NationStates Jolt Archive

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an Act of Terrorism. The Japanese Emperor was ready to surrender, for he and his military already knew that they were beat (which is why they started the Kamikazees). Before we sropped the bombs that murdered 300,000 Japanese citizens, Emperor Hito was willing to surrender, but he just didn't want an unconditional one, which is what the bombings and murders pushed him to consider.

Also take in account that the Soviets were moving through Korea at this time. By having Japan unconditionally surrender to us as quickly as possible America was able to claim South Korea and avoid another split up of power like what happened in Germany.

Ironically, I just finished writing a term paper about how the Atomic bomb affected the baby-boomer backlash against the american government in the 1960s. Where was this topic 6 hours ago before I started the paper? :)

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an Act of Terrorism. The Japanese Emperor was ready to surrender, for he and his military already knew that they were beat (which is why they started the Kamikazees). Before we sropped the bombs that murdered 300,000 Japanese citizens, Emperor Hito was willing to surrender, but he just didn't want an unconditional one, which is what the bombings and murders pushed him to consider.

Also take in account that the Soviets were moving through Korea at this time. By having Japan unconditionally surrender to us as quickly as possible America was able to claim South Korea and avoid another split up of power like what happened in Germany.

Can't have terrorism is a state of formal declared war.

The emperor may have been read but the military was not.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an Act of Terrorism. The Japanese Emperor was ready to surrender, for he and his military already knew that they were beat (which is why they started the Kamikazees). Before we sropped the bombs that murdered 300,000 Japanese citizens, Emperor Hito was willing to surrender, but he just didn't want an unconditional one, which is what the bombings and murders pushed him to consider.

Also take in account that the Soviets were moving through Korea at this time. By having Japan unconditionally surrender to us as quickly as possible America was able to claim South Korea and avoid another split up of power like what happened in Germany.
I have heard first hand from Japanese men who were growing up durning WWII that everyone including women and children were being trained to fight a guerilla war against the Americans if we invaded. In that case, the bombing was justified. Fewer people died in the bombing than if we had to fight every Japanese citizen.

I think it is a justified act of terrorism. (yes, terrorism isn't automatically entirely evil. Satan is. Outside of Satan, nothing is 100% evil(and I don't believe in Satan anyway :p)).

I have heard first hand from Japanese men who were growing up durning WWII that everyone including women and children were being trained to fight a guerilla war against the Americans if we invaded. In that case, the bombing was justified. Fewer people died in the bombing than if we had to fight every Japanese citizen.

Or Japan could have surrendered (not unconditionally ofcourse) like Emperor Hito wanted to. This would have saved 300,000 innocent lives.

And yes, it was terrorism because the bombings scared the Japanese people into doing Americas will.

Can't have terrorism is a state of formal declared war.

The emperor may have been read but the military was not.

Not quite. The Imperial war council was split 3 to 3 on that one. That's why attempts were made by the Japanese to secretly negotiate with a conditional peace through Russian channels. At this point, the Soviet/Allied split wasn't as bad as it was eventually going to get

Brings us back to, what is the definition of terrorism? And just what is "justified" in wartime?

Just what is the moral difference between Sherman's march on Atlanta, the nuking of two Japanese cities, and the 9/11 attacks?

Just what is the moral difference between Sherman's march on Atlanta, the nuking of two Japanese cities, and the 9/11 attacks?

No difference, they are all acts of terrorism.

Just what is the moral difference between Sherman's march on Atlanta, the nuking of two Japanese cities, and the 9/11 attacks?

difference between what Sherman did and what Truman did? Nothing. They were trying to end the war through fear of their military. Truman's worked and Sherman only pissed off Confederates even more.

The 9/11 attacks are nothing like what Sherman and Truman did. America was not at war with these terrorists even though we should have been. It's a shame it takes big hits like that to "wake the sleeping dragon" to paraphrase Japanese Admiral Yamoto. It was Yamoto who said that right? I know it was some Japanese military general/admiral.

Or Japan could have surrendered (not unconditionally ofcourse) like Emperor Hito wanted to. This would have saved 300,000 innocent lives.

And yes, it was terrorism because the bombings scared the Japanese people into doing Americas will.
No, they didn't scare the Japanese people into doing our will. It said that we had them beat already and we weren't going to continue pussyfooting around with them because there were more important things to be done.

The Japanese Emperor was ready to surrender, for he and his military already knew that they were beat (which is why they started the Kamikazees).
The Japanese who knew anything about America knew they were beat before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Tora! Tora! Tora! is a really good movie on that, and it's pretty damn factual. And it's "kamikaze", correctly pronounced "kam-ee-kaz-eh". It is derived from kami, god or divine, and kaze, wind.

Before we sropped the bombs that murdered 300,000 Japanese citizens, Emperor Hito was willing to surrender, but he just didn't want an unconditional one, which is what the bombings and murders pushed him to consider.
Yes, America was a little stubborn about that. MacArthur didn't help with his forcing Hirohito to admit that the Japanese Tennō was not actually descended form the Sun Goddess Amaterasu.

And yes, I do believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism. I think that with the knowledge we had of their effects, they might have even been justified. The big problem is that infants born in those cities, even today, have abberations such as tumors even today. Hiroshima by John Hersey is a really good book on what happened before, during, and right after the bombing of Hiroshima.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an Act of Terrorism. The Japanese Emperor was ready to surrender, for he and his military already knew that they were beat (which is why they started the Kamikazees). Before we sropped the bombs that murdered 300,000 Japanese citizens, Emperor Hito was willing to surrender, but he just didn't want an unconditional one, which is what the bombings and murders pushed him to consider.

Also take in account that the Soviets were moving through Korea at this time. By having Japan unconditionally surrender to us as quickly as possible America was able to claim South Korea and avoid another split up of power like what happened in Germany.
It's important to remember that Hirohito wasn't in a position of real power. Of course he could sway his people with statements, but in reality the warlords were in charge. Hirohito was little more than a figurehead, while real power was in the hands of Tojo and his cronies.

If Hirohito had called for an unconditional surrender before the bombs were dropped, Tojo would have shut him up. And, in fact, after the bombs were dropped the coup attempt nearly did so.

As such, making an invasion all the more difficult.

No, they didn't scare the Japanese people into doing our will. It said that we had them beat already and we weren't going to continue pussyfooting around with them because there were more important things to be done.
No, the Japanese were not beaten yet. They had lost, but it would have taken an appaling number of casualties on both sides before the Japanese surrendered. Though they were starting to get scared as sh*t because the Russians were starting to come from the west, and might've gotten to the main island. That was another factor in their surrender. But the Japanese would not have surrendered easily, it was, and kind of still is, too rooted in their culture to never surrender for them to do so without near total destruction.

Hirohito was little more than a figurehead, while real power was in the hands of Tojo and his cronies.
Yes, it is a common misconception that the Japanese emperor, or tennō has any real power at all. Occasionally throughout Japanese history, the emperor has grasped some significant power, but the true power comes from the warlords.

Yes, it is a common misconception that the Japanese emperor, or tennō has any real power at all. Occasionally throughout Japanese history, the emperor has grasped some significant power, but the true power comes from the warlords.
Much true, I believe I read that Tojo felt he was a new Shogun or something, correct?

Actually...you might as well be saying that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was a act of terrorism. We were not in WW2, We wern't going to enter anytime soon, but they attacked us, sealing there Atomic fate.

Now it has been said by Truman and Einstein and Roosevelt that it was THEE ( yes two e's ) hardest decision to produce the atomic bombs and use them. Though Truman was the one who used them. Its not like he woke up one morning and called up Einstein and was like " DUDE!! I GOT THE MOST PWNZER IDEA EVAR!!!! LETZ GO NOOK JAPANZ!!!! THERE ANIME SUX " Though it wouldn't be like that ( No I like Japense Anime, just being a smart ass ) , but it would be close lol.

Really, the atomic bombings were an act of Desperation, and what is better:

A) Atomic Bomb Japan TWICE and only kill under 1,500,000 People.
B) Lose MILLIONS of soldiers, not only American but Japanese too, in a needless war.

You can't really blame any leaders at that time to use a weapon of that much destruction, WMD, because the war sempt like it would never ever end.

And no, Japan would never have gaven up. There style of Government back then WAS to sacrifice as many lives as they could JUST to kill Americans and other enemys of the Axis. Would a Emperor sending troops to kamikaze Americans and Brits want to give up a war?

Now the Emperor never gave up, his Militant advisors ' persuaded ', cough Forced.

And also, it is NOT a Terrorist attack if the two countries are at war, it is a attack, a bombing, a offensive. Yet I guess in some eyes, it is a Terrorist attack. But I don't see any Threads up bitching about whether Pear Harbor was a Terrorist attack or not....this seems like another ' Make American Government look bad/contradicting ' thread.

And truely, do you really think Truman had pleasant dreams for the rest of his life having to drop the two Atomic bombs on Japan? Tell me, yes or no.

Much true, I believe I read that Tojo felt he was a new Shogun or something, correct?
In essence yes, I'm unsure if he held the title, however.

Completely. Formal definitions aside, the bombs were dropped to instill terror in the Japanese, to make them not want to fight any longer.

terrorism, n: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Do the nuclear strikes against Japan during World War Two fit this definition completely? If not, then they aren't terrorism.

source: www.dictionary.com

The difference between The March to the Sea and The A-Bomb vs 9-11?

Strategic value.

Sherman blew through the South, decimating their food production, cutting their supply lines, crushing several large cities (industry and finance centers), and crippling their war effort all from behind them.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important industrial centers for the Japanese war machine. If the Japanese hadn't surrendered and an invasion was neccassery, at least they wouldn't be able to produce enough hardware.

If it was meant to merely scare the Japanese, Kyoto and Tokyo would have been bombed. Truman speciffically ruled those two cities out.

The only reason to hit the WTC was to scare civilians.

The difference between The March to the Sea and The A-Bomb vs 9-11?

Strategic value.

Sherman blew through the South, decimating their food production, cutting their supply lines, crushing several large cities (industry and finance centers), and crippling their war effort all from behind them.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important industrial centers for the Japanese war machine. If the Japanese hadn't surrendered and an invasion was neccassery, at least they wouldn't be able to produce enough hardware.

If it was meant to merely scare the Japanese, Kyoto and Tokyo would have been bombed. Truman speciffically ruled those two cities out.

The only reason to hit the WTC was to scare civilians.
In all honesty, how much of Tokyo and Kyoto was still standing after the firebombing? Would they have even been worth nuking?

Actually...you might as well be saying that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was a act of terrorism. We were not in WW2, We wern't going to enter anytime soon, but they attacked us, sealing there Atomic fate.
In case you weren't aware, the atomic bomb hadn't been functional before Pearl Harbor. Something as powerful as a fission bomb was really outside of anyones' understanding. And the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a military strike, aimed at destroying as many aircraft carriers as possible. It scared the sh*t out of them when they couldn't find any (they turned out to pretty much all be in the Atlantic...which sucked badly for the Japanese). In fact, there would have been more damage to Pearl Harbor, had they not saved some planes with fuel for potential defence if they were attacked ont heir way back to Japan by an aircraft carrier that was supposedly in the area. Japan knew it couldn't survive a long war with America, though they were prepared to, and they just wanted to eliminate the American navy so that they could get oil from the islands in Indo-China. America had set up a trade embargo against Japan, and the Japanese were sure that the U.S. would declare war against them if they did invade.

Now it has been said by Truman and Einstein and Roosevelt that it was THEE ( yes two e's ) hardest decision to produce the atomic bombs and use them.
Einstein didn't want to use them. He was horrified that his research was being used in such a destructive way.

Though Truman was the one who used them. Its not like he woke up one morning and called up Einstein and was like " DUDE!! I GOT THE MOST PWNZER IDEA EVAR!!!! LETZ GO NOOK JAPANZ!!!! THERE ANIME SUX " Though it wouldn't be like that ( No I like Japense Anime, just being a smart ass ) , but it would be close lol.
Ok, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here. Do you remember The Manhattan Project?

And no, Japan would never have gaven up. There style of Government back then WAS to sacrifice as many lives as they could JUST to kill Americans and other enemys of the Axis. Would a Emperor sending troops to kamikaze Americans and Brits want to give up a war?

Now the Emperor never gave up, his Militant advisors ' persuaded ', cough Forced.
What? Hirohito didn't send troops. And he was the one to surrender. The Japanese would never have surrendered if the emperor had not commanded it. Though I'm sure he had a little nudging, but his decision was pretty unpopular with his military advisors. They were prepared to fight down to the last man.

And also, it is NOT a Terrorist attack if the two countries are at war, it is a attack, a bombing, a offensive. Yet I guess in some eyes, it is a Terrorist attack. But I don't see any Threads up bitching about whether Pear Harbor was a Terrorist attack or not....this seems like another ' Make American Government look bad/contradicting ' thread.
Terrorist attacks, by definition, must be attacks on the psyche. Pearl Habor had only the effect of rousing Americans to war. Which most Japanese had no idea that they would do. They thought that all Americans were lazy hedonists who wouldn't want a war. Some who had been to the U.S. knew better, but that was the general mindset. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on the other hand had huge psychological effects. They really only killed civilians, and didn't destroy that much that the military needed. It really was something that just terrified cowed the Japanese.

And truely, do you really think Truman had pleasant dreams for the rest of his life having to drop the two Atomic bombs on Japan? Tell me, yes or no.
Why would he? Do you think he sadisticly enjoyed making that decision? No-one is accusing Truman of that.

The atomic bombs were meant to force Japan into an unconditional surrender. They had already suggested a surrender on the condition that America did not occupy the country but Trueman did not accept this. To get the Bombs from Pearl Harbour to Okinawa cost 110 000 us soldiers. For the American army to invade tokyo and take over the country by force without using the bombs would have cost them around 250,000 more soldiers. Bearing in mind that this was 1945, the Americans had started developing the bomb in 1940, as did the soviets. Also bear in mind that the Soviet Union Army was set to join the war against Japan, on America's side on 8th August 1945, as part of their side in the Yalta agreement. Trueman did not want the Soviets to occupy japan and turn it into a communist satelite state as they'd done with poland, ukraine, several other eastern european countries.

So he decided to 'kill two birds with one stone' if you'll pardon the expression. He dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima on 6th August 1945. The second bomb was intended for Tokyo but only made it as far as Nagasaki before Japanese fighter pilots forced the American Airforce to release it early. Trueman demonstrated to Russia and the world that America was a power to be reckoned with (Stalin already knew that America had the bomb through russian spies on the project) He also forced japan into an unconditional surrender. The cold war was kicked off, despite Trueman offering to share the secrets of the A bomb with Stalin.

So terrorism? probably not, as has been said Japan did choose to attack america, and the surrender they offered carried conditions the country they'd attacked were not willing to accept. An attrocity that killed 250,000 innocent civilians and forced hundreds more to live a miserable existence for some time afterwards? probably. A tactical blunder that caused one of the worlds most potentially lethal arms races. definitely.

Ok I added CREATE and USE, CREATE for Einstein. Direct Quote frome Einstein:

( Ok Can't find it but it says this )

If I would have known the destructive force of the Atomic Bomb, I would have chosen to be a Watch Maker. ( I know it isn't exactly that, but what I remember )

Anyways I never really came here to argue, ( Stress levels to high ), and I know that I can't get my view on things out in the right way. It is a Verbal and Typing problem I have. I think to fast that shit mixes together, so may this be a fair plee not to bash me on how much sence I lack.

I never said Hirifuckingweeeweee sent troops. America was verry close to Japan, and if the war dragged on..They would have to put there troops in Japan and the War would have dragged on there, CAUSING MORE DEATHS AND CIVILIAN DEATHS ANYWAYS.

I can't recall the Manhattan Project, but it does Remind me of the Germans building, attempting to that is, a Stealth Bomber to nuclear bomb ( Well Atomic bomb back then ) New York.

I did say " His Military Advisors forced him or vise versa " not like I study about Japan in WWII every fucking day to know this. And I was saying, I seriously doubt a nation sending every able body to Kamikaze on Americans was going to give up.

----


Ok before I do argue and seem dumb cuz I am not going to respond much anyways.

My opinion: It wasn't a Terrorist Attack. We even gave Japan a Warning saying " Surrender Now, or we will make you with extreme levels of force. "

What did you want us to say? " We are going to Atomic Bomb you, set up all your Airplanes and Flak Cannons, and prepare to shoot us down. "

We gave fair warning, we waited. THEY SAID THEY WERN'T GOING TO GIVE UP.

And so we nuked them. Waited to see what the Emperor would do. HE WANTED TO KEEP THE FIGHT. Then we HAD to nuke again. ( Sorry when I say nuke, I mean A-Bomb ). And finally his shit for brains that knew one thing, INSANITY, realized he was going to have to give up or America would keep doing this to his people.

Anyways, prolly didn't make sence but for the love of god:

My Opinion is " Was not a Terrorist Attack ".

Now unless you can post a Site that has nothing to do with another Country making it, and has heavy evidence this Emperor was going to give up and we knew it, post it. Post it all. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to avoid further loss of life and to quickly end the war with Japan. Japan's unconditional surrender was also a very important part of the peace process.

Reasons


Roosevelt and Churchill made a promise when America entered the war that the fighting would not stop until the Axis powers surrendered unconditionaly.

After VE day millions across the country believed the fighting would be over. After four years of war and houndreds of thousands of casualties the American people would be appaled at the loss of about a million GIs in an invasion of Japan.

The Soviet Union had honored its promise with the US to help defeat Japan. After the USSR began claiming Eastern Europe as part of its new territory American leaders weren't ready to see the same happen to South East Asia. The war needed to be ended quickly before the Soviets could do the same they had in Europe.

In order for the peace process to begin, the heads of the Japanese regime had to be brought down. If the leaders were not gotten rid of the US would have to worry about an Imperial resurgence.

After the Nazi regime was brought down in Europe millions rejoiced to see it's leaders tried and wanted to see the same in Japan. Remember millions of Chinese, Koreans, and other South East Asians had died and spent years trying to defeat the Japanese. If the Japanese Imperial regime was allowed to continue they would feel betrayed by the Americans.

Anyways the reason why I came off badly in this was I didn't bother to read some posts.

I don't like Truman much anyways, and I have never seen any proof of Japan's Emperor in WWII saying he was going to Surrender. I don't see any proof as to why this should be Classified as a Terrorist attack.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to avoid further loss of life and to quickly end the war with Japan. Japan's unconditional surrender was also a very important part of the peace process.

Reasons


Roosevelt and Churchill made a promise when America entered the war that the fighting would not stop until the Axis powers surrendered unconditionaly.

After VE day millions across the country believed the fighting would be over. After four years of war and houndreds of thousands of casualties the American people would be appaled at the loss of about a million GIs in an invasion of Japan.

The Soviet Union had honored its promise with the US to help defeat Japan. After the USSR began claiming Eastern Europe as part of its new territory American leaders weren't ready to see the same happen to South East Asia. The war needed to be ended quickly before the Soviets could do the same they had in Europe.

In order for the peace process to begin, the heads of the Japanese regime had to be brought down. If the leaders were not gotten rid of the US would have to worry about an Imperial resurgence.

After the Nazi regime was brought down in Europe millions rejoiced to see it's leaders tried and wanted to see the same in Japan. Remember millions of Chinese, Koreans, and other South East Asians had died and spent years trying to defeat the Japanese. If the Japanese Imperial regime was allowed to continue they would feel betrayed by the Americans.

Bah I need to get this cloud of Depression and stress out of my brain and I'll be able to post like this lol..

Anyways I was trying to state before that it was better to Atomic bomb then send troops to there deaths in Japan, and end up killing thousands, millions actually, of civilians and soldiers. It would have been a Hell Hole and woulda dragged on forever.

( Also my post before when I said I don't like Truman much:

I meant that I liked Roosevelt better. )

And yea today at school sucked so that explains why I can't piece my wording together.

Well I'ma go now. Have fun with this.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an Act of Terrorism. The Japanese Emperor was ready to surrender, for he and his military already knew that they were beat (which is why they started the Kamikazees). Before we sropped the bombs that murdered 300,000 Japanese citizens, Emperor Hito was willing to surrender, but he just didn't want an unconditional one, which is what the bombings and murders pushed him to consider.

Also take in account that the Soviets were moving through Korea at this time. By having Japan unconditionally surrender to us as quickly as possible America was able to claim South Korea and avoid another split up of power like what happened in Germany.

Damn. Who taught you this? Do you realize the amount of mistakes?

Actually, Emporer Hito's attempts to surrender were blocked by his advisors, many who vowed to fight to the last man. They even went as far as to kidnap and incarcerate the emporer, his surrender message had to be smuggled out (it was recorded on magnetic tape, which was indeed available then, but only in terms of superior Axis technology.) To be quite direct, Hito had considered unconditional surrender for a while and conditional surrender almost since the beginning. The US and Japan were both trying very hard to avoid fighting each other and Hito was greatly concerned (even upset) over the initiation of war in the first place. It did seem inevitable as armed conflicts have occured between the US and Japan on a smaller scale but the US didnt want to take sides with or against the Axis and the Japanese knew they would lose an all out war. It was really the militants that perpetuated this, some of the Japanese hawks actually commited suicide after Hito sucessfully broadcast his surrender.

Also, you are drastically oversimplifying Korea: The USSR was indeed moving in this general area but the conflict with the USSR over this only happened later when the communist police state of the north sent an invasion into the anti-communist police state of the south. The immediate action we took against the USSR had nothing to do with Korea: we sought an alliance with china and allowed Japan to re-arm itself. Besides, it was primarily Chinese, not Soviet efforts that were working to support the North Koreans. The Soviets would really only exert significant opposition by the time of the Vietnam War and Cuban Missle Crisis. As for Germany, the division was only undesirable because the Soviets blocked supply transports and tried to starve areas (which required the US to pay and orchestrate airdrops.) The divide was accepted by both sides in practice, although the west did denounce it. Better to claim you oppose it than openly state that you do not really wish to accept refugees from eastern europe. Much of what we said about Soviets in Eastern Europe were just words: look at Hungary.

As for terrorism, its nearly impossible to apply this concept to a military force operating under a recognized national leader, but some people insist on trying anyway. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not random targets (although they were selected en-route to drop the bomb,) and since Japanese surrender was being obstructed (easy to misinterpret this,) there was no doubt purpose in dropping the bombs, and it was done under the American flag with Truman directly responsible (depending on how you define the term, of course.) Therefore, I cannot logically name this terrorism.

In this case, the ends do not justify the means, as the obstacle impeding unconditional surrender was not going to be shook by atomic blasts. This was an excess use of force and an unecessary attack which really led to very weird losses later on (Japanese officials refusing to go nuclear despite US wishes, for example, and also the sparking of a soviet nuclear program,) but I cannot find logical objection to the nature of this attack: atrocities were not unusual in this era and the Japanese had attacked, tortured, and killed rather indiscriminately with various special weapons, just as we did to our enemies. Thus I cannot logically make an exemption based on atrocious nature and call this terrorism.

Regardless of whether or not it is terrorism, however, I can acknowledge that it was wrong. But it was very much normal. Consider yourself lucky that you live in a society unlikely to repeat this.

PS: An invasion of Japan would probably have gone ahead regardless of the atom bombs, given that firebombing was already being used to "soften" targets, urban and otherwise. The release of the surrender tape was timely, we had plans to get another 6 or so cities nuked, and were upping our firebombing. This invasion would indeed have caused great amounts of casualties on both sides and may have made the situation unreasonably complex, but it still would not have addressed the real obstacle facing surrender.

All right, Its time for the straight sh** on The Nuking of japan (and related incidents; pretty everything brought up in this thread)

To reply to the previous post; The soviets were NOT developing nuclear weapons, the germans were, with a little bit of material aid from Russia that pretty much dried up when Hitler invaded

in no way was japans against pearl harbor un provoked, it was just radical, japan was being threatened with a full embargo enforced by the american navy because of (even at that time) population problems and lack of natural resources, this embargo would have killed japan as a country, the only way to avoid the embargo was to give in to americas (somewhat unreasonable) Demands, so they attacked

And the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a military strike, aimed at destroying as many aircraft carriers as possible. It scared the sh*t out of them when they couldn't find any (they turned out to pretty much all be in the Atlantic...which sucked badly for the Japanese)
]
true, to a point, there were several carriers in Pearl Harbor at the time, but two were late for their scheduled maintenance and survived and a few others were on patrol. this was before the time of americas all pervasive Nimitz class carriers and their humongous CVBG's and america had quite a few carrier task groups.

The Nuclear bomb drops themselves were well thought out and entirely justified, an invasion (The other option, japan wasn't even close to surrendering, how ever much the emperor wanted it, he had no power) would have, if undertaken resulted in twice the loss of life on the American side ALONE, would have resulted in a far longer and costlier war, would have meant much more misery than the Nagasaki and Hiroshima and probably would have become ultimately, a worse disaster than Vietnam and Iraq combined in term of monetary and psychological damage.

shermans march to the sea; was in no way terrorist attack, like the Nuclear bombs it was a sanctioned military action against a declared and fierce enemy, the only reason it is called a terrorist action, like the Nuclear bombs, it was a different way of ending the war than was considered at the time to be 'civilized' both attacks used new strategies and weapons that were much more horrific inhistorical fact than on paper, generals of the day saw the plans on paper and compared them to their long, drawn out, expensive and ugly counterparts and said 'yes, this is an easy and unexpedient way of ending this war'

if you were , without any knowledge of the effects of dropping the nuclear weapons given this choice, what would you coose? A) dropping a new type of bomb that will kill less than half as much as an invasion and end the war inside of a week or B) a costly invasion that would devastate the military and civilian population of japan and cost untold loss of life and sanity among americans and japanese alike and most likely end in a brutal american occupation of japan, against the will of the people and against constant threats of geurilla and kamikaze warfare that would ultimately cost billions of taxpayer dollars and would be even more definate political suicide than the Bombs turned out to be?

The only reason the Nuclear Attacks on japan are considered by some disgusting, immoral and terroristic, is because they never experienced the alternative

In case you weren't aware, the atomic bomb hadn't been functional before Pearl Harbor.

Well, im pretty sure that an atom bomb like the one dropped on Hiroshima could have been produced as early as the 30's. It really doesnt do much more than create a critical mass of nuclear material via means of destroying stabilizers. However, I can guess that it would have been far too heavy to drop from aircraft of that era, unsafe to transport, and not overly powerful. In addition, it would have had a more of a chernobyl-esque effect on the surrounding terrian thanks to the lower energy, and would have created far more drastic issues in regards to quality of life as surrounding inhabited areas will be irradiated for a long period afterwards, especially dangerous in argicultural communities who raise crops and use groundwater. The enrichment process is the major innovation that allowed for a truly effective atomic bomb, and that has also been known for a longer period than most people thought. And the implosion bomb used in Nagasaki was really more of a demonstration of cleverness, not so much superior technology, which becomes blatantly obvious when you consider that the US and the USSR were both competing over remains of Axis equipment and personnel after the war ended. It is probable that Germany had considered, if not researched, atomic weapons during the pre-war height, when Hitler was still a compotent and relatively sane leader and their empire was experiencing a drastic expansion with no more than feeble resistance from a humbled, virtually defeated Britain.

If Germany had more industrial power (and more preperation time) they may in fact have eventually developed their own atomics, and possibly even fended of the US attacks (although it would still have been easier simply not to declare war on the US.) Nuclear attacks on Russian targets may also have made drastic alterations in progression, but again, they shouldnt have declared war on Russia in the first place.

although it was and is a shame on america it had to be done to some one some time (i know im going to be yelled at for that) but there has not been atom bombs used in war since. some people have seen the destuction and relized maybe that kind of power is not worth the price. i think maybe its like the chicken pox you must get it to avoid a major sickness later in life. even though i wasn't alive in that era i would like to appologize to the japanesse for all the suffering that it caused and is causing with radiation sickness and mutation. i heard somewere and have long forgoten the source, that the american government did a study that if america had been invaded that only 17% of the pop would fight back and if america had to invade japan 100% of the pop would rise with the emporer, taking into account all of japan's history and at the time the polls of the emporer's popularity

To reply to the previous post; The soviets were NOT developing nuclear weapons, the germans were, with a little bit of material aid from Russia that pretty much dried up when Hitler invaded

[QUOTE]

The soviets WERE developing atomic weapons from 1940. they also had spies in on the Manhatten project.



if you were , without any knowledge of the effects of dropping the nuclear weapons given this choice, what would you coose? A) dropping a new type of bomb that will kill less than half as much as an invasion and end the war inside of a week or B) a costly invasion that would devastate the military and civilian population of japan and cost untold loss of life and sanity among americans and japanese alike and most likely end in a brutal american occupation of japan, against the will of the people and against constant threats of geurilla and kamikaze warfare that would ultimately cost billions of taxpayer dollars and would be even more definate political suicide than the Bombs turned out to be?

The only reason the Nuclear Attacks on japan are considered by some disgusting, immoral and terroristic, is because they never experienced the alternative


the atomic bombs killed as many people as the americans could have potentially lost in an invasion. The difference is that the american soldiers chose to join the army and go to war. The Japanese civilians who were killed, and those that grew up deformed, suffered from cancer and infertility, did not choose their fate.

The only reason the Nuclear Attacks on japan are considered by some disgusting, immoral and terroristic, is because they never experienced the alternative

Im pretty sure this will prove false. Nuclear weapons have acquired vivid and imaginative images due to international exchange of myth and propaganda. If we gassed their civilians, firebombed their cities, and occupied their territory with rowdy beserkers, im sure it would be seen as more honorable than nuking them. Just look at the thread to begin with: it complains about the 2 nuclear attacks on the mainland, not about that fact that we gassed their civilians, firebombed their cities, and occupied their territory with rowdy beserkers (although admittedly we did liberate the Phillipenes, Korea, China, and a host of other areas, and Mao Tse Tung expressed gratitude in person, so the invasion aspect wasnt all bad.)

The Allied atrocities for the most part humbled that of the Axis, especially considering the Soviet Union's coercion by denial of food, although the chemical and incendiary attacks from Allied bombers also make a good case (without even stopping to consider the use of nuclear weapons.) This was a very normal thing, too. Again, be grateful.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an Act of Terrorism. The Japanese Emperor was ready to surrender, for he and his military already knew that they were beat (which is why they started the Kamikazees). Before we sropped the bombs that murdered 300,000 Japanese citizens, Emperor Hito was willing to surrender, but he just didn't want an unconditional one, which is what the bombings and murders pushed him to consider.

Also take in account that the Soviets were moving through Korea at this time. By having Japan unconditionally surrender to us as quickly as possible America was able to claim South Korea and avoid another split up of power like what happened in Germany.


Few things I've not understood about these bombings, maybe someone can answer.

1) How many atom bombs did the US have at their disposal prior to the bombing of Hiroshima?
2) Were the Japanese threatened with the use of these bombs, with detailed descriptions of what they would do. (I accept that the full consequences were unknown)
3) Was the option of dropping the first bomb on a relatively unpopulated area considered? Would this have shown enough damage to convince the Japanese to unconditional surrender?
4) If you'd had enough bombs, say three, could it have been arranged such that the second bomb was dropped on somewhere slightly more populated, and then finally have been dropped on Hiroshima?

The point I'm trying to make is, could the bombings have been handled better? I mean with less loss of civilian life, but with Japan still unconitionally surrendering? If it was possible, was it from a finanacial issue, or just that at that stage in the war anything was justified? Not having lived through WW2 I suppose I can't imagine the situation at the time and maybe most people just thought f**k 'em?

the dropping of the atom bombs is just about one of the only 20th century american political acts i agree with. it saved hundreds of thousands of lives. mainly of civilians, im not worried about soldiers, thats their job, but japanese civilians, as in the outlying japanese islands would have been commiting suicide in the thousands.

The Japanese knew that we had the Atomic bomb before we attacked Hiroshima and they knew well what it could do. Even with the Japanese Emperor knowing this, he still didn't want an unconditional surrender that the Americans wanted.

Also remember that at this time the Soviets were liberating Korea, and the quicker the Japanese surrendered the more land that America would gain control of in Korea. Hence the creation of North and South Korea.

1) How many atom bombs did the US have at their disposal prior to the bombing of Hiroshima?
2) Were the Japanese threatened with the use of these bombs, with detailed descriptions of what they would do. (I accept that the full consequences were unknown)
3) Was the option of dropping the first bomb on a relatively unpopulated area considered? Would this have shown enough damage to convince the Japanese to unconditional surrender?
4) If you'd had enough bombs, say three, could it have been arranged such that the second bomb was dropped on somewhere slightly more populated, and then finally have been dropped on Hiroshima?

1) Indeed. IIRC, the US had six bombs and were poised to vastly increase that number on short notice. I know for certain that the plans for a third run were already prepared and ready for engagement.
2) The US did in fact distribute doomsday propaganda and did warn the Japanese, although the timing was not really reasonable, and they did not really specificy which cities were going to be bombed.
3 & 4) The targets were given to the bomber crews beforehand, and depending on weather conditions, their current location, and anti-aircraft fire, they would choose one only once they arrived in Japan. The selection was by convenience, not by impact.

the dropping of the atom bombs is just about one of the only 20th century american political acts i agree with. it saved hundreds of thousands of lives. mainly of civilians, im not worried about soldiers, thats their job, but japanese civilians, as in the outlying japanese islands would have been commiting suicide in the thousands.

that's rubbish. how do you know that thousands of people would have killed themselves? that's no basis for an argument to kill 250 000 innocent people

The Japanese knew that we had the Atomic bomb before we attacked Hiroshima and they knew well what it could do. Even with the Japanese Emperor knowing this, he still didn't want an unconditional surrender that the Americans wanted.

Also remember that at this time the Soviets were liberating Korea, and the quicker the Japanese surrendered the more land that America would gain control of in Korea. Hence the creation of North and South Korea.

The Japanese were not aware that we had atomic bombs ready for use against them, and NOBODY really knew how powerful they were (although people certainly did make predictions which were both dire and accurate.) Residual radiation having the human impact it did came as a suprise to many people. The Japanese Emporer had been vouching for unconditional surrender for quite a while anyway. And in the end the surrender was conditional, the US agreed to preserve the monarchy.

As for the Soviet liberation of Korea, this really was an in-out operation, which is admittedly uncharacteristic of the Soviets. However, it did inspire the formation of a government sympathetic to the USSR, which therefore sucessfully petitioned for Soviet supplies. This was mostly a peacetime issue, really. The consequence is that Soviet tanks rolled into South Korea without much in the line of direct Soviet involvement, and thats where the real chaos begun. The US was not overly concerned with commonist expansion until the very end of WWII, and Soviet incursions into Korea were for the most part ignored. It was the agressive attack of a pro-communist state that caused the Korean situation and the tension at the border (which hardly moved at all during the korean war, go figure.) And when North Korea needed aid the most, the USSR wasnt overly enthusiastic in providing it, China instead filled the role due to desires to defend (and if they were lucky, expand) its borders.

1) Indeed. IIRC, the US had six bombs and were poised to vastly increase that number on short notice. I know for certain that the plans for a third run were already prepared and ready for engagement.
2) The US did in fact distribute doomsday propaganda and did warn the Japanese, although the timing was not really reasonable, and they did not really specificy which cities were going to be bombed.
3 & 4) The targets were given to the bomber crews beforehand, and depending on weather conditions, their current location, and anti-aircraft fire, they would choose one only once they arrived in Japan. The selection was by convenience, not by impact.

Interesting stuff, but it still seems like there was a rush. Also, I forget my history, what was the time gap between Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It still seems to me the choices were civilian towns and using maybe one bomb on a rural area might have been 'nice', but of course it could be argued that he emporer would be calling the US bluff, they certainly were stubborn with regard to surrender.

that's rubbish. how do you know that thousands of people would have killed themselves? that's no basis for an argument to kill 250 000 innocent people

While the wording of that statement is perhaps exxagerated, it is by no means completely false. While we were island hopping toward japan, the local governments of soon to be occupied areas told civilians the americans would rape them and murder their families. Many chose death as an alternative to what they saw as a shameful and horrific death. Also the japanese at the time did have a strong ethic (I believe the word is "Gyokusai" or "Shattering of a precious jewel") that they would choose a glorious or honorable death before enslavement by westerners. So yes, an invasion would have created untold casualties. Urban combat between Americans and japanese militias would have most likely killed more civilians than the bombs. Was it tragic? Yes. Avoidable? Perhaps. But it was a war. And that is the kind of thing that happens. Its easy for us to second guess their decisions from the high perch of history but its not that easy to choose who dies and who lives in the present.

Interesting stuff, but it still seems like there was a rush. Also, I forget my history, what was the time gap between Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It still seems to me the choices were civilian towns and using maybe one bomb on a rural area might have been 'nice', but of course it could be argued that he emporer would be calling the US bluff, they certainly were stubborn with regard to surrender.

the gap was two days. The bomb that hit Nagasaki was intended for Tokyo but had to be dropped early as the americans were fought back by the japanese.

Or Japan could have surrendered (not unconditionally ofcourse) like Emperor Hito wanted to. This would have saved 300,000 innocent lives.

And yes, it was terrorism because the bombings scared the Japanese people into doing Americas will.


not having japan surrender unconditionally ment no troops there.Having no troops there ment the red army would feel obligated to occupy japan and turn the country communist. I think the japanese are happy their country isn't communist.
many Liberals of the day so I hear wanted to just show the japanese what a atomic explosion looks like by taking a few of their generals to the desert and detonating one and showing them what it looks like.Using your same logic since this was supposed to scare them, wouldn't that have been terrorism, too?
Considering the japanese had already started work on making a atomic bomb (although they were way behind the US in that endeavor) I think they already had a fairly good idea of what a atomic bomb can do.
Well, leave it to the bleeding hearts to always think of that kinda useless stuff.

that's rubbish. how do you know that thousands of people would have killed themselves? that's no basis for an argument to kill 250 000 innocent people
Might we bring up Saipan? And the Japanese civilians hurling themselves off the cliffs into the ocean, taking their children with them?

Might we bring up Saipan? And the Japanese civilians hurling themselves off the cliffs into the ocean, taking their children with them?

If that's true then why would they even care if they got nuked or not?

the gap was two days. The bomb that hit Nagasaki was intended for Tokyo but had to be dropped early as the americans were fought back by the japanese.

Actually, while Nagasaki was not, in fact, the original target for the second bombing run, neither was Tokyo. The original target was Kokura, which housed a major munitions arsenal. However, heavy cloud cover made targeting nigh-impossible, and after three fruitless bombing runs over Kokura, with increasing anti-aircraft fire and approaching enemy fighters, the decision was made to switch to a secondary target.

In the course of this debate it is worth looking at known facts, and there are many, MANY sites on this subject. However, a couple of noteworthy ones include:

http://www.dannen.com/decision/

which has a collection of primary documents concerning the run-up to the decision to use atomic bombs, and:

http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/northamerican/TheAtomicBombingsofHiroshimaandNagasaki/toc.html

a 1946 report on the run-up to, use of, and then-known effects of the atomic bombs. As I've said, there are countless other sources of information, but it's good to get what facts we can fairly straight, before bringing in our opinions about whether what happened was actually right (or even justifiable, if wrong).

the gap was two days. The bomb that hit Nagasaki was intended for Tokyo but had to be dropped early as the americans were fought back by the japanese.

The US had no intention of nuking Tokyo. Nagasaki was chosen SPECIFICALLY because it had been relatively untouched by war, unlike Tokyo, which had been firebombed ala Dresden.

Please cite your source.

that's rubbish. how do you know that thousands of people would have killed themselves? that's no basis for an argument to kill 250 000 innocent people
Obviously not well versed in Japanese culture. A few years ago, late 90's I think, They found a Japanese soldier, over 70 years old, still lying in wait for the allied soldiers to attack on one of the outlying islands which wasn't visited much. I don't remember what show it was on, discovery channel I think, but I could be wrong.

That you (especially if you voted "yes") buy/borrow this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380973499/qid=1102556056/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-2598070-2396945?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

War's End: An Eyewitness Account of America's Last Atomic Mission by Charles W. Sweeney.

Sweeney was the only person to be on BOTH the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing missions, and so has a unique point of view about the whole affair.

Dan Rather had this to say:
"There is no arguing with his sober, compelling story...written with such detail, sweep, and compassion that it might have been a novel and not an autobiography. Charles Sweeney is the best kind of warrior, motivated by real patriotism. For setting straight a difficult record, his book is invaluable. For commemorating a generation of heroes, his book is unforgettable."


I read it several years ago, and it is *not* your standard History Channel primer. I highly recommend it, not because it will change your mind, but because it may give you a glimse into the times that were... and why things were done the way they were.

Obviously not well versed in Japanese culture. A few years ago, late 90's I think, They found a Japanese soldier, over 70 years old, still lying in wait for the allied soldiers to attack on one of the outlying islands which wasn't visited much. I don't remember what show it was on, discovery channel I think, but I could be wrong.

http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/list.html

...though there have been some "near misses". :)

Hmm, sending kamikazes really means you plan on surrendering. Yup. We killed of few hundred thousand to save millions. there was no other way. Off-sea demos would have poisoned their large fish diet.

If that's true then why would they even care if they got nuked or not?

I dont even know what your point is. Do you even know what your point is anymore? They weren't jumping to their deaths for fun, they were doing it to ensure a good death for themselves since they thought they would be murdered. The point being that the atomic bombings ultimately saved lives, since the japanese people were ready to fight to the last civilian and then take their own lives if they failed to repel the invasion.

Addressing your earlier argument that this was a terrorist act, I cant see how. Terrorism is a very nebulous term but you've made no compelling argument that a bombing by a sanctioned military organization against another nation in a state of open war would count. Are you sure the term you're thinking of isn't "atrocity". Because theres a stronger argument there.

It is worth noting, in the context of the broader question of this thread, that attacks against civilian populations during WWII were hardly uncommon. "Strategic bombing" encompassed any sort of military strike that damaged an opposing nation's ability to wage war. Thus, goes the reasoning, any sort of industrial complex that could be used to support the war effort is just as legitimate as a purely military target. While this should be limited to economic/industrial targets, the same line of reasoning could then be possibly applied to wiping out the homes of such workers also becomes a target.... In fact, in a "total war" scenario, where the entire population of a country is mobilized into the war effort in one fashion or another, it could be argued (using this logic) that there are - in some sense - no true civilians.

Sophistry? Most likely. On the other hand, the firebombing of cities (e.g. Dresden, Tokyo) illustrate that before the advent of nuclear weaponry, the philosophy was already in place. Atomic bombs just meant you could do the job with a single bomb, instead of a wave of bombers.

However, history is written by the victors. It is quite arguable that if the US/Allies had *lost* WWII, there would have been (perhaps entirely justifiable) war crimes trials against architects of firebombing and atomic attacks, in the vein of the (eminently justifiable) Nuremburg trials that were held after Germany's defeat.

The general question here is -- what rules *should* there be in war, and when is it justifiable to bend or defy those rules, if ever? [If you can only use "illegal" means to attempt to defend yourself/your country, should or can you do so?]

I dont even know what your point is. Do you even know what your point is anymore? They weren't jumping to their deaths for fun, they were doing it to ensure a good death for themselves. The point being that the atomic bombings ultimately saved lives, since the japanese people were ready to fight to the last civilian and then take their own lives if they failed to repel the invasion.

Not "the Japanese" as a whole, and this is quite obvious. Emporer Hito doesnt strike me as the kind of character you described.

Not "the Japanese" as a whole, and this is quite obvious. Emporer Hito doesnt strike me as the kind of character you described.

Again, I'm kind of missing your argument. Obviously not everybody killed themselves when faced with occupation but it was a pervading mindset that the good and honorable thing was to choose death over enslavement. It was deeply rooted in the culture and spanned back to the bushido code founded around the same time as the society's birth. As for "hito" (hirohito?), no, he was not as fixated on this as others. But then he, like most Tenno before him, was a pawn. Hideki Tojo and the military war council of japan was the real power behind the throne.

Again, I'm kind of missing your argument. Obviously not everybody killed themselves when faced with occupation but it was a pervading mindset that the good and honorable thing was to choose death over enslavement. It was deeply rooted in the culture and spanned back to the bushido code founded around the same time as the society's birth. As for "hito" (hirohito?), no, he was not as fixated on this as others. But then he, like most Tenno before him, was a pawn. Hideki Tojo and the military war council of japan was the real power behind the throne.

Hito's power is irrelevant. I was commenting on the fact that not all of the Japanese population would continue to resist allied occupation, and significant parts would still be salvagable.

Half yes, and half no. I have talked to Japanese international students, and they are kind of split.

Essentially those who lived in the decentralized parts of Japan, like Nagasaki and Hiroshima wanted to surrender anyways. Initially MacArthur wanted to bomb Kyoto, but legend says his wife begged him not to because they spent their honeymoon there, (whether or not that is true I have no idea)

Neither Nagasaki or Hiroshima was a target I think was a valid choice. However, I would probably be more sympathetic had it been something like Yokusuka harbour where boats were built/maintained. Woulda been justice for Pearl Harbour and just frankly made more sense.

Oh well.

The Japanese emperor was a figurehead for most of the existence of the institution. He was, particularly during the 20th century, subservient to the warlords and military. It was never his idea that war commence to begin with. The nuclear bombs must be taken in context. It was an act of terrorism inasmuchas the act was designed to terrorize the Japanese people to surrender. But we cannot today really contemplate the existence of war with a nation like imperial Japan. They were willing to fight to the death. On the average, the civilian was ready to fight. People hid small arms of all kinds, built machines guns in backyards, and hoarded even blades and sharpened sticks to fight the Americans. The accepted casualty number was 1 million American fighting men. This would come at the cost of tens of millions of Japanese. Now casualty estimates for both sides may have been inflated, but it was still an operation that was almost certainly necessary for their surrender. Yes, it was a "terrorist act" in the purest sense of the word, but it was justified in terms of forcing surrender upon the Japanese considering that nothing but total surrender would cause them to abandon their empire, their even bloodier war with China, and of unveiling a powerful new weapon to get the Soviet Union to stand down in Europe. This was a major factor in stopping Stalin's ambition cold at the gates of Berlin and not in Paris, Rome, and Istanbul. Earlier it was mentioned that Japanese soldiers remained in pockets of resistance into the 50's, 60's and even 70's. If soldiers of the Empire continued to fight decades after their nation's surrender was proved to them, how willing would those soldiers be to fight if they learned that the homeland was being bodily invaded and their families were dying in the conflict? The nuclear bombs were a good wakeup call to the Japanese to understand defeat in the face of vast logistical disadvantages for the first time. I believe, from my understanding, that the nuclear bombings definitely saved American, British, Chinese, Russian, and even Japanese lives.

uhh, they were gonna fire the first biological weapons loaded with the plague virus that affected Europe in the middle ages, so it was either us or them

Hito's power is irrelevant. I was commenting on the fact that not all of the Japanese population would continue to resist allied occupation, and significant parts would still be salvagable.

It could have been salvaged, but man would it have been a bloodbath. Island hopping was not exactly the most effective method of war. It is completely likely that we would have just decided to "soften" target islands with incendiary and carpet bombing campaigns before going it. At that point the geneva convention was so far out the window (on both sides) that people were willing to do almost anything.

people seem to forget the rape of nanjing and other atrocities japan committed against china. the japanese government is in denial of these atrocities, even though there are plenty of data, there have been no formal apologies to china, and japanese children are simply uninformed about these war crimes. perhaps unrelated to the current subject, but just one point of consideration from my perspective. war is a load of crap, and happens to bring out some of the worst things in people. anyway, about the nuking of the second city - the first was clearly justified - i remember something from us history, how a reply was sent to an us representatives on the conditions of unconditional surrender, how a crucial phrase, possibly translated into 'maybe' as well as 'no', was given the second translation. sorry for a disjointed argument. the japanese also had a plan for sacraficing whoever was needed - citizens and army - and to protect the motherland. in a document i once read somewhere, a general of the us army was considering a sea-land invasion of japan that had an estimated loss of one million american soldiers. think of the one thousand who have died in iraq, more now i know but this was wwii, and these things happened. remember iwo jima, the other islands in the pacific, which were seen as training or simulations of an invasion of the island state of japan, which were bombarded for weeks and still resulted in such heavy us losses. japanese losses were not to be taken lightly, of course. the person who started this post said that the practice of suicidally bombing ships from planes filled with explosives proved how desperate they were and how close the japanese were to surrender. what? logic would go the other way. american soldiers were told to not turn their backs to japanese civilians, even women and children, because they had been so brainwashed with propaganda and religious whatever japan's divine emperor was pumping out. women and children were filled with religious zeal against american soldiers, and could quite easily plunge a knife into a soldier when his back was turned. this and also suicide. which was glorified in concurrent propaganda films. these are generalizations, but i hope they will give you a general idea of why i feel the way i do. the ghost bandanas and saki for kamakazi pilots, massive suicides during american invasion of inhabited islands and also at the time that japan surrendered, all this point to a nation that was more than ready in spirit to defend themselves against a massively superior force. as president, the clear decision, given the options, was to end the war quickly and without endangering too many americans. in germany as well as select cities in japan, magnesium bombs and whatever other wmds of the time had been unloaded in tonnes from plane after plane with little result. the damage, however, was comparable to an atomic bomb of the time. except that the atomic bomb was a much more fearsome and horrible weapon. the thought of a cache of these things was what finally brought japan into submission. peace. and isn't that the end result of any war? would have happened eventually, given the circumstances, except it would have taken longer and cost more lives. i think it would be very difficult for anyone to dispute this in a valid manner. policies? conspiracies? was the us trying to claim japan as a protectorate and keep the ussr out of the rebuildilng program, having asked for help during invasion previously? i don't think these were motivating goals. the president had a war to end, and reconstruction must have paled beside finishing up a long and senselessly bloody war. you must remember that the pacific war was one of reeling defeat, and then of lucky hits against the japanese pacific navy (i suppose pacific is redundant), and a slow, slow progress of island-hopping. and they did this for two years. you can sue me for accuracy - please. and they get there, and the losses have been grim and finally japan lay on the horizon. a second option emerges. could it have been so hard to order that strike?

Hito's power is irrelevant. I was commenting on the fact that not all of the Japanese population would continue to resist allied occupation, and significant parts would still be salvagable.

After Japan surrendered to the United States it was occupied, so to argue this is irrelevant.

After Japan surrendered to the United States it was occupied, so to argue this is irrelevant.

Again, your argument confuses me. Whats your point? We were discussing the pre occupation power structure.

EDIT: I'm seriously confused by this guy. But it could just be that my brain is burned out from finals papers. Does everybody else understand the aim of these statements he makes?

Again, your argument confuses me. Whats your point? We were discussing the pre occupation power structure.

EDIT: I'm seriously confused by this guy. But it could just be that my brain is burned out from finals papers. Does everybody else understand the aim of these statements he makes?

The arguement was that Japanese civilians would commit suicide if they were occupied by the Allies, but I'm saying that they were occupied by the Allies anyway after Emperor Hiro surrendered. This is an irrelevant arguement, along with your post.

It could have been salvaged, but man would it have been a bloodbath. Island hopping was not exactly the most effective method of war. It is completely likely that we would have just decided to "soften" target islands with incendiary and carpet bombing campaigns before going it. At that point the geneva convention was so far out the window (on both sides) that people were willing to do almost anything.

Earlier in this thread, I said exactly that. But applying it to all of Japan would be foolish, as some parts would accept, perhaps even welcome, US victory as an alternative to suffering this.

The arguement was that Japanese civilians would commit suicide if they were occupied by the Allies, but I'm saying that they were occupied by the Allies anyway after Emperor Hiro surrendered. This is an irrelevant arguement, along with your post.

But A formal declaration of surrender changed that. The japanese people fought for hirohito, since he embodied their way of life. I mean, alot of people seriously believed the emporer was a direct descendant of the sun goddess. His address made people accept their fate. "it is according to the dictates of time and fate that we have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the [unavoidable] and suffering what is unsufferable." If he or tojo had told them to keep fighting, you better believe that alot of people would have gone down fighting allies in their back yards or killing themselves.

Earlier in this thread, I said exactly that. But applying it to all of Japan would be foolish, as some parts would accept, perhaps even welcome, US victory as an alternative to suffering this.

Yea, I dont know what we're debating anymore. We pretty much agree. Yes, we could have done it and salvaged some of the country, but the bombing was also ultimately a better way.

It wasn't terrorism. Pearl Harbor was an act of war, they brought the US into the war and the atomic bomb was a way to completely end them from killing more people. 300,000 may have died from it, but millions more could have died if the US hadn't bombed them. That, and the US and Japan were at war. Plain and simple. People die in war.

After Japan surrendered to the United States it was occupied, so to argue this is irrelevant.
The principal, if not sole reason the Japanese people surrendered to the allies is because of the radio broadcast of the Emperors surrender message. Without this message, the Japanese people would have gone on fighting for their God-Emperor, to the death.

The principal, if not sole reason the Japanese people surrendered to the allies is because of the radio broadcast of the Emperors surrender message. Without this message, the Japanese people would have gone on fighting for their God-Emperor, to the death.

Word. You can find a copy at the URL below. It was pretty crazy stuff since this was the first time the emperor had ever directly communicated with his subjects. Clearly in an attempt to create a stable and peaceful surrender.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hirohito.htm