us to senselessly kill all those people... you can justify all those deaths with pearl harbor... an act that they had nothing to do with... your an *****
- aviazn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@BESTenemy
I enjoyed your post, and I'll post my thoughts. I think a lot of this debate over whether or not Hiroshima/9/11/Iraq is terrorism or not has to do with different definitions of terrorism.
On the one hand, taking the word most literally, Hiroshima, 9/11, Iraq are all forms of terrorism, if you define terrorism as any act of violence committed against an enemy in order to provoke fear. If you define terrorism purely as a tactic, it's one that every army practices--indeed, one could argue it is the basic function of any military.
But today, and especially after 9/11, we often associate the word terrorism more closely with Islamic extremism. In this case, the word "terrorism" refers not to the tactic, but to the ideology it represents. In this sense, it's a poor choice of words to proclaim that we are fighting a war against "terrorism" when what we really mean is "Islamic extremism". Nonetheless, when we define "terrorism" in these terms, the difference between 9/11 and Hiroshima or Iraq becomes clear. The ultimate aim of the hijackers who carried out 9/11 was to eliminate those who did not adhere to their religion and to create an extremist Islamic state stretching across Eurasia to Indonesia. On the other hand, the ultimate aim of Hiroshima was to defeat an enemy, as quickly, surely, and as completely as possible.
Now, that's not exactly the most moral cause either, to be sure. However, unlike Al Qaeda (or even Japan, for the matter), America had no intention of colonialism or forcing oppressive, extremist religious views on Japan. America did install a constitution and left military bases there, but that's a far cry from the objectives of the 9/11 hijackers, or even the brutal imperialism of Japan itself. America did not seek to conquer the Japanese, to force cultural assimilation on them, or to take any of their land, except that on which to bury their dead. And in my opinion, that ultimately is the difference between Hiroshima and 9/11. - aviazn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@BESTenemy
Forgot to mention my thoughts on Iraq and Afghanistan in my earlier post. My feelings are that even though Iraq has gone disastrously wrong, again, the intentions differentiate them from acts of Islamic extremism. The ultimate intent in Iraq was disarmament, regime change, and liberation, with no intention of colonizing or culturally oppressing Iraq. In fact, the mess we got ourselves into was largely because of those intentions--we didn't want to be viewed as heavy-handed, so we sent a relatively small force hoping to secure a quick victory, not realizing that it would be far *too* small to maintain order in the aftermath of the initial combat operations. We wanted to turn a democratic Iraq over to Iraqis quickly, not anticipating the obstacles that the passions of centuries of sectarian strife would present to us, and America in particular not realizing the importance of holding together Saddam's existing army as a stabilizing force (we all know the rest of the coalition knew what a bad idea disbanding it was).
Ultimately, one must judge a nation on the outcome of its actions, not its intentions, and on that count, America has failed miserably over the past four years. However, on a *moral* level, I do not see Iraq and 9/11 as equivalent evils; it's the difference between manslaughter and homicide. - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1@ BESTenemy
ITs funny because most white americans aren't willing to take responsibility for the actions of those they descended from.. Like slvaery for example. It has screwed over an entire group of people, and then after slavery the way black americans were excluded from everything was sickening. Also at an alarming rate after WW2 many black soldiers couldn't qualify for the GI bill.. In the end black americans fought for us, and we don't care..
WHite Americans always always almost always never want to take that responsibility,but they want to benefit from the privaledges that resulted in the mis-treatment of many groups of people.
Anyway I'm done with my rant...
All things tie into other things. - rtini, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5In the Pearl Harbor invasion, 68 civilians were killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
In our atomic bomb attacks on Japan, 214,000 civilians were killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki - RobertPatrick, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Japanese certainly did something to China, Korea and other asian countries, but they did NOTHING to "the US" *****. 9/11 is something done to the US.
Learn some geography and history...
- D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28So were there pictures they wanted us to see?
- themarq, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24I have seen those stone steps at the museum in Hiroshima. Like nothing I had never seen before, or since.
- blankoboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yeah, you can see the shadow of a person that was sitting on those steps burned into the concrete. Walking through that museum will reduce anyone to tears or horrible depression for the remainder of the day.
- curseyouberkley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I saw most of these photos in my history class last year. So sad.
- shadowsurfr1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"Besides, in Hiroshima, all that was left of some humans, sitting on stone benches near the centre of explosion, was their outlines."
- Aaryn015, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Might "disturb public tranquility"????
At the end of WW2????
So nice of them to think of our Parents/Grandparents/Us.
It sure as hell wasn't too bloody relaxing in one or two places at the time- Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1The public tranquility of Japan, the country that was being occupied...
Christ. Failure in both reading comprehension and history. - Aaryn015, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Show me where it says "disturb public tranquility" of Japan.
And what the hell has Failure at history got to do with what I said.
Get back on your self-righteous, hipocrite bike, Dr Serious.
Christ, what a poof. - Pandimoniun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Rndm, did it occur to you that this person might be of Japanese heritage?
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1The public tranquility of Japan, the country that was being occupied...
- mikochu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/7114/258/1600/892042/foto1.jpg
^ This picture of the child was in my History book in high school. I remember staring at it while the teacher lectured about the war. There is so much emotion in the child's facial expression.- JC-Sharp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Very sad, she looks aged beyond her years
- gaoshan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Yes. I reminds me of similar photos taken of Chinese children after attack by the Japanese.
- insulto, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7gaoshan, when you put it like that one gets the impression that you think it is ok to bomb japanese children because of what was done in China. That is truly a sickening thought so you had better rephrase that.
- MrArochet, on 10/12/2007, -31/+11That was a time of war.
They bombed us,
We bombed them with more force to tell them "don't mess with us."
Casualties are expected in war.
Don't expect me to feel depressed for the Japanese or angry at the United States for fighting back.- pfeester, on 10/12/2007, -15/+11I don't remember hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of American civilians being killed in WW2...do you? What bombings are you referring to that compare?
- kcap122, on 10/12/2007, -18/+23they bombed our soldiers, people who exclusively pledged their lives to the defense of their country. They accepted death as a natural course of the career that they chose.
We bombed their people, who made no such pledge, and the majority of which were under 9 yrs old (read article). Military casualties != civilian casualties. I'd call killing a civilian murder. - LaueOfficer, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5Actually, that's not at ALL what happened MrArochet.... But thanks for playing!
Please tune in next time for a new episode of "Retard Spam" where we listen to fan boys go at it! - Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17It's a heartless sonofabitch that doesn't feel a twinge of remorse for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
- LaueOfficer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8@ Kcap122
I know there is no way for an action like this to be "proven" to be the right choice, and that no matter what your reason, the killing of innocents is wrong.
But sometimes you have to play the "lesser of two evils" gambit, and in this case, pretty much all research points to an invasion (the other option) as the worse of the two choices, believing that it would have resulted in MANY more deaths including a high percentage of those being civilians. - night141, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13kcap122, Ameriva gave them more than plenty of chances to surrender before they resorted to something that drastic. However, the Japanese refused ANY negotiation offers, even as the fight was being directed back to their mainland and they faced the threat of invasion. They even went so far as to start arming the civilian populace. America had a choice, invade the mainland, with thousands and even possibly millions of soldiers on both sides as well as civilians firing at each other, with enormous amounts of casualties, or bomb them.
Neither choice was going to be 'pretty' or 'acceptable' to all you armchair quarterbacks, but when a country is backed into a corner and will not surrender, you really have no other choice than to resort to something that drastic. If you want to blame anybody, blame the Japanese government for allowing that to happen to their civilians. - JC-Sharp, on 10/12/2007, -13/+14for night141
sorry but you are wrong.. Two American Presidents and other officials seem to have claimed exactly opposite of what you claim. Negotiations were possible, America just never undertook them.
*quotes taken from the comments section, double checked validity online*
"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."
- President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945
"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
- Stewart L. Udall
US Congressman and
Author of "Myths of August"
"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."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study
"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman
"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower - night141, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4JC...I can cherry-pick quotes all day if I wanted to, and spin them in a way that is supportive of my argument, but 1) you cite no sources and 2) don't give anything to back up your claims.
"Negotiations were possible, America just never undertook them."
That's a negative ghostrider, America gave Japan plenty of chances to accept negotiations.
Do I need to remind you of the Potsdam Declaration? America clearly outlined the terms for Japanese surrender in that Declaration and gave it to the Japanese well in advance. Hell, America even dropped leaflets in all the major cities warning the populace of what could happen if they allowed their government to continue in this war.
..Potsdam was rejected the next day. America even allowed them over a month to re-accept the terms. Hirohito did not budge.
Also, I dont know if you know much about Japanese culture, but for the short-and-sweer version: surrender is looked upon as a grave dishonor upon your family, ancestors, and heritage. You surrender, especially as emperor, and history will forever look to you as a failure in leading the country.
And a side note: I am not defending the bombings in any way, but it boils my blood when people try to put all the blame on America for this. It is very horrible, yes, but hindsight is always 20/20. - twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Everyone here is proclaiming moral outrage about these two pathetic bombs.
*****! More people died when we firebombed Tokyo with an early form of Naplam that died in BOTH atomic bombs.
Hiroshima was chosen because it was a military complex. There were the schools where the military training took place, the Japanese army had a training facility there, the Navy had ships there. The fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor left from there. The airmen were trained there. Nagasaki had a huge industrial complex there. This is what was attacked as much if not more than the civilian population. They were not going to surrender. Hirohito was a God, he was infallible, the military, who actually was running everything, were not going to surrender, admitting defeat was not an option for them. They, by all reports had ordered training for every able bodied person to fight with spears and sticks, to the death. They would have rather had their entire population dead than surrender. No army had set foot on Japanese soil in 5000 years. It was unthinkable to them.
We did them a favor, yes, but we did ourselves a favor. We were tired, we were running out of money and people wanted it over. They didn't want to keep sending kids overseas into a meat-grinder for another 3 years. it had been going on for us for 4 years, and for everyone else since 1937. It was time to end it.
Oh, and the Japanese did not want to face the Russians. After what they did to the Russians in 1904, they weren't about to face the Americans AND the Russians. They would've killed themselves.
- pfeester, on 10/12/2007, -15/+11I don't remember hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of American civilians being killed in WW2...do you? What bombings are you referring to that compare?
- punk90, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31Its amazing how just splitting an atom can cause so much destruction.
- Brandondork, on 10/12/2007, -30/+1haha i don't get it
- Margh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10If you think splitting them is impressive you'd be amazed by what fusing them together can do.
- ShBm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9What's really frightening is that this could happen today. I can't imagine if something like that happened in America. I'm not trying to take away from how terrible what happened then was, but it's scary to think what could happen now and in the future.
- richpav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Had the first nuclear bombs not been dropped on Japan, I wonder where they would have been dropped by now, and how history would have been changed.
- themicah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Stalin bombs obscure Texas town. Bush family and 647 head of cattle wiped out. In Soviet America, Russian learns you. Free health care, good beer and really long lines for bad clothes. It's all good.
- dioxide, on 10/12/2007, -28/+9Except for the outlines on walls, and the overall extent, this isn't much different than conventional warfare. TNT and napalm kill just as dead as anything else. Is this just just another anti american post or what?
- kuribo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24It's amazing to me that someone can look at victims of major bombings, unbelievable levels of radiation, civilians and children suffering from unimaginable pain, and piles of bones and corpses, and immediately mock the source's political motives.
(Not in any way to belittle the Americans and people from other countries who suffered and died.) - Remmy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19It's not an anti-American post. It's showing the effects of war. What happens to the innocent as a result of conflict. It's not about America. It's not about Japan. It's about the unjustified deaths of the innocent as a result of said conflict. If you look at this as anti-American propaganda, your blind to the humanity of the situation.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There was more death and destruction from the firebombings of Tokyo than both of these. LeMay was unimpressed with the damage from the A Bombs. He thought conventional bombing was far more effective and less costly. He wanted to continue and increase carpet bombing in japan with conventional bombs. This would've been far more costly to the Japanese population.
- themicah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@Remmy - Is humanity what gives us cheesburgers and Ford trucks and cheetos? Cuz if it is, color me concerned...
/absolute disgust at the slobfest comments on this thread...
- kuribo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24It's amazing to me that someone can look at victims of major bombings, unbelievable levels of radiation, civilians and children suffering from unimaginable pain, and piles of bones and corpses, and immediately mock the source's political motives.
- ironpirate, on 10/12/2007, -22/+9What about the pictures of the Americans that DIED in WW2. What about all the americans that were killed in the Pacific. The Japanese deserved worse than an atomic bomb. Dropping that bomb saved even more lives than it destroyed. We would have tried to take the mainland of Japan and that would have been even more horrific and more civilian deaths. And now look Japan is one of the most advanced and powerful nations on earth again.
- pfeester, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5Can you please post links to the American civilians that were killed by the Japanese? I'd like to see those.
- schuder, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Try the Phillipines, we had many a civilian on those islands, missionaries included that were brutally murdered. Stop defending a ruthless fascist regime. For all the people who compare Bush to Hitler, he pales in comparison to the Japanese during and prior to World War II. Yes it's tragic civilian lives were lost, but MANY more lives were saved. For a good read on soldiers views of the potential Japan invasion check out "The Deadly Brotherhood".
- balloot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Let us not forget what didn't happen. We didn't have to attack the Japanese mainland in order to force surrender. By most accounts the battles that didn't have to be fought saved upwards of 1,000,000 lives.
- Rikkochet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@ironpirate:
Why does your simple little mind have to turn this into an "us vs them" argument?
Some people decided to drop a multi kiloton nuclear device on a whole LOT of other people.
I don't give a ***** where in the world your PC is or what your passport says (the thing you need to get if you ever want to leave your country), you can't justify that. - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2pfeester
Go here
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=11 - gaoshan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ pfeester ->
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&safe=off&q=rape+of+nanjing&btnG=Search
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&safe=off&q=nanjing+massacre&btnG=Search
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&safe=off&q=bataan+death+march&btnG=Search
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bataan/peopleevents/e_atrocities.html
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&safe=off&q=unit+731&btnG=Search
etc., etc., etc., etc, ad nauseum - Margh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ever wonder why they're so advanced?
Might have something to do with their military taking up less than 1% of their GDP thanks to prohibitions in their constitution to wage war. The USA on the other hand has about 4% and makes a LOT more than Japan. - fasda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Margh
Its that or it is that they have a culture that actually encourages young people into the fields of engineering math and science instead of one that tells people that those who like engineering math and science are losers.
- capajc,
