NationStates Jolt Archive

What I find really utterly stupid is that people complain about all the atrocies that happened in WW2 by the Nazi's and Japanesse is that the US A-bombed Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of people and poisoned people for genarations and basically killed off New York in comprapsion. Its not that Im saying the Holocaust wasn't bad or anything but give it a rest. The US ruined 100's of square kilometers(or miles) of land and killed hundreds of thousands

Peace Out - No one deserves to die... At dusk and in the morning we will remember Them

What I find really utterly stupid is that people complain about all the atrocies that happened in WW2 by the Nazi's an Japanesse is that the US A-bombed Japan and killed hurndreds of thousands of people and poisoned people for genarations and basically killed off New York in comprapsion back then Its not that im saying the Holocaust wasn't bad or anything but Give it a rest The US ruined 100's of square kilometers(or miles) of land and killed hundreds ofthousands
Considering that Nagasaki as a city still exists I'd say your bullshit about contaimination is crap.

What I find really utterly stupid is that people complain about all the atrocies that happened in WW2 by the Nazi's an Japanesse is that the US A-bombed Japan and killed hurndreds of thousands of people and poisoned people for genarations and basically killed off New York in comprapsion back then Its not that im saying the Holocaust wasn't bad or anything but Give it a rest The US ruined 100's of square kilometers(or miles) of land and killed hundreds ofthousands
You would have rather had years of fighting and much higher head count on both sides?

Bearing in mind the Japanese killed more people than Hiroshima + Nagasaki, as did the holocaust, and the numbers that would have died trying to assault the islands by conventional means, I happen ot think you are wrong.

Considering that Nagasaki as a city still exists I'd say your bullshit about contaimination is crap.

The city being rebuilt dosen't mean a thing I mean In the ninties that place that had a nuclear reactor blew up but there still selling crops

The city being rebuilt dosen't mean a thing I mean In the ninties that place that had a nuclear reactor blew up but there still selling crops
What place?

The US ruined 100's of square kilometers(or miles) of land and killed hundreds ofthousands

Um, Japan isn't THAT big you know? (374,744 SqKm). And while the zone of destruction was vast, it was actually only a 2 mile radius that was fully destroyed, 10 miles was the given extent of the damage, according to the Hiroshima Peace Museum.

And believe you, me, Hiroshima is still there. Not only have I passed through it a number of times, but it has a very loud annoying pachinko place right at the station. A good bread shop too.

What I find really utterly stupid is that people complain about all the atrocies that happened in WW2 by the Nazi's and Japanesse is that the US A-bombed Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of people and poisoned people for genarations and basically killed off New York in comprapsion. Its not that Im saying the Holocaust wasn't bad or anything but give it a rest. The US ruined 100's of square kilometers(or miles) of land and killed hundreds of thousands

Peace Out - No one deserves to die... At dusk and in the morning we will remember Them
So...you would rather the US had done a firebombing campaign against Japans mostly wooden cities, then invaded and lost millions of soldiers and killed millions of people?
A-bombs were (IMO) the best option at the time.

What place? Chernobyl, Ukraine

You're wrong. Here's why (http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm) .

I would have put that down but I can't remebmer. Is it in Russia somewhere?
You talking about Chernobyl in kiev in the ukrane?

Chernobyl, Ukraine
You have any proof the area is shipping grain or are you just hopefull cause you are trying to prove a point?

You talking about Chernobyl in kiev in the ukrane?Why the hell is talking about Chernobyl now? What the hell does that have to do with WWII?

What I find really utterly stupid is that people complain about all the atrocies that happened in WW2 by the Nazi's and Japanesse is that the US A-bombed Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of people
Would you rather have had a land invasion where MILLIONS of Japanese and Allied forces would die then?

Why the hell is talking about Chernobyl now? What the hell does that have to do with WWII?
Because he said that they were shipping grain ... therefore inhabitance is not proof of lack of poison

(Dont ask me thats what I got from it ... seems rather silly to me)

What I find really utterly stupid is that people complain about all the atrocies that happened in WW2 by the Nazi's and Japanesse is that the US A-bombed Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of people and poisoned people for genarations and basically killed off New York in comprapsion. Its not that Im saying the Holocaust wasn't bad or anything but give it a rest. The US ruined 100's of square kilometers(or miles) of land and killed hundreds of thousands

Peace Out - No one deserves to die... At dusk and in the morning we will remember Them
and how would you have won the war? you cant even comprehend the Japanese mentality during WW2. they were willing to fight the last man, woman, and child. they even trained girls in school with bamboo sticks for when the American soldiers came. when they saw they A-bomb they knew there was no chance of even harming americans, meanwhile hundreds of thousands of their people were dying. is it better that Americans and Japanese fight on Japanese soil, causing the slaughter of MILLIONS on both sides, or that a few hundred thousand of the enemy die?

Because he said that they were shipping grain ... therefore inhabitance is not proof of lack of poison

(Dont ask me thats what I got from it ... seems rather silly to me)This doesn't make any sense at all.

Given the scorched earth nature of the way the imperial Japanese empire waged war, and the prediliction of the Japanese to kill themselves and their children before the advance of US forces very nearly everyone who was born after 1945 and is even part Japanese is alive today thanks to atomic weapons. Furthermore, the japanese military leaders, who attempted, and very nearly succeeded, in a coup had decided that if Japan should lose (and there was NO doubt in anyone's mind where the war was headed at that point) it should be destroyed utterly, and gloriously. The only people that should be blamed for the suffering of the Japanese are Japanese.

It's worth observing Japan had two superweapon programs, one biological (consisting of some of the most perverse and depraved acts humans have ever commited against each other) which was very nearly deployed against the west coast of the United States, and an atomic weapons program that was ended before it really got started, ironically by a second atomic weapon. So, blah.

i guess i'll just put it this way.

they started it. we ended it.

if the united states invaded japan every man, woman, and child would of died defending their emporer. THe atomic bomb was merciful compared to what could of happen regardless of japan's crimes against humanity.

not the united states are innocent. we've killed 9 million indiginous people :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

i guess i'll just put it this way.

they started it. we ended it.

if the united states invaded japan every man, woman, and child would of died defending their emporer. THe atomic bomb was merciful compared to what could of happen regardless of japan's crimes against humanity.

not the united states are innocent. we've killed 9 million indiginous people :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:
Might want to put another gun smily in there it makes you seem so much more intellegent, it really adds to your point

You would have rather had years of fighting and much higher head count on both sides?

Whoa dude! you can tell the future? Sweet. What sh*t are you on?

Whoa dude! you can tell the future? Sweet. What sh*t are you on?
No based on the battle plans for invasion and past history of conventional fighting

Hell the carpet bombing of tokyo alone killed more people and the invasion had not even STARTED

The city being rebuilt dosen't mean a thing I mean In the ninties that place that had a nuclear reactor blew up but there still selling crops
Um, a graphite reactor meltdown and a fission bomb produce vastly different types of rads.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Plus Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin, Wesel, and any other major city in japan or germany. Millions of civilians died by the bombing runs of the allies. Im not saying it wasnt right, but what happened is what happened. Not to mention US bombing in Vietnam, for example. It doesnt matter if they died in a work camp, a gas chamber, or under a bomb. Civilians were killed by all sides in ww2, none can claim to be morally superior. To measure out who killed the least of millions of people, is pretty hard to call moral even.

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
happy?

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
happy?STOP DOING THAT!

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
happy?
Thank you, I think I just died laughing, I'll crawl back into my grave now

You talking about Chernobyl in kiev in the ukrane?
near Kiev. And yes, they do get food from there, although not exactly chernobyl, but a small distance away from it. Also, chernobyl's nuclear power station was fully used (except for that one reactor) for over a decade, and was finally closed down in 1999.

You guys are a load of Sh1t leave me alone

You guys are a load of Sh1t leave me alone
you started this thread...

You guys are a load of Sh1t leave me alone


Welcome to Nationstates.

Welcome to Nationstates.
:D your reply is funnier than mine.

You guys are a load of Sh1t leave me alone
You got SERVED!!!!!!!!

Wait, that was unprofessional of me. No, you got your views logically explained away, and this is your response, my usual suggestion would to be start drinking heavily, but in this case, it is actually think out your views before making an argument such as this and walking away like this. Nobody flamed you directly, and they all (sans a few of them) gave you a respectfull argument against your views. Now don't run away like that.

You got SERVED!!!!!!!!

Wait, that was unprofessional of me. No, you got your views logically explained away, and this is your response, my usual suggestion would to be start drinking heavily, but in this case, it is actually think out your views before making an argument such as this and walking away like this. Nobody flamed you directly, and they all (sans a few of them) gave you a respectfull argument against your views. Now don't run away like that.


Terrible movie...

Terrible movie...
Movie? the only movie I (knowingly) made a reverence to was 'Animal House', and that was a damned good movie.

Terrible movie...
Yea, those guys just break danced throughout the entire movie. And not too well too. I mean it's like
--"You're a piece of shit, and I fucked your mom, and i pimped out your sister and... "
--"Oh yea? Well.." (starts dancing)


Seriosly, what's with all the dancing? And the most horrible part -- they took off pants as a diss. I mean what is that supposed to mean, if you take off another guys pants? That the other guy is gay? Well I got news for you: if you enjoy stripping guys, one of you is definately gay.


As for the starter of the post, I am sorry, but in a war people die. The world is like that -- everyone cannot win at the same time. For Truman the choice was either millions die on both sides, or a lot less die on the Japanese side. It was a clear choice.

-snip-
Sounds incredibly bad, but I've never heard of it

There was a movie, You got served, released last year. I heard it was horrid. White people dancing..ohhh the Humanity!

IMDB linkage (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365957/)

There was a movie, You got served, released last year. I heard it was horrid. White people dancing..ohhh the Humanity!

IMDB linkage (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365957/)
sounds like I should be glad I never heard of it

You guys are a load of Sh1t leave me aloneWOW... first time I've actually seen an Argument thread actually end with the thread starter admitting complete and utter defeat.

nice guys... really nice.

WOW... first time I've actually seen an Argument thread actually end with the thread starter admitting complete and utter defeat.

nice guys... really nice.
We try, or rather they try, I'm more of the-sit-back-and-observe-cause-I-don't-care-enough type myself

You guys are a load of Sh1t leave me alone
We gave you (most of us) honest and reasoned responses ... you provided no evidence WHATSOEVER for your arguement we have treated you kinder then you perhaps deserved
We maybe should have dismissed you offhand for having an unsupported unreasoned arguement (not saying you were wrong but your arguement was bad)

And yet you call us "a load of sh1t" way to convince us or prove your point

You have any proof the area is shipping grain or are you just hopefull cause you are trying to prove a point?

I heard on a TV doco that they were growing crops to leech some heavy metals out of the ground...

The Eastern Assault Force consisting of the 25th, 33rd and 41st Infantry Divisions would land near Miyaski, at beaches called Austin, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, and Ford, and move inland to attempt to capture the city and its nearby airfield. The Southern Assault Force, consisting of the 1st Cavalry Division, the 43rd Division and Americal Division would land inside Ariake Bay at beaches labeled DeSoto, Dusenberg, Essex, Ford, and Franklin and attempt to capture Shibushi and the city of Kanoya and its airfield.

On the western shore of Kyushu, at beaches Pontiac, Reo, Rolls Royce, Saxon, Star, Studebaker, Stutz, Winston and Zephyr, the V Amphibious Corps would land the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Marine Divisions, sending half of its force inland to Sendai and the other half to the port city of Kagoshima.

On November 4, the Reserve Force, consisting of the 81st and 98th Infantry Divisions and the 11th Airborne Division, after feigning an attack of the island of Shikoku, would be landed -- if not needed elsewhere -- near Kaimondake, near the southernmost tip of Kagoshima Bay, at the beaches designated Locomobile, Lincoln, LaSalle, Hupmobile, Moon, Mercedes, Maxwell, Overland, Oldsmobile, Packard and Plymouth.

I don't know which would have stung worse for Japan: being invaded by 3 million American GIs or having all your beaches renamed after American car companies for decades to come :D
The article leaves out Truman's intention to help clear the way for the invasion with 10 atomic bombs though. That's ultimately the reason Japan surrendered. Who would be crazy enough to engage in a nuclear conflict without nukes??

I don’t think this question can be answered with today’s moral standards. It was war, and in war horrible things happen…

What should be discussed, I think, is whether or not the bombings were militarily justified.

To me, they weren’t…

The systematic destruction of German cities did not have a major impact on the German war effort. By early ’45, the war was as good as won – it was just a matter of time before Germany would be forced to capitulate. At that point in time, it was more a question of punishing Germany, than it was a question of military strategy.

The A-bombing of Japan was a horrifying mistake. Japan was willing to begin peace talks – provided that the allies would guarantee the Emperors safety. When the allies refused this, the Japanese people prepared to defend their homeland – and die doing so if necessary.
In that context, the A-bombing probably saved many lives, both allied and Japanese. But considering that Japan was willing to surrender, it was a horrible and unnecessary thing to do.

Didn't have an impact?! You must be joking. Even ignoring the psychological impact, and the practical effects of shortages, which were substantial, the bombing prevented germany from exploiting a spectacular technological advantage. Their jet developments, their Tiger tanks, and the assault rifle could each have made a considerable difference had any of them been produced in more significant numbers.

But as far as Japan is concerned.... They, knowing up front that war with the US was an all or nothing proposition, forced a country with industry they knew they could never threaten into a war of survival. Then, only at the last minute of the eleventh hour they trusted, unwisely, in an obscure, by japanese standards, implied meaning of a phrase that appears to mean "Sit and spin ass-clown" but can mean "I'm listening...." That was the only comprimise that was politically tenable because some of the politicians and all of the military in Japan wanted to fight to the very last child so nothing was left of their people but a glorious final battle. Ultimately, Japan only surrendered after some elements of the Japanese armed forces chose their God, or perhaps more accurately their own soul, over their esprit de corps. It is not incumbant upon the wronged to accept the least peace a warmonger will agree to. Should those who start wars find themselves in need of peace, it is their responsability to offer one the aggrieved would desire to live with. The proof is in the fact that they didn't offer unconditional surrender shortly after the first atomic bomb. They had known that the war was unwinnable for a VERY long time before those entered the picture.

When the Carthaginians tried it with the Romans they were almost completely erased from history. Japan was fortunate to escape that fate. The reason they did is due untirely to American mercy, and the unwillingness of the Japanese Emporer to gamble that the Americans didn't have a sizable stockpile of atomic weapons. I'm sure they're forever thankful they weren't left to the tender mercies of the other asian peoples or the Russians for that matter.

As far as just brutality, the Allied firebombing was far more destructive, and inflicted deaths at least as awful. The atomic weapons are a force multiplier. They simplifiy the logistics for the country that employs them. They don't really destroy "better" than other bombing options. Even the T shaped bridge survived the blast. They just do a job with a lot less risk. Much like a B-2.

On the "fruitlessness" of war: Certainly one has to consider what does the voilent end of an otherwise good person (quite frankly does it even matter if they're a civilian?) really serve. And I don't think answers come readily to anyone. But as we examine the past, those who live in the peace that follows war are better off. Were it not for Ghengis Khan, there would be no Russia, nor a China. Without Britain where would America be? I can tell you the 1600 Pennsylvania Ave wouldn't be called "The Whitehouse" and the Star Spangled Banner wouldn't even be a poem let alone a cherished national touchstone. Or where would India be? And would there even be an example such as Ghandi? (Not the Clone High version) What about America and our civil war? Britain without it's endless series of conquests (as both perpetrator and victim) would surely not have risen to so dominate the world. The wages of those multitude of wars have made the superpowers of the world. The children born into that wake have built a legacy of wealth and stability for their children. The poorer areas of the world, dominated so easily and comparitively gently during the age of Enlightenment are struggling with perpetual war, famine, genocide, inconcievable grinding poverty, as ever more people fight for ever fewer resources. Instead they're locked in a feudal system in an era where war is too deadly to afford any opportunity for reconsideration.

On the "fruitlessness" of war: Certainly one has to consider what does the voilent end of an otherwise good person (quite frankly does it even matter if they're a civilian?) really serve. And I don't think answers come readily to anyone. But as we examine the past, those who live in the peace that follows war are better off. Were it not for Ghengis Khan, there would be no Russia, nor a China. Without Britain where would America be? I can tell you the 1600 Pennsylvania Ave wouldn't be called "The Whitehouse" and the Star Spangled Banner wouldn't even be a poem let alone a cherished national touchstone. Or where would India be? And would there even be an example such as Ghandi? (Not the Clone High version) What about America and our civil war? Britain without it's endless series of conquests (as both perpetrator and victim) would surely not have risen to so dominate the world. The wages of those multitude of wars have made the superpowers of the world. The children born into that wake have built a legacy of wealth and stability for their children. The poorer areas of the world, dominated so easily and comparitively gently during the age of Enlightenment are struggling with perpetual war, famine, genocide, inconcievable grinding poverty, as ever more people fight for ever fewer resources. Instead they're locked in a feudal system in an era where war is too deadly to afford any opportunity for reconsideration.

If I am understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I am not, you are stating that war is nessisary for the advancement of human civilization, right? I am not sure I agree with your reasoning that war provides a chance to sit and think after the death and destuction. It seems to me that a great deal of humanity's achivements have been made in peace and prosperity rather than wartime. Not to mention that millions that had died would have lived, and who know what genius was amoung the dead who never had a chance to bloom.

If I totally missed your intent, my apologies.

War isn't neccessary for human development but it is a hell of a spur. Only the space race produced nearly as many advancements in technology as warfare did. NO, I won't back that up with a single bit of evidence or data so :p

War isn't neccessary for human development but it is a hell of a spur. Only the space race produced nearly as many advancements in technology as warfare did. NO, I won't back that up with a single bit of evidence or data so :p Plastics, Microwave Ovens, Television, walkie-Talkies...
Just some of the examples before people start posting "Guns, bomb, K-rations..."

except that alot of Modern advances came from the Military. Plastics, Microwave Ovens, Television, walkie-Talkies...

so your agreeing with me, right? Why did you begin with "except", that would seem to indicate disagreement but the rest of your statment agrees with mine, so confused by this I am.

so your agreeing with me, right? Why did you begin with "except", that would seem to indicate disagreement but the rest of your statment agrees with mine, so confused by this I am.too tired... basically providing examples for you... and these are things not ment to kill... unless used improperly... will edit previous post.

too tired... basically providing examples for you... and these are things not ment to kill... unless used improperly... will edit previous post.

no reason to edit!!! Rest my friend, rest. Plastics always help us to rest. :)

If I am understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I am not, you are stating that war is nessisary for the advancement of human civilization, right? I am not sure I agree with your reasoning that war provides a chance to sit and think after the death and destuction. It seems to me that a great deal of humanity's achivements have been made in peace and prosperity rather than wartime. Not to mention that millions that had died would have lived, and who know what genius was amoung the dead who never had a chance to bloom.

If I totally missed your intent, my apologies.
if you go by that then how do u feel about using it as protection. we didn't use it only to protect us but also to help great britain china and all of the other places japan invaded. unless u forgot about those places i would say that we were saving human civilazation. peace and prosperity ha. ya im sure they would have loved to have president roosevelt sit in a building where they could have sent a couple of suicide bombers to show that they are ready for peace. ya and if they didnt attack us who knows what american could have"bloomed" but i guess that isnt in a consideration right?
the mysterious shadow they call:
evil jay

if you go by that then how do u feel about using it as protection. we didn't use it only to protect us but also to help great britain china and all of the other places japan invaded. unless u forgot about those places i would say that we were saving human civilazation. peace and prosperity ha. ya im sure they would have loved to have president roosevelt sit in a building where they could have sent a couple of suicide bombers to show that they are ready for peace. ya and if they didnt attack us who knows what american could have"bloomed" but i guess that isnt in a consideration right?
the mysterious shadow they call:
evil jay

Ano... I wasn't talking about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was responding to the notion that warfare in general is fruitful for humanity, not specifically World War II. To answer your question though, I would rather that the whole chain of events AND WWII had not happened. No Hitler, no Pearl Harbor, no 'Final Solution' and no Hiroshima.

Great Britian was never invaded by Japan, its colonies were.

And I am very much aware of what Japan did. Which is why I have stated that while I wish there had been another way to end the war besides the Bomb, damned if I can think of a way that would have ended the war as soon without causing more death.

You people are heartless, "dropping the bomb saved lives" you make me sick. If the US had taken up a land invasion at least the Japanese people could have defended themselves, there was no defence for what you unleashed upon them (and the entire world, for that matter) it is not a question of statistics, it is a matter of national and individual pride, not only the A-bombs, but also the firebomb campaign and the desecration of ancient Japanese rituals and traditions
after the war thanks to you scare tactics.

Go and bomb your own country, you deserve it.

You people are heartless, "dropping the bomb saved lives" you make me sick. If the US had taken up a land invasion at least the Japanese people could have defended themselves, there was no defence for what you unleashed upon them (and the entire world, for that matter) it is not a question of statistics, it is a matter of national and individual pride, not only the A-bombs, but also the firebomb campaign and the desecration of ancient Japanese rituals and traditions
after the war thanks to you scare tactics.

Go and bomb your own country, you deserve it.kinda like how Pearl Harbor could Adequetly defend themselves against the Japanese Sneak Attack? Do you know how close the Japanese came to Destroying the US Pacific Fleet? Had they succeeded, the US probably would have ignored the Eruopean Theatre and concentrated only on the Japanese which might have left Germany in a stronger position.

why don't we all agree... the A-bomb ended that War. It may not be pretty, alot of people died, but the fighting stopped. Japanese still have their pride, and their land. and the world knows the Horror of Nuclear Weapons and thus are more vigilant against them being used.

and lets refrain from the insults.

*snip*It is a matter of national and individual pride
Far better for all of Japan to be destroyed and a great many more Japanese killed for a matter of pride? Well, the Japanese High Command thought so, their planned defence of the home islands was entitled 'A 100 Million Deaths With Honor' and were training women to face down an landing force with bamboo spears. For pride and honor of course.
*snip*But also the firebomb campaign and the desecration of ancient Japanese rituals and traditions after the war thanks to you scare tactics.
Ok, I admit you have me there, which ancient Japanese rituals and traditions were desercrated by American scare tactics after the war?

But as we examine the past, those who live in the peace that follows war are better off. Were it not for Ghengis Khan, there would be no Russia, nor a China. Without Britain where would America be? I can tell you the 1600 Pennsylvania Ave wouldn't be called "The Whitehouse" and the Star Spangled Banner wouldn't even be a poem let alone a cherished national touchstone. Or where would India be? And would there even be an example such as Ghandi?

What a moronic series of sentiments.

Those who live in the peace that follows war are better off? Some of them might be, for instance the winners, if they've managed to nick stuff off the losers. Historically, the losers are enslaved, impoverished, etc.

Were it not for ghengis khan, there would be no China? Why? according to http://www.hazelwood.k12.mo.us/~cdavis01/webquests/jgw/ , Genghis Khan was born around 1165 and died August 1207. China had already been in existence as a single unified political entity for about 1400 years. Was it about to melt?

Without Britain where would america be? Right where it is now. It might have a different name, although it might not, given that it is named after Amerigo Vespucci, who wasn't British. Perhaps you're asking where the American people would be? Well, if it wasn't for war, they'd be in the same place, america. There might be slight difference in theri ethnic compostion though, as there might be quite a lot more American Indian blood in the mix.

The White House wouldn't be called the White House? Well thank God for war, because that's the most important thing eh? The Star Spangled Banner? Where would we be without it? (right here, I think. Anyone want to swap the star spangled banner for world peace? I think probably you do?).

Where would India be without war? In India. What's your point? If Ghandi hadn't had to resist the British Occupation because there wasn't one, I expect Ghandi would have been much better off, and so would everyone else.

You seem to believe that it is better for people to have a shit time struggling against war than to not have to have war to deal with.

In truth the dropping of the second Device at Nagasaki was probably more political and to show that the US had te capability to really cause a lot more destruction and that Little boy was not unique (which it was, as nearly all devices apart from the Grable Artillery shell were implosion as opposed to Gun devices but I digress). It did however ensure that no-one dared use one in agression in the following years of the cold war and arms race.

<gonna get hammered for this next statement I feel it in my paws>

You could argue that the legacy of those that died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that no other Atomic weapon has been used in agression since 1945, and there have been many instances where I am sure that some nation/leaders would have liked to.

=^..^=
*All animals are created equal*
*But some animals are more equal than others*

After the war the Japanese were so afraid of another atomic browbeating that they agreed to anything the Americans wanted, the only stipulation they were allowed in the treaty was that the Emperor was allowed to remain head of state.
But you Americans forced the Emperor to renounce his dynasties claim that they were the direct descendants of the sun goddess Amaterasu and therefore gods on Earth. This belief had kept the Imperial family in power for over 2000 years, if it were not for that tradition, Japan would have shattered into hundreds of warring states centuries ago and was a key tenet of the Shinto religion. And you you Americans thought you had the right and the moral superiority to force the Imperial family to renounce this claim, and why, because your constitution says all men are created equal? You destroyed a 2000 year old tradition and in doing so practically killed the Japanese spirit. You may not think this but the Japanese people were never the same again, I count this as one of the worst acts of cultural imperialism ever.

I love how the brainwashed Americans are spewing a lot of shitty propaganda again.


DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him 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 that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63


ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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 not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.


GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.


GENERAL CARL "TOOEY" SPAATZ
(In charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific)

General Spaatz was the person who received the order for the Air Force to "deliver its first special bomb as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945..."(Leslie Groves, Now It Can Be Told, pg. 308). In a 1964 interview, Spaatz explained:

"The dropping of the atomic bomb was done by a military man under military orders. We're supposed to carry out orders and not question them."

In the same interview, Spaatz referred to the Japanese military's plan to get better peace terms, and he gave an alternative to the atomic bombings:

"If we were to go ahead with the plans for a conventional invasion with ground and naval forces, I believe the Japanese thought that they could inflict very heavy casualties on us and possibly as a result get better surrender terms. On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time." (Herbert Feis Papers, Box 103, N.B.C. Interviews, Carl Spaatz interview by Len Giovannitti, Library of Congress).


BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.


That's what the US military had to say about it. Now think over it and don't try to sell a political decision as a military necessity.

Both nuclear weapons were a sign to the USSR, nothing else. In April/May 1945 the western allies and the USSR were pretty close to a war inside the war when the British and Yugoslav forces occupied Klagenfurt in Austria. The Yugoslavs wanted part of Austria for their "Greater Yugoslavia", the British saw their own interests in Greece and Turkey endangered by that. Churchill gave the order that the Yugoslavs had to be removed from Austria, if necessary, by force. Alexander, at that time CO of the British army in the south, was reluctant and doubted that the troops would fight with the same enthusiasm against the Yugoslavs as they did against the Germans. Then Churchill wrote to him "They'll warm up once the shooting starts".

Stalin gave in and ordered Tito to pull out.

It was just the beginning.

It also finally proved one thing. The enemy after WW2 was the USSR (something that had been clear in 1943/44 already). If you count two and two together the result is four.

Everyone knew that the USSR would be the enemy.

There was a powerful weapon available and it was used (Germany was considered as target for a while, but it's unlikely they would have done that, since it would have been too close to the zones of interest for the western allies. Also who cares if that device kills a few yellow buggers, I mean, don't we Asians look all the same to you westerners?).

2+2=4

The goal was simple. Finish the production of the nuclear bomb, test it, then test it under combat conditions and you have a sign towards Stalin and the Russian Bear "look what we've got, so you better watch out before you start anything."

Not that it mattered, since soon everyone wanted a nuclear bomb (and even today every shitty littly dictator wants a nuke (or already has one or two)).

The argument with the invasion of Japan is bullshit (as even MacArthur said). It's unlikely that they would have ever done that, and even if, it's unlikely that there would have been such a strong resistence. There were more options than an invasion.

Also, if you keep one thing in mind then you realize that the nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't make any sense. Earlier Japanese attempts to surrender had been ignored by the Americans, for the simple reason that the Americans wanted to removed the emperor in the beginning and the Japanese wanted to keep it. Then the bombs are dropped, the Japanese surrender is accepted and Japan gets to keep the emperor. Where's the sense in that? There's none. Why drop the bombs then at all if not as a sign of power to the Soviets?

And even if the Japanese would have destroyed the whole pacific fleet of the USN at Pearl, it wouldn't have changed a thing. I doubt that people here ever had a look at the production numbers of the US industry. And if you consider the fact that the Japanese strike froce retreated from Pearl after the attack an further attack wasn't even planned. Even if the US would have lost all carriers at Pearl it wouldn't have changed anything. The industrial capacity of the USA would have compensated quickly for that loss.


Also

No American, British or non-Asian in general has the right to comment on what the Japanese did in China or anywhere else in Asia. Your governments merely watched when elements of the Japanese army raped Nanking, just like your governments sat on their asses and watched when Hitler invaded the Rheinland, the Sudetenland, Austria and Czechoslovakia.

It could have ended there, yet nobody did anything.

And people wonder why there are anti-American sentiments everywhere on the world.

And you know, this December, when the girlfriend of my best friend raises the Hinomaru again on December 7th, I will join her.

And honestly, I rather deal with some right winged Japanese over the issue of Nanking than with Americans over the issue of the pacific theater and the nuclear weapons. Least the Japanese aren't as brainwashed.

And the legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the subsequent deaths of future generations from cancer and other radiation related illnesses, you condemed not only the innocent civilians of those cities, but also their children and their childrens children (and western scientists knew perfectly well the concequences of radiation at the time, the statement that they were in the dark is an outright fabrication)

After the war the Japanese were so afraid of another atomic browbeating that they agreed to anything the Americans wanted, the only stipulation they were allowed in the treaty was that the Emperor was allowed to remain head of state.
But you Americans forced the Emperor to renounce his dynasties claim that they were the direct descendants of the sun goddess Amaterasu and therefore gods on Earth. This belief had kept the Imperial family in power for over 2000 years, if it were not for that tradition, Japan would have shattered into hundreds of warring states centuries ago and was a key tenet of the Shinto religion. And you you Americans thought you had the right and the moral superiority to force the Imperial family to renounce this claim, and why, because your constitution says all men are created equal? You destroyed a 2000 yoar old tradition and in doing so practically killed the Japanese spirit. You may not think this but the Japanese people were never the same again, I count this as one of the worst acts of cultural imperialism ever.Considering the fact that Some of his own Generals were plotting to kill the EMPEROR to stop the surrender and keep the war going kinda points to the failing of the Emperor's status and power anyway. In fact, due to reports from the soldiers who were going to Kill the Emperor, it was an American Bomber flying overhead that saved the Emperor's life.

The Japanese Spirit Killed? Bullshit. the Japanse spirit still lives on. the Samurai Spirit died, but that was due to the introduction of GUNS by the EUROPEANS. Another aspect of the Spirit that died was the CASTE system. and for that, I say Good riddence.

The whole reason behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not to force a surrender from the Japanese, but to show the "pinko commie ruskies" that they had such a weapon.

But you Americans.

There is an awful lot more of us non-americans (and unamericans) out there than americans.

=^..^=
*All animals are created equal*
*But some animals are more equal than others*

I don't care, whenever the subject of Hiroshima and Nagasaki comes up I always
start accusing the Americans and address them directly, because they should be ashamed of themselves, only when they apologise will the blood be off their hands, and I hold every last one of them responsible.

nice to see an alternative viewpoint put forward. have to consider how much of it is revisionism by people who wanted to be seen as doves in the 50s and 60s though.


No American, British or non-Asian in general has the right to comment on what the Japanese did in China or anywhere else in Asia.

bullshit. what "my" government did is irrelevant. I have the right to comment because i am a human being. my nationality is also irrelevant. the nanjing massacre was one of many atrocities committed by the japanese, and the japanese people should be as sorry and ashamed as the british people should be about the atrocities british people have committed all over the world.

a nation is made up of individuals, and unless those individuals acknowledge what has been done in their name, and understand how wicked it was, and deal with any tendency of their society to behave in that way again, there can be no progress.

And I mean all countries, including the US.

I dont get the obsession with hiroshima and nagasaki. They were both viable military targets due to the Japanese's willingness to fight to the last man, but compare it to dresden. A city with no military targets, completely destroyed, killing more people than hiroshima or nagasaki, toward the end of the war when we were already winning.

I dont know if bombing dresden was justified, but I'm just pointing out that people tend to fixate on hiroshima and nagasaki because they were destroyed with an A-bomb, but that shouldnt distinguish them from other 'atrocities'.

Considering the fact that Some of his own Generals were plotting to kill the EMPEROR to stop the surrender and keep the war going kinda points to the failing of the Emperor's status and power anyway. In fact, due to reports from the soldiers who were going to Kill the Emperor, it was an American Bomber flying overhead that saved the Emperor's life.

The Japanese Spirit Killed? Bullshit. the Japanse spirit still lives on. the Samurai Spirit died, but that was due to the introduction of GUNS by the EUROPEANS. Another aspect of the Spirit that died was the CASTE system. and for that, I say Good riddence.

That lack of respect for the Emperor shown there was due to the fact that the desecration of the legends surrounding him and the dynasty had already started, it started when Commadore Perry first came to Japan and extoled the supposed superiority of the "American way" and soon after that the Meiji restoration happened and Japan began its long and painful slide into becoming an Asian carbon copy of America. The generals plotting to kill the Emperor were also planning to simply let a son of his take the throne, still holding up the tradition of the dynastys divinity, it was just in their minds that because of the Emperors willingness to make peace with the Americans made them felt that the current Emperor had forfeited his divinity and must be disposed of.

I don't care, whenever the subject of Hiroshima and Nagasaki comes up I always
start accusing the Americans and address them directly, because they should be ashamed of themselves, only when they apologise will the blood be off their hands, and I hold every last one of them responsible.

WTF? Where do you get off holding responsible people who's parents hadn't yet been concieved! I get so tired of this "sins of the father" nonsense. I feel responsible for things for which I bear some responsibility, no more. I am no more responsible for the dropping of the atomic bomb than I am what you choose to eat for lunch today. So get off you bloody high horse.

After the war the Japanese were so afraid of another atomic browbeating that they agreed to anything the Americans wanted, the only stipulation they were allowed in the treaty was that the Emperor was allowed to remain head of state.
But you Americans forced the Emperor to renounce his dynasties claim that they were the direct descendants of the sun goddess Amaterasu and therefore gods on Earth. This belief had kept the Imperial family in power for over 2000 years, if it were not for that tradition, Japan would have shattered into hundreds of warring states centuries ago and was a key tenet of the Shinto religion. And you you Americans thought you had the right and the moral superiority to force the Imperial family to renounce this claim, and why, because your constitution says all men are created equal? You destroyed a 2000 year old tradition and in doing so practically killed the Japanese spirit. You may not think this but the Japanese people were never the same again, I count this as one of the worst acts of cultural imperialism ever.
Ok... where the hell did that come from? If I may direct your attention to a few points: One, the document of surrender did not give the Japanese any leeway in regards to the Imperial family. The terms were full unconditional surrender. Two, the notion that the Imperial family is descended from Amaterasu Omikami is indeed an old one, but hardly a key tenet of Shinto. Shinto itself is a naturalistic religion that is more concerned with natural rhythms and purity. State Shintoism, which DID emphasize the divinity of the Emperor, was invented late in the Meiji-Taisho eras. Three, the reason America wished to disable the State Shinto was that it was being used as an excuse to promote the idea of Japanese superiority over all other peoples.

Finally, it can hardly be said that the Imperial Family has been in power. For most of its history, the Imperial Family has been nothing more than it is now, a symbol. Through various shogun dynasties, and warning states period, the Imperial Family's control extended to the boundaries of Kyoto and no further. The Empire of Yamamoto really was a long faded dream until the Meiji Restoration. And even then it is hard to say that the Meiji, Taisho, and Showa Emperors had the divine control you claim for them.

And if you think the Japanese sprit has been broken, I respectfully suggest that you have not met many Japanese. That Yamamoto spirit still thrives.

nice to see an alternative viewpoint put forward. have to consider how much of it is revisionism by people who wanted to be seen as doves in the 50s and 60s though.

Exactly. Look at what was said in 1945, rather than 1965. A-bombs looked like a much worse idea once MAD was in full effect.

I don't care, whenever the subject of Hiroshima and Nagasaki comes up I always
start accusing the Americans and address them directly, because they should be ashamed of themselves, only when they apologise will the blood be off their hands, and I hold every last one of them responsible.

If Eisenhower felt a surrender could be negotiated without use of the weapon, then I agree it should not have been used (any more than continued conventional firebombing). If they were ready to give up, the U.S. should have let them. Many Americans are not "brainwashed", many of us question our government and want to know more about evidence from both sides. I personally feel that the horrificness in war is not worse when one device or another is used, but an attack of any kind on a civilian target that wants to surrender would be wrong, in my opinion. If I had been President, and there was any other way, I honestly believe I would have tried to find it before continued bombing of any kind.

But, as an American (the first American of my family, my Dad and prior came from the Filipine islands), do I have the right to apologize for someone else's choice? When I was in Japan last year, I never held a single person responsible for the Japanese troops that killed my civilian grandfather (a history teacher). To my knowledge, they did not hold me responsible for Nagasaki or Hiroshima, even though I'm American. Help me understand how I put this blood on my hands.

If I am understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I am not, you are stating that war is nessisary for the advancement of human civilization, right? I am not sure I agree with your reasoning that war provides a chance to sit and think after the death and destuction. It seems to me that a great deal of humanity's achivements have been made in peace and prosperity rather than wartime. Not to mention that millions that had died would have lived, and who know what genius was amoung the dead who never had a chance to bloom.

If I totally missed your intent, my apologies.

I wouldn't say you missread it, more like I'm intentionally vague on the necessity of it. I think war is inevitable. We're a highly aggressive, predatory, territorial, and impressivly social species with a great capacity for creativity and abstraction. One must expect a great deal of conflict will not only arise, but result in swift and violent death. But that isn't exactly the same as saying it's unavoidable. We're all basically born with the capacity to be reasonable, we just frequently choose not to be. Maybe because abstraction and rational thought are recently added talents, we go to them first and last but prefer to live most of our lives inbetween. Perhaps this is why lasting peace follows horrible wars. The options being abandonment of those things the mighty find incompatable with their dominion, or destruction. One way, or another, a more unified view of the world, and a people's identity take hold. Perhaps there is a new void for the human jungle to reclaim, perhaps a new balance is found.

But it is certain the superpowers and wealth of today are enjoyed largely because the dissenters of the past are dead, usually with their children. The harvest is no doubt bitter, but I don't think we can deny that it is nutritious for those who live to claim it.

That said, our modern world was built for war. The internet is a classic example. But computers in general, for a VERY long time, were little more than a curiosity outside of code breaking and calculating accurate artillery tables. Even the satellites that have added so much value through accurate weather forecasting are the result of the cold war. The soviets were first, as we all know, with their confirmation of their ability to drop a nuclear weapon on any city anywhere. But the Americans decided to do something interesting right off the bat. The first American satellite was a spy satellite! Even the moon shot, for both sides, was most important as a way to develope technologies useful for delivering the ultimate weapons and insuring peace through no other option. I don't even think we have to mention radar, frequency hoping, jet engines, nuclear power/medicine, and so many other things. Even things you wouldn't expect, like the familiar aluminum can. Even the venerable steel. Great for tools, so versitile, easy to use, cheap, and reliable. But it wasn't first used to make a better plow, or a better chisel. There are good reasons for this. There is no more risky business than war, and the need to control risk is what drives innovation. And it is one of the few endeavors that can command the wealth of an entire nation.

There are some great invetions that came in the wake of peace, in the calm that followed the storm. But the ones that dominate our lives, they're products of the sensible, if less than noble, desire to make some other poor bastard die for his country first.

Looking back, I find the prospect that a little more war back "then," when it wasn't quite so deadly as it is now, might have forced people to raise slightly more sensible decensdants who would be populating a more stable world. This limited kind of warfare we see now only insures the conflict will survive to see more leathal and cheaper weapons. Where is the greater evil? Is it measured in the number of dead? The quality of life enjoyed by those out of the shadow of it's living memory? An interesting puzzle I think. I certainly don't have what I would consider a definitive answer. All I can say is I'm immensely greatful to have been born into the wake of peace, surrounding the predominent superpower. As opposed to being born into crushing poverty, and perpetual strife that would likely have already led to my early, miserable death, having been denied even the opportunity to explore what ultimately I consider to be the birthright of every human, or quite honestly even the rudementary freedoms that are a wealth of opportunity most people who've lived can't even concieve of, yet so omnipresent they're all but invisible to me. Or perhaps I'm just a counter-surrealist.

And if you think the Japanese sprit has been broken, I respectfully suggest that you have not met many Japanese. That Yamamoto spirit still thrives.

indeed, so broken was the japanese spirit that after the war japan continued the economic development that had been going on there since the 18th century and ended up one of the largest economies in the world.

When I was in Japan last year, I never held a single person responsible for the Japanese troops that killed my civilian grandfather (a history teacher). To my knowledge, they did not hold me responsible for Nagasaki or Hiroshima, even though I'm American. Help me understand how I put this blood on my hands.

It is of course ridiculous to hold each and every japanese person individually responsible for the killing of your grandfather, and it is equally ridiculous to hold each american individually responsible for nagasaki.

However, individual citizens of a nation take the blood spilt by that nation onto their hands when they close their eyes and ears to the truth of actions performed by other citizens of that nation, particularly by its government, big business etc.

If you refuse to acknowledge what happened at nagasaki, and why it happened, and then vote for a government or invest in a company that would see such things happen again, you are guilty.

and how would you have won the war? you cant even comprehend the Japanese mentality during WW2. they were willing to fight the last man, woman, and child. they even trained girls in school with bamboo sticks for when the American soldiers came. when they saw they A-bomb they knew there was no chance of even harming americans, meanwhile hundreds of thousands of their people were dying. is it better that Americans and Japanese fight on Japanese soil, causing the slaughter of MILLIONS on both sides, or that a few hundred thousand of the enemy die?


That is a vast oversimplification. There were individuals that thought surrender was the best option before the A-bomb and there were individuals that wanted to fight to the death afterward.

The truth is the Japanese government was looking for a chance to surrender long fore Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It simply wouldn't have been an unconditional surrender.
The US government fought against the surrender because for two reasons. It would have left Japan with military capibility and it would have greatly benifited the Soviet Union.

On the other side of the spectrum, Japan almost didn't surrender. There was a short military coup in which a rouge officer and his supporter stole the recording of the Emperor's surrender announcement and essentially occupied the Imperial residence. When the Japanese Minister of War chose to commit suicide rather than choose between betraying his Emperor and supporting the surrender, the movement lost credibility within the military and its leader also comited suicide.
However, for a few hours on the morning of the surrender announcment Japan was controlled by a hardline military dictarorship that would have fought to the death anyway. The A bomb didn't stop that. Fanatical Japanese loyality stoped that.

I heard on a TV doco that they were growing crops to leech some heavy metals out of the ground...
But is that sold as food ... it sounds like a tool for removal of some of the elements they need to get rid of BEFORE growing real food crops

Actualy, what benefitted the Soviet Union was the delay caused by insisting upon unconditional surrender. The Sovs entered the Pacific War very late indeed, and took full advantage to snap up territory from Japan, some of which they still hold.

Ahh, but the soviets were the ones negoating the conditional surrender with Japan. They would have probably gotten more territory that way.

I love how the brainwashed Americans are spewing a lot of shitty propaganda again.
And you know, this December, when the girlfriend of my best friend raises the Hinomaru again on December 7th, I will join her.

And honestly, I rather deal with some right winged Japanese over the issue of Nanking than with Americans over the issue of the pacific theater and the nuclear weapons. Least the Japanese aren't as brainwashed.

I think I asked you this on the other thread you started on this issue and never got a responce. So, please tell me, have you visitied Yasukuni Jinja? Because your conclusions and supporting documentation matches theirs so well.

Feel free to raise the Hinomaru, I see it everyday and think of it more as a symbol of the friends I have made more than I do of those war years.

But I do think it is rather funny that in talking about this raging topic and the various responces to my Japanese friends and fiancee, their responce has been one of confusion. They are not sure as to why we are bothering, as we are not Japanese, or what meaning it has.

Shoganai ne?

It is of course ridiculous to hold each and every japanese person individually responsible for the killing of your grandfather, and it is equally ridiculous to hold each american individually responsible for nagasaki.

However, individual citizens of a nation take the blood spilt by that nation onto their hands when they close their eyes and ears to the truth of actions performed by other citizens of that nation, particularly by its government, big business etc.

If you refuse to acknowledge what happened at nagasaki, and why it happened, and then vote for a government or invest in a company that would see such things happen again, you are guilty.

It was the individual responsibility that I was objecting to. Also, I don't believe I ever refused to acknowledge what happend at Nagasaki, but the debate should be "Was the leadership wrong and if so, we should make closer scrutiny of our government's decisions now and in the future, and not take their answers without skepticism." Please tell me which government action I have supported or corporate investment I have made that makes me guilty, and I will examine it to try to understand and amend. Please explain the blood on my individual hands.

WTF? Where do you get off holding responsible people who's parents hadn't yet been concieved! I get so tired of this "sins of the father" nonsense. I feel responsible for things for which I bear some responsibility, no more. I am no more responsible for the dropping of the atomic bomb than I am what you choose to eat for lunch today. So get off you bloody high horse.

America's reckless use of radioactive weaponry caused the deaths of many descendants of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that survived, if your ancestors condemed the descendants of their enemy to death, then you, as a descendant of the attacker, is equaly responsible for the act.

You guys are a load of Sh1t leave me alone
PWNED!

Hahah, but seriously - you were the one who started this thread; you admit defeat

What a moronic series of sentiments.

Those who live in the peace that follows war are better off? Some of them might be, for instance the winners, if they've managed to nick stuff off the losers. Historically, the losers are enslaved, impoverished, etc.

Were it not for ghengis khan, there would be no China? Why? according to http://www.hazelwood.k12.mo.us/~cdavis01/webquests/jgw/ , Genghis Khan was born around 1165 and died August 1207. China had already been in existence as a single unified political entity for about 1400 years. Was it about to melt?

Without Britain where would america be? Right where it is now. It might have a different name, although it might not, given that it is named after Amerigo Vespucci, who wasn't British. Perhaps you're asking where the American people would be? Well, if it wasn't for war, they'd be in the same place, america. There might be slight difference in theri ethnic compostion though, as there might be quite a lot more American Indian blood in the mix.

The White House wouldn't be called the White House? Well thank God for war, because that's the most important thing eh? The Star Spangled Banner? Where would we be without it? (right here, I think. Anyone want to swap the star spangled banner for world peace? I think probably you do?).

Where would India be without war? In India. What's your point? If Ghandi hadn't had to resist the British Occupation because there wasn't one, I expect Ghandi would have been much better off, and so would everyone else.

You seem to believe that it is better for people to have a shit time struggling against war than to not have to have war to deal with.

Spoken like a true pendant. What you seem unable to grasp is the importance of national identity, and how a homogenization or increase in tolerance of a population can allow for it to create wealth. It's not an accident that the many wars and acts of exploitation have made the powerful nations what they are. They've escaped tribalism and feudalism. Is it the only way, no. But it's a pretty effective and common way. Would you have been more impressed if I'd listed a more complete history of China starting with the warring states period? Or focused on the uniting of Japan, up through domination of China, the invention of "gunboat diplomacy", the Russo Japanese war, and the aftershocks from WWII? How about you just take in some modern Chinese mythology and watch Hero. It's only what the movie is about. A nation isn't a place, it's a common people. Great wars (in the awful sense) are a big part of what unites them.

Re Japan. I notice in your other post you don't note any of the quite raucous internal debates taking place within Japans political and military circles at the time. Most of which centered around a glorious end for a people who were trying to pull a daffy duck is a devil suit, or stick around to see how things turned out, and how many atomic weapons the US might really have, if the US really had them, and the capacity of Japan to continue to wage war in the face of such weapons. If they need peace it's incumbent upon them to do whatever they can to get it. The fact is they hadn't decided if that's what they really wanted, and were unwilling to risk provoking a coup by plainly communicating their desires to the US politicians. The second atomic weapon, ultimately forced them to end the debate. And given that the Japanese had their aircraft carrier submarine loaded with biological weapons on the way to the west coast makes me a little less than sensitive to their ideal surrender scenerios. They gambled the lives of their countrymen away for appearances sake. They turned down their last best chances for surrender. Their reward for their indecisiveness was awful and wholly of their own making. In the end they still didn't choose until after second atomic weapon. The coup, it's failure and the conviction of the emporer are moments that forged a new Japanese identity. Just as the deals with the devil the US made in the prosecution of Japanese war criminals, the "trials" in Manilla shaped an aspect of America that is critically important to this day.

Do what you want on December 7th. It's an expression of your character.

What I find really utterly stupid is that people complain about all the atrocies that happened in WW2 by the Nazi's and Japanesse is that the US A-bombed Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of people and poisoned people for genarations and basically killed off New York in comprapsion. Its not that Im saying the Holocaust wasn't bad or anything but give it a rest. The US ruined 100's of square kilometers(or miles) of land and killed hundreds of thousands

Peace Out - No one deserves to die... At dusk and in the morning we will remember Them

1) Hiroshima and Nagasaki have both been rebuilt and are thriving cities.
2) The Firebombings of Japanese Cities killed far more people than the 2 atomic bombs combined.
3) The cities were legitament Military Targets
4) It was either drop the bomb or hundreds of thousands of US casualties as well as millions of Japanese civilian casualties in an invasion

Points 3 and 4 were the factors that led President Truman to order the bomb being dropped. Why is this being debated again?

Spoken like a true pendant. What you seem unable to grasp is the importance of national identity, and how a homogenization or increase in tolerance of a population can allow for it to create wealth. It's not an accident that the many wars and acts of exploitation have made the powerful nations what they are. They've escaped tribalism and feudalism. Is it the only way, no. But it's a pretty effective and common way. Would you have been more impressed if I'd listed a more complete history of China starting with the warring states period? Or focused on the uniting of Japan, up through domination of China, the invention of "gunboat diplomacy", the Russo Japanese war, and the aftershocks from WWII? How about you just take in some modern Chinese mythology and watch Hero. It's only what the movie is about. A nation isn't a place, it's a common people. Great wars (in the awful sense) are a big part of what unites them.

Re Japan. I notice in your other post you don't note any of the quite raucous internal debates taking place within Japans political and military circles at the time. Most of which centered around a glorious end for a people who were trying to pull a daffy duck is a devil suit, or stick around to see how things turned out, and how many atomic weapons the US might really have, if the US really had them, and the capacity of Japan to continue to wage war in the face of such weapons. If they need peace it's incumbent upon them to do whatever they can to get it. The fact is they hadn't decided if that's what they really wanted, and were unwilling to risk provoking a coup by plainly communicating their desires to the US politicians. The second atomic weapon, ultimately forced them to end the debate. And given that the Japanese had their aircraft carrier submarine loaded with biological weapons on the way to the west coast makes me a little less than sensitive to their ideal surrender scenerios. They gambled the lives of their countrymen away for appearances sake. They turned down their last best chances for surrender. Their reward for their indecisiveness was awful and wholly of their own making. In the end they still didn't choose until after second atomic weapon. The coup, it's failure and the conviction of the emporer are moments that forged a new Japanese identity. Just as the deals with the devil the US made in the prosecution of Japanese war criminals, the "trials" in Manilla shaped an aspect of America that is critically important to this day.

Do what you want on December 7th. It's an expression of your character.

Without a truely unique culture, a country is nothing, thanks to the Americans, Japan is now nothing more than a carbon copy of America with only a faint reminder of its former glory.

I'm just glad that Shinto is still the largest religion, because other than that...

America's reckless use of radioactive weaponry caused the deaths of many descendants of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that survived, if your ancestors condemed the descendants of their enemy to death, then you, as a descendant of the attacker, is equaly responsible for the act.

Okay, I need to know how many people agree with Europe and Eurasia on this one. What about somebody descended from both? One of your Grandfathers is Japanese, the other was an ordinance specialist for the U.S. Army. Dissociative Identity Disorder?

Without a truely unique culture, a country is nothing, thanks to the Americans, Japan is now nothing more than a carbon copy of America with only a faint reminder of its former glory.

I'm just glad that Shinto is still the largest religion, because other than that...so you would rather live in Ye old merry Japan?

Good Luck. and I hope you are pure blooded Japanese. Btw... does your wife work? hope not. that's says you don't earn enough support your family.
Enjoying your Elections... that's a no no... only the elder families are suppose to rule.

hey, don't forget to give your Samurai the respect they deserve. and also your police officers. don't wanna hear that you got sliced up because you didn't bow low enough.

that was the life pre-Perry. after all, If Commodre Perry was the downfall of the Japansese Culture, then God forbid you live any time after that.

oh, and good luck defending against China when they come with their automatic weapons while you're still using Swords and Bows. for it was the Trade that brought Guns to Japan. and the Samurai were against Guns.

America's reckless use of radioactive weaponry caused the deaths of many descendants of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that survived, if your ancestors condemed the descendants of their enemy to death, then you, as a descendant of the attacker, is equaly responsible for the act.

I'm sorry, but that logic is simply horse manure. My ancestors were a ballet dancer, a cook on a merchant ship, a supply officer, and a high school student in 1945. My last name isn't Truman. And even if it was, your "logic" would be ridiculous. Guilt cannot be confered by the accident of birth, no more than the status of slave or second-class citizen.

You people are heartless, "dropping the bomb saved lives" you make me sick. If the US had taken up a land invasion at least the Japanese people could have defended themselves, there was no defence for what you unleashed upon them (and the entire world, for that matter) it is not a question of statistics, it is a matter of national and individual pride, not only the A-bombs, but also the firebomb campaign and the desecration of ancient Japanese rituals and traditions
after the war thanks to you scare tactics.

Go and bomb your own country, you deserve it.

They could have at least DEFENDED THEMSELVES?

This isn't a goddamn Ragnarok, where everyone gets a vaunted place in Valhalla for getting themselves and their entire nation wiped out in one glorious battle. They're not freakin' Klingons, man!

So you would rather that everyone in Japan during WW2 pick up a rifle, women, children, the old, the lame, everyone, and go toe to toe with Americans? Honestly, how fair is that to the Japanese civilians?

Besides, they could defend themselves if needed. They still had planes. They still had AA guns. They could have still tried to shoot the the Enola Gay. But they didn't. They missed out. War sucks. They lost. The end. The only good thing about it is that the alternative would have been one long, bloody, traumatic battle that would have deprived the world of one of it's greatest nations.

Okay, I need to know how many people agree with Europe and Eurasia on this one. What about somebody descended from both? One of your Grandfathers is Japanese, the other was an ordinance specialist for the U.S. Army. Dissociative Identity Disorder?I don't. I'm FB Japanese, born in the USA. but still have some close ties with people in Japan... while they think the A-Bombs were Horrible, so was the attack on Pearl Harbor and other 'attrocities' they would rather the lessons of the war be remembered and not the acts.

I'm starting to think we should just ignore Europe and Eurasia. He's either a troll or mentally handicapped.

PWNED!

Hahah, but seriously - you were the one who started this thread; you admit defeat

Quite the contrary, our little Tandia got what s/he wanted - thread full of flames.

I'm starting to think we should just ignore Europe and Eurasia. He's either a troll or mentally handicapped.

I object to being insulted in such a manner.

Oh, and I do have Aspergers syndrome, so your comment was quite offensive.

Without a truely unique culture, a country is nothing, thanks to the Americans, Japan is now nothing more than a carbon copy of America with only a faint reminder of its former glory.

I'm just glad that Shinto is still the largest religion, because other than that...

One could argue that though Japan has taken much from western culture, they have also made these 'western' elements and turned them into something unique. For example, their clothing, their music, their entertainment, though influenced by western culture, has a unique flair all their own.

It's still culture, and it's still their culture. They choose to take in western elements, and as a result mutated them into something of their own.

Also, what former glories? They have a rich culture and facinating, enlightened history (aside from WW2 and China...). Even with all the accomplishments of their culture in the past, they have no need to feel inadequate in the eyes of the world. The modern Japan is not only a culture all its own, it is also an economical powerhouse that does not need to measure up to any other nation's standards. They're a world power today, despite what happened in WW2. What shadow of former glories? They're a great, strong, wonderful nation NOW!

I object to "debates" with people who are clearly so brain washed in their knee-jerk hatred of the US (and I suspect the West as well) as to become incapable of actual discussion, but instead cling to utterly foolish flame-bait statements of the sort you post.

One could argue that though Japan has taken much from western culture, they have also made these 'western' elements and turned them into something unique. For example, their clothing, their music, their entertainment, though influenced by western culture, has a unique flair all their own.

It's still culture, and it's still their culture. They choose to take in western elements, and as a result mutated them into something of their own.

Also, what former glories? They have a rich culture and facinating, enlightened history (aside from WW2 and China...). Even with all the accomplishments of their culture in the past, they have no need to feel inadequate in the eyes of the world. The modern Japan is not only a culture all its own, it is also an economical powerhouse that does not need to measure up to any other nation's standards. They're a world power today, despite what happened in WW2. What shadow of former glories? They're a great, strong, wonderful nation NOW!Psst... I think that's why he sees them as a "carbon Copy" of the United States. not realizing that they worked hard to get where they are and as a small Nation, they are holding their own against the Superpowers.

Carbon copy? If I ever find Japanese have stopped eating natto and started drinking rootbeer I MIGHT believe that. Japan isn't a carbon copy, it has done what it has always done, taken what it likes from around it and implanted a Japanese heart.

Which is why I can enjoy my corn soup at McDonalds on cold Nagano winter days. ;)

Nobody understands me, you would have to be me to truely understand why I say what I say, so I am getting out now, for you will never understand.

Carbon copy? If I ever find Japanese have stopped eating natto and started drinking rootbeer I MIGHT believe that. Japan isn't a carbon copy, it has done what it has always done, taken what it likes from around it and implanted a Japanese heart.

Which is why I can enjoy my corn soup at McDonalds on cold Nagano winter days. ;)well, that's EaE's opinion.

I love the Japanese Culture. I'm just glad I don't live there.

Has anyone else thought of the effects even if we didn't drop the bomb? And i don't mean the invasion of Japan, i mean the Cold War itself. When the bombs were dropped, the whole world saw the savage destruction of these weapons. If we look at military history, whenever an innovative weapon is created, everyone is so eager to try it out. Gatling guns and armored ships (civil war), airplanes and gas (WW1, truly a unneeded war b/c of the alliance system), laser guided bombs and cruise missiles (desert storm). Now imagine the itchy fingers of the West and USSR had no one really witnessed the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cold War culd have been different. I would consider the Japanese who died from the bombs as those who helped keep the world sane when it came to the destructiveness of weapons. Had they not died, millions more could have, so the phrase "lesser of two evils" applies here sooooo well.

I also believed their could have been another way, such as a demonstration of the bomb off the coast where the japanese could easily see it (better to use fear as the force of victory than combat, in my opinion, Sun Tsu would agree with me), but alas my views are too optimistic and don't follow the philosophy of modern warfare.

And like some people in this thread, im quite anti-war, but in the way it is fought today. I'm quite Hobbesian when it comes to the idea that the State should ensure the lives of its civilians. I personal like the style of combat that was demonstrated in Troy, having a champion of each opposing force fight each other (jousts anyone?). This way the death (if not, a merciful defeat) falls upon one man, and no one would think less of him if he was slain or defeated. Yeah, it won't work with this "war on terrorism" but in civilized, proper warfare, this idea would be quite interesting to execute.

Note: I'm a fan of medieval warfare, and i see melee combat as a true method of fighting, since you decide the fate of your opponent, not a bullet (even tho you can argue the bullet could hit some non-vital bodypart. Bah! Now i've gotten myself debating myself.) But in all seriousness, i've gotten waaaaaay of topic now.

The idea of a demonstration was considered and dismissed, largely because a) it was thought the Japanese military could contain the information, whereas a destroyed city is harder to conceal, and b) we had very, very few bombs, so if the demonstration didn't work we might not have enough. Much more emphasis was put on a than on b, though. Also, there was a lot of desensitization by then. Destroying entire cities was routine by August, 1945.

Nobody understands me, you would have to be me to truely understand why I say what I say, so I am getting out now, for you will never understand.

Try not to take it personal. You're not the only person on this board with a clinical disorder (I've struggled with mine for 20 years). But you have to expect that when you paint everyone with a broad bloody brush for something done before must of us were born, many are going to become offended themselves. Every perspective is unique, but you weren't talking about your personal experiences so much as you were making categorical inditements of other people.

From the conversation as a whole, I see this: Regardless of what kind of weapon or how many people, lets honestly examine our goverment's reason for any military act, now and in the future. Let's try to curtail our own fear, because goverment (at least in the U.S. and I'll bet elsewhere) use fear to justify things, and not everything our goverment wants to do is just. How about that?

Psst... I think that's why he sees them as a "carbon Copy" of the United States. not realizing that they worked hard to get where they are and as a small Nation, they are holding their own against the Superpowers.
Holding their own? They are a superpower. That they weren't between 1945 and 1980 would be debateable, but now, I don't think that's a question is it?

Holding their own? They are a superpower. That they weren't between 1945 and 1980 would be debateable, but now, I don't think that's a question is it?I say holding their own, because militarily they are not. but economically, they ARE, even before 1980. so it depends on what qualifications one needs to be called a Superpower.

I say holding their own, because militarily they are not. but economically, they ARE, even before 1980. so it depends on what qualifications one needs to be called a Superpower.

Little side note that I thought was interesting about the Japanese military...

When I was in Japan, a few of my students were SDF personnel. One was a 5th dan practicioner of the short staff who hadn't fired a live round in forever, the other was a pilot who was riled that his squad commander had them playing soccer every afternoon to learn how to work together in combat. They were both excellent language students, but they gave me the impression that the SDF had a lot of dedicated, highly skilled people that felt like they were being made to play "make-believe soldier".

If we were to be in a similar mass outbreak of mass conventional conflit today, and instead of using traditional NBC WMDs, an enterprising space able nation used an orbital delivered kinetic device, or multiples thereof, giving a devestation equiv to multi kTonnage warheads but without the legacy of radiation, would this be as frowed on, or is it the Raditation (the great unknown for the majority, including the readers of pop science) that is horrific for people, if a conventional bombing/incendiary attack had been done over these 2 cities ala Tokyo/Dresden I am quite sure the effects (ie casulties/injuries) would have been much greater the damage caused by these 2 singular devices caused not just Human/aterial loss but a major blow psychologically as well, as far as I can recall (I know the net is at my finger tips and I could look it up maybe I will later) te designated target sites where Propaganda bombed before hand, to show just what power 1 plane could do.

Little side note that I thought was interesting about the Japanese military...

When I was in Japan, a few of my students were SDF personnel. One was a 5th dan practicioner of the short staff who hadn't fired a live round in forever, the other was a pilot who was riled that his squad commander had them playing soccer every afternoon to learn how to work together in combat. They were both excellent language students, but they gave me the impression that the SDF had a lot of dedicated, highly skilled people that felt like they were being made to play "make-believe soldier".Since they couldn't have an Army, the SDF was the closest they could get. however, I think that was lifted a few years ago. so now, Japan can now have an Army.

I say holding their own, because militarily they are not. but economically, they ARE, even before 1980. so it depends on what qualifications one needs to be called a Superpower.

I would say a superpower, is one that through withdrawal of support/favour, can influence the political decisions of another nation,

Here in UK, we have a major Nissan plant (Sunderland other wise known as Sunnyland), and to a degree they have influenced party politics by treatening to pull out of the area rendering te industry and support industries useless, now whether that be corporate economic politics or Interational politics I will leave up to oters to debate, (y personal opinion is tat we shouldn't be dependent on foreign investors for manufacturing and industry anyway but eough of the FPCF politics)

There's only one and 3/4s military superpowers at this point (US the 1 Russia the 3/4ths) And if you limit that to the ability to project conventional power you're back to 1. Japan is tremendously important technologically, economically, and culturally. Despite being the size of california their economy is just tremendous. If China and India can be superpowers based on their population, Japan absolutely is one based on their technical and economic muscle. Even militarily, they might not be projecting military power abroad, but with their F-15's they're not going to be attacked anytime soon.

There's only one and 3/4s military superpowers at this point (US the 1 Russia the 3/4ths) And if you limit that to the ability to project conventional power you're back to 1. Japan is tremendously important technologically, economically, and culturally. Despite being the size of california their economy is just tremendous. If China and India can be superpowers based on their population, Japan absolutely is one based on their technical and economic muscle. Even militarily, they might not be projecting military power abroad, but with their F-15's they're not going to be attacked anytime soon.and do not discount their friends. Japan and the US may have started out as enemies, but I think if China gets uppity... the US will back Japan.

Little side note that I thought was interesting about the Japanese military...

When I was in Japan, a few of my students were SDF personnel. One was a 5th dan practicioner of the short staff who hadn't fired a live round in forever, the other was a pilot who was riled that his squad commander had them playing soccer every afternoon to learn how to work together in combat. They were both excellent language students, but they gave me the impression that the SDF had a lot of dedicated, highly skilled people that felt like they were being made to play "make-believe soldier".

On a military history list I lurk on, they recently had a discussion which I think was germane here. The general consensus (these posters are mostly instructors at war colleges and the like) was that the SDF naval side was VERY good, the air side was "ok" and the army bit was something of a long-running joke. There was a quite interestign debate about if this was related to how the services had fared status-wise coming out of WW2. The thesis was, the Imperial Navy, despite defeats, still had a degree of panache and face, whereas the Imperial Army was perceived to have begun the war and then lost it, despite the heroic efforts of the IJN. Note, this is what they said was the perception, not the fact. But perhaps this explains what you saw.

...there was no defence for what you unleashed upon them (and the entire world, for that matter) ....

There were numerous countries pursuing an atomic weapons agenda at the close of World War II, the United States was merely the first to utilize it. Blaming America for introducing The Bomb to the world is ridiculous. Certain technological developments become inevitable once a certain level of scientific knowledge is acheived. This may be a misquote, but one of my favorite authors once said "when the time comes to railroad, you build railroads." I for one certainly prefer a world in which the Allies got the bomb first, as opposed to one in which nuclear weapons first fell into Hitler's hands. Just a little food for thought.

America's reckless use of radioactive weaponry caused the deaths of many descendants of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that survived, if your ancestors condemed the descendants of their enemy to death, then you, as a descendant of the attacker, is equaly responsible for the act.

It wasn't reckless. It was calculated. If it was reckless, we would've used more of them over the course of history. We didn't. Also the 2 targeted cities were legitament military targets.

Oh, and I do have Aspergers syndrome, so your comment was quite offensive.

Dude, I probably have it but not diagnost but I am ADD/ADHD. Stop taking things so offensive.

You do need to learn more history though. This is where all of this was coming from. It comes from the history as well as the code of honor that the Japanese followed.

It is quite interesting to learn.

Holding their own? They are a superpower. That they weren't between 1945 and 1980 would be debateable, but now, I don't think that's a question is it?

By definition, Japan isn't a superpower. Economically you could make a case but it takes economy and military power to be declared a superpower. They also can't project themselves over the planet. Only the US has that ability right now. The former USSR could too that was why we had a cold war among both superpowers.

I would argue in a world where a rogue asteroid is a greater threat to the species than midnight on cover ofThe Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, economic power is what makes a power super and military might gets one through on a technicality.

On a military history list I lurk on, they recently had a discussion which I think was germane here. The general consensus (these posters are mostly instructors at war colleges and the like) was that the SDF naval side was VERY good, the air side was "ok" and the army bit was something of a long-running joke. There was a quite interestign debate about if this was related to how the services had fared status-wise coming out of WW2. The thesis was, the Imperial Navy, despite defeats, still had a degree of panache and face, whereas the Imperial Army was perceived to have begun the war and then lost it, despite the heroic efforts of the IJN. Note, this is what they said was the perception, not the fact. But perhaps this explains what you saw.

That is interesting. The SDF Air pilot had mentioned that the "operational efficiency" of his unit meant they actually spent more time in the air then a much larger Chinese unit of the same time, but I'm not sure what that entails. As I recall, I never met one of their Naval guys. Maybe Sendai didn't have a naval base.

I don't care, whenever the subject of Hiroshima and Nagasaki comes up I always
start accusing the Americans and address them directly, because they should be ashamed of themselves, only when they apologise will the blood be off their hands, and I hold every last one of them responsible.
I'm sorry, but that's a rather nonsensical statement.
You're going to hold every American responsible for something that happened 60ish years ago. Something that happened before most of us were even born, and we had no control over?

Hooray for anti-Americanism...

Whenever the subject of the Roman invasion of Britain comes up I always start accusing the italians and address them directly, because they should be ashamed of themselves, only when they apologise will the blood be off their hands, and I hold every last one of them responsible.

Since they couldn't have an Army, the SDF was the closest they could get. however, I think that was lifted a few years ago. so now, Japan can now have an Army.

Their constitutional ban on having an army has not been lifted, they are debabting it now and the LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) desires a change in the constitution.
However, they do have an army. Yes, it is called the SDF but it is well equiped and large enough to defend Japan. It is an army in everything but name. The convolutions they go through to claim that this large, armed group of men and women who wear uniforms and run military exercises is not an army is quite entertaining to listen to. Remember, it isn't an army because they named it something else.
Now, I agree with a previous poster, a lot of my students over here have been SDF and almost all of them feel like they play soldier but that they aren't really. They also know that most of their own people dislike them and have almost no respect for the job they are trying to do. Something like 30% of the Japanese people believe Japan shouldn't even defend itself if attacked. That is insane.

Considering that Nagasaki as a city still exists I'd say your bullshit about contaimination is crap.

....you deny that nuclear radiation exists?
look at chenoble

You people are heartless, "dropping the bomb saved lives" you make me sick. If the US had taken up a land invasion at least the Japanese people could have defended themselves, there was no defence for what you unleashed upon them (and the entire world, for that matter) it is not a question of statistics, it is a matter of national and individual pride, not only the A-bombs, but also the firebomb campaign and the desecration of ancient Japanese rituals and traditions
after the war thanks to you scare tactics.

Go and bomb your own country, you deserve it.
If they didn't want to see the game played out to the end, they shouldn't have asked for us to play.

the nanjing massacre was one of many atrocities committed by the japanese, and the japanese people should be as sorry and ashamed
How about a compromise. The Japanese will admit all the atrocities they committed during WWII as soon as the PRoC admits to all of the people they've killed, including Tiananmen Square.

Jesus, these people who think later generations should apologize and feel guilt for the actions of their nation's past. . . :rolleyes:
How far back should we go, please let us know a cutoff date so we can do some research as to exactly what we should be held to apologizing for.
100 years?
110?
How about 200?

And who is to judge what should be apologized for? You? The guy next door? The people alive today whose grandmother suffered and so they is so strange disconnected way want to be part of her suffering and so claim victim status?

I look for no national apologies from anyone for anything. They are all hogwash, they mean nothing. They mean nothing because we can never see the heart of those apologizing, what do they really think?
If Koizumi issued an apology in the name of Japan it wouldn't mean dick. It wouldn't effect how Japanese people felt about their nation's past actions.

Their constitutional ban on having an army has not been lifted, they are debabting it now and the LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) desires a change in the constitution.
However, they do have an army. Yes, it is called the SDF but it is well equiped and large enough to defend Japan. It is an army in everything but name. The convolutions they go through to claim that this large, armed group of men and women who wear uniforms and run military exercises is not an army is quite entertaining to listen to. Remember, it isn't an army because they named it something else.
Now, I agree with a previous poster, a lot of my students over here have been SDF and almost all of them feel like they play soldier but that they aren't really. They also know that most of their own people dislike them and have almost no respect for the job they are trying to do. Something like 30% of the Japanese people believe Japan shouldn't even defend itself if attacked. That is insane.oh, so that's what I heard. I thought it was something like that. But I thought the prohibition on an "Army" was one of the concessions of WW2? and I thought it was lifted because they sent "troops" to help with the middle east (more to protect their citizens than any peacekeeping role)
Not putting down the SDF, after all, they are an army in every respect but name.

....you deny that nuclear radiation exists?
look at chenoble

Two different incidents at two different time periods.

How about a compromise. The Japanese will admit all the atrocities they committed during WWII as soon as the PRoC admits to all of the people they've killed, including Tiananmen Square.

Check the news blogs.

Japan is apologizing now for the atrocities they committed but in the words of China "We'll believe it when they act onit."

My comments were ill expressed, I just get very emotional about the use of nuclear weapons, I knew someone who died of a brain tumor caused by the fact that her grandfather was exposed to small amounts of radiation during British nuclear tests here in Australia. And I also know a grat deal about Japanese history, I find it sad that it has changed so much in such a small amount of time, I feel that Japan was a very sophisticated and noble nation before it came into contact with westerners (and it still is :D ) but today it is looked upon by many people in other countries as some kind of joke and is extensively stereotyped. I feel sorry for Japans loss of cultural dignity and I am against the atomic bomb in any capacity, that is why I get so emotional about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

P.S. I realize that Japan is an economic superpower and is a very proud and noble nation today, its just that Japan does not seem that way for many westerners, and thats terrible.

What I find really utterly stupid is that people complain about all the atrocies that happened in WW2 by the Nazi's and Japanesse is that the US A-bombed Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of people and poisoned people for genarations and basically killed off New York in comprapsion. Its not that Im saying the Holocaust wasn't bad or anything but give it a rest. The US ruined 100's of square kilometers(or miles) of land and killed hundreds of thousands

Peace Out - No one deserves to die... At dusk and in the morning we will remember Them
What the hell are you talking about?!? The atomic bomb was a godsend in world War 2. if we hadn't used it more people would've died. You wanna know what the military was planning? An invasion. That's right, people, if the atom bomb failed to work as well as it did, the united states military was planning an invasion on japanese soil! That invasion would've made D-Day look like friggin' sesame street in comparison. Because the Japanese don't surrender. they fight to the death, or they kill themselves. So people who think that the A-Bomb was a bad thing (to some extents it was kind of a nasty little bugger), I have one thing to say to you. "Screw you, ya damn hippies!"

My comments were ill expressed, I just get very emotional about the use of nuclear weapons, I knew someone who died of a brain tumor caused by the fact that her grandfather was exposed to small amounts of radiation during British nuclear tests here in Australia. And I also know a grat deal about Japanese history, I find it sad that it has changed so much in such a small amount of time, I feel that Japan was a very sophisticated and noble nation before it came into contact with westerners (and it still is :D ) but today it is looked upon by many people in other countries as some kind of joke and is extensively stereotyped. I feel sorry for Japans loss of cultural dignity and I am against the atomic bomb in any capacity, that is why I get so emotional about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

P.S. I realize that Japan is an economic superpower and is a very proud and noble nation today, its just that Japan does not seem that way for many westerners, and thats terrible.That's understandable. We all have out 'Hot' Issues, me it's Religion and people constantly asking for proof.

To me, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important in many ways.
1) it stopped a major conflict that would have resulted in the deaths of many people, and might possibly have resulted in the Genocide of a Nation.

2) Prolonged warfare would have left long and bitter scars that would never heal.

3) Nuclear Weapons would've been used anyway. by using them when they were weak (by Nuclear Weapons terminology) the damage, tho great, was minimal.

4) It illustrated the Horror of using such weapons and now, organizations exsists that watch and limit Nuclear Capabilities.

Had those two bombs not been dropped, who would've been the first to use it. US? Russia? England? Iraq? and where would've they been used? Vietnam? Cuba? New York? Rowanda? All the information on paper, all the testing in the world, would not, could never, have the same impact when used in the open.

Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki horrible? Yes, but they taught the World an important lession. and that should never be forgotten.

I knew someone who died of a brain tumor caused by the fact that her grandfather was exposed to small amounts of radiation during British nuclear tests here in Australia.
Um, possible, but I seriously doubt such a claim could be proven with current medical science. Unless, of course, her mother was conceived during or soon after(2-3 months) her grandfather was was exposed to the radiation. Then you might have a case for your claim.

What I find really utterly stupid is that people complain about all the atrocies that happened in WW2 by the Nazi's and Japanesse is that the US A-bombed Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of people and poisoned people for genarations and basically killed off New York in comprapsion. Its not that Im saying the Holocaust wasn't bad or anything but give it a rest. The US ruined 100's of square kilometers(or miles) of land and killed hundreds of thousands

Peace Out - No one deserves to die... At dusk and in the morning we will remember Them


This is either a troll or someonw who is just now learning their history.

New York = 1 million plus. Hiroshima + Nagasaki = less than 200 thousand.

Generations? Why was I able to spend a year living in Nagasaki almost 20 years ago without any danger whatsoever?

100,000s of km2? That implies an *absolute minimum* 2/3rds of the whole nation:s land mass of 375,000 km2... http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html

absurdity :rolleyes:


Those who will not learn from history... (watches Tandia dissapear in a mushroom cloud...)

I look for no national apologies from anyone for anything.

:rolleyes:

Germany and the Nazi holocaust springs to mind...

1. "If the A-Bomb was not dropped it would have been an invasion and that would have been worse, so the A-Bomb was not that bad in comparison."

This is a little like putting a knife to a woman's throat and threatening to kill her. Then, raping her. You see, it was either the rape or killing her, and killing her would have been worse. So the rape wasn't that bad! Yay! She should in fact, enjoy it! And god bless the rapist for being so benevolent by not killing her!

Two wrongs don't make a right - and certainly two HYPOTHETICAL wrongs don't make a right. A choice of two wrongs dished out by the same wrongdoer, doesn't make the less-wrong of the choices right, either.

The US was PLANNING an invasion, but you know, the US is currently PLANNING to defeat worldwide terrorism. And the communists are PLANNING to eliminate greed and bring about worldwide utopia. Planning and doing are not the same thing. Plenty of things could have happened - do you know everything? Even in retrospect, is your single mind's analysis of all possibilities so good that you can say - without a doubt - that it was either the atomic bomb or genocide? My mind isn't.

I can think of several things that interfere with this cute dichotomy. The simultaneous plans of the USSR to invade, for example. That might put a crimp in US invasions, what with them being closer and all. In fact they hadn't even declared war - how do you know that Japan, when at last at war with the Soviets and facing invasion by Stalinists, wouldn't have instead chosen to surrender to the USA? I would have.

2. "Japan would never have surrendered..."

I always love this argument. They were preparing to fend off an invasion and fight to the death, the junta was. And the Bushido code, and Japanese cultural love of honorable death in combat, true...

But they DID surrender! So obviously, we know for a fact that there are circumstances in which Japan would have surrendered. We know one of those circumstances was the use of two nuclear weapons. Are those the only circumstances? I don't think so, but I am not blessed with omniscience.

3. "Pearl Harbor."

Pearl Harbor doesn't justify, morally, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Look at the body counts. They obviously don't match up, unless you're a racist who considers an American innocent life to be actually worth more than a Japanese innocent life.

Now the argument that Pearl Harbor basically 'caused' Hiroshima and Nagasaki is specious at best. War causes war, but that doesn't justify it. Let's pretend you're at the gates of heaven before God. Let's pretend there are a few hundred thousand Japanese souls there who you've argued, 'deserved' to die or 'got what was coming to them.' Now, watch as you go plummeting to Hell to burn in eternity. Have a nice day.

Japanese started the war and the USA finished it, yes. Nice and symmetrical. Almost seems to kinda justify it all morally. Almost. Except war isn't like when you defend yourself against some crazy guy trying to kill you. War is political. War is legislated, budgeted, planned. You can't try to turn everything into a macho contest where Japan - the crazy guy with a gun - tries to kill Uncle Sam, who then is forced to subdue Japan. That's nice macho imagery I think a lot of people buy into. Me, I don't see "USA" or "Japan" as equivalent to single persons. Bombing one part of "Japan" is not the same as bombing another. For example, it's highly unlikely that many of the pilots and planners of the Pearl Harbor attack were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So this whole justifcation is all political - good for leaders, good for parties, good for history, bad for God and morality. What you're saying is Japanese people were bad, so killing Japanese people is OK - even if they're not the SAME Japanese people. Nationality is not a good reason to kill someone. And unless you contend that Japan could have rebuilt it's industry and launched an invasion of the USA before the USSR invasion (or USA invasion) were ready, you can't really use the self-defense excuse either.

Japan had lost, it was only the leadership that needed convincing. Is killing a few hundred thousand people fine for you as long as it sways a few politician's minds? If so, congratulations.

4. Moral Relativism

Yes, morality is subjective and relative. So this is in large part my own distaste for war in general, which I see as a foolish and truly evil aspect of humanity. That's what my lesson from learning WWII history is. "War is hell." You can't try justifying hell. It just happens. But is bombing a bunch of innocent people war? I think yes - yes it is. I also think terrorism is war. I think there is nothing intrinsically different between 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In all of them, innocent people died. In all of them, people have attempted to justify the killing by politics and religion and just about any other excuse. In all of them, the lesson learned should not be that "It's okay to kill if they kill first," or "Being Japanese is a crime if there are Japanese criminals," or that "USA pwnz all11!!" but simply that war itself is wrong.

So I can't say with any certainty what is or isn't wrong, nor can people really expect their moral conclusions to stick. Some people think bombing Japan like that was a-ok and there was nothing better to be done, some people don't. In the end I hope we can all agree that warfare in all it's guises is ugly and stupid... nah, I don't hope that. I know better. I know some of you glorify war and warriors as being holy practitioners of God's divine will. Hell some of you may be terrorists, while we're at it... now I'm just rambling!

What I find really utterly stupid is that people complain about all the atrocies that happened in WW2 by the Nazi's and Japanesse is that the US A-bombed Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of people and poisoned people for genarations and basically killed off New York in comprapsion. Its not that Im saying the Holocaust wasn't bad or anything but give it a rest. The US ruined 100's of square kilometers(or miles) of land and killed hundreds of thousands

Peace Out - No one deserves to die... At dusk and in the morning we will remember Them
The Japanese had vowed to fight to the last man or woman. They had told their civilians that American soldiers would rape their women and slaughter their children. Casualty estimates for American forces numbered as high as one million.

In retrospect, there may have been another way, but at the time the US viewed the atomic bomb as the only effective way, short of invasion and stratospheic casualty counts on both sides, of bringing Japan to the peace table.

The US had exactly 3 atomic bombs in 1945, they blew up one in a test to see if it would even work and dropped the other 2 on Japan, it would have taken about 6 months to a year for the US to "make" enough enriched uranium or plutonium for another bomb.

The firebombing of Tokyo killed far more people and did far more damage than the a-bombs did, but it took large fleets of bombers to do it

I think it is interesting that no one has mentioned the fact that the US intentionally did not bomb Kyoto and the imperial palace because of its cultural significance in Japan

The US had exactly 3 atomic bombs in 1945, they blew up one in a test to see if it would even work and dropped the other 2 on Japan, it would have taken about 6 months to a year for the US to "make" enough enriched uranium or plutonium for another bomb.

The firebombing of Tokyo killed far more people and did far more damage than the a-bombs did, but it took large fleets of bombers to do it

I think it is interesting that no one has mentioned the fact that the US intentionally did not bomb Kyoto and the imperial palace because of its cultural significance in Japan

All that is true but... so what?

They didn't bomb the Imperial Palace because they wanted the Emperor's surrender, not destruction or martyrdom. Or because they felt that punishing makers of policy is less preferable to punishing random people as a demonstration for the makers of policy. I sincerely doubt they were being altruistic when they sought to preserve that particular piece of cultural significance. More like, self-interest. If you start bombing the enemy's government, they might try the same with yours. What politician wants to open the door to assassination? Not many!

The allies Bombed Berlin at every opportunity, but hitler was first in Bombing London

The US knew back then that the Emporer of Japan was a figurehead and had no say in the Japanese war effort, they also knew that Kyoto had no military value whatsoever and bombing it would just make civilians mad

The bombs saved millions of Allied lives and in war you should only worry about your own men. The Japanese treated Allied prisoners badly. The pictures of the Jap prison camps ive seen look just like the concentration camps. Also they used biological weapons against the Chinese, raping and killing the civilians there. They should be thankful we didnt drop more on them

1. "If the A-Bomb was not dropped it would have been an invasion and that would have been worse, so the A-Bomb was not that bad in comparison."

This is a little like putting a knife to a woman's throat and threatening to kill her. Then, raping her. You see, it was either the rape or killing her, and killing her would have been worse. So the rape wasn't that bad! Yay! She should in fact, enjoy it! And god bless the rapist for being so benevolent by not killing her!

The rape analogy is deeply flawed. War was already ungoing, and begun by the Japanese. A better analogy may be "a man is awakened during the night by an intruder who is attemtping to kill him. He overpowers the intruder and gets to his pistol. He is about to shoot the intruder in the face, but instead shoots him in the leg and calls the cops."

Two wrongs don't make a right - and certainly two HYPOTHETICAL wrongs don't make a right. A choice of two wrongs dished out by the same wrongdoer, doesn't make the less-wrong of the choices right, either.

Ever hear of the concept of the lesser of two evils? It appears not. The whole debate on using the atomic bombs takes place within that framework. There were not three option of a: drop the bomb, b: invade c: go home and think happy thoughts about the Soviet take-over of Japan. That's simply not how it was done.

The US was PLANNING an invasion, but you know, the US is currently PLANNING to defeat worldwide terrorism. And the communists are PLANNING to eliminate greed and bring about worldwide utopia. Planning and doing are not the same thing. Plenty of things could have happened - do you know everything? Even in retrospect, is your single mind's analysis of all possibilities so good that you can say - without a doubt - that it was either the atomic bomb or genocide? My mind isn't.

Do you seriosuly doubt the ability of the US to carry out an invasion of Japan in late 1945 or early 1946? If so your ignorance of Allied capabilities at the time makes Mt Fuji itself seem a small speedbump. In the absence of a Japanese surrender, which in light of the fanatical resistance thus far encountered in the war was considered very unlikely, there [b]would[/u] have been an invasion. It's that simple.

I can think of several things that interfere with this cute dichotomy. The simultaneous plans of the USSR to invade, for example. That might put a crimp in US invasions, what with them being closer and all. In fact they hadn't even declared war - how do you know that Japan, when at last at war with the Soviets and facing invasion by Stalinists, wouldn't have instead chosen to surrender to the USA? I would have.

The USSR was already at war with Japan, and gobbling territory. So the point is moot.



2. "Japan would never have surrendered..."

I always love this argument. They were preparing to fend off an invasion and fight to the death, the junta was. And the Bushido code, and Japanese cultural love of honorable death in combat, true...

But they DID surrender! So obviously, we know for a fact that there are circumstances in which Japan would have surrendered. We know one of those circumstances was the use of two nuclear weapons. Are those the only circumstances? I don't think so, but I am not blessed with omniscience.

They surrendered in the face of the Bomb. When one examines the records of the Japanese gov't at the time, thoughts of their simply throwing in the towel become exercises in wishful thinking. I got this opinion from a former professor of mine (married to a Japanese national, BTW) who's job during the 1950s was to go through these documents, translate them, and make reports on this subject to the US Gov't. i rather suspect he knows more than you. He is also an anti-nuclear weapon activist but agrees that the decision to drop the bombs, while sad, was very, very neccesary and that it saved "untold numbers" of Japanese civillians. He is confidant that had we invaded his future wife would have likely died, as she had been issued a pike to fight off the Americans alogn with the other girls in her schoo, and intended to use it.

3. "Pearl Harbor."

Pearl Harbor doesn't justify, morally, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Look at the body counts. They obviously don't match up, unless you're a racist who considers an American innocent life to be actually worth more than a Japanese innocent life.

Now the argument that Pearl Harbor basically 'caused' Hiroshima and Nagasaki is specious at best. War causes war, but that doesn't justify it. Let's pretend you're at the gates of heaven before God. Let's pretend there are a few hundred thousand Japanese souls there who you've argued, 'deserved' to die or 'got what was coming to them.' Now, watch as you go plummeting to Hell to burn in eternity. Have a nice day.

No one but fools or the uniformed argue that.

Japanese started the war and the USA finished it, yes. Nice and symmetrical. Almost seems to kinda justify it all morally. Almost. Except war isn't like when you defend yourself against some crazy guy trying to kill you. War is political. War is legislated, budgeted, planned. You can't try to turn everything into a macho contest where Japan - the crazy guy with a gun - tries to kill Uncle Sam, who then is forced to subdue Japan. That's nice macho imagery I think a lot of people buy into. Me, I don't see "USA" or "Japan" as equivalent to single persons. Bombing one part of "Japan" is not the same as bombing another. For example, it's highly unlikely that many of the pilots and planners of the Pearl Harbor attack were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So this whole justifcation is all political - good for leaders, good for parties, good for history, bad for God and morality. What you're saying is Japanese people were bad, so killing Japanese people is OK - even if they're not the SAME Japanese people. Nationality is not a good reason to kill someone. And unless you contend that Japan could have rebuilt it's industry and launched an invasion of the USA before the USSR invasion (or USA invasion) were ready, you can't really use the self-defense excuse either.

Nevertheless, Japan started the war. They could have ended it at any time, but chose not to. Was the US suppsoed to leave in place and in peace a government clearly committed to attacking the US, simply to be nice?

Japan had lost, it was only the leadership that needed convincing. Is killing a few hundred thousand people fine for you as long as it sways a few politician's minds? If so, congratulations.

<sigh> You clearly lack any understand whatsoever of international politics or warfare. You can't kill the leaders because then there is no one with the authority to end the violence.

4. Moral Relativism

Yes, morality is subjective and relative. So this is in large part my own distaste for war in general, which I see as a foolish and truly evil aspect of humanity. That's what my lesson from learning WWII history is. "War is hell." You can't try justifying hell. It just happens. But is bombing a bunch of innocent people war? I think yes - yes it is. I also think terrorism is war. I think there is nothing intrinsically different between 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In all of them, innocent people died. In all of them, people have attempted to justify the killing by politics and religion and just about any other excuse. In all of them, the lesson learned should not be that "It's okay to kill if they kill first," or "Being Japanese is a crime if there are Japanese criminals," or that "USA pwnz all11!!" but simply that war itself is wrong.

So I can't say with any certainty what is or isn't wrong, nor can people really expect their moral conclusions to stick. Some people think bombing Japan like that was a-ok and there was nothing better to be done, some people don't. In the end I hope we can all agree that warfare in all it's guises is ugly and stupid... nah, I don't hope that. I know better. I know some of you glorify war and warriors as being holy practitioners of God's divine will. Hell some of you may be terrorists, while we're at it... now I'm just rambling!

It sounds like the people you tend to discuss this with are as ignorant as yourself, which may explain your vehemence. Please, try to do some actual research into the topic, in honest-to-god history books, not the sort of PC drivel you find some places.

Bravo, Andy! I agree with every one of your points.

The allies Bombed Berlin at every opportunity, but hitler was first in Bombing London

The US knew back then that the Emporer of Japan was a figurehead and had no say in the Japanese war effort, they also knew that Kyoto had no military value whatsoever and bombing it would just make civilians madthe Emperor wasn't just a figurehead. He was equivalent to the President. while he didn't actually command the forces, if he said STOP, they stopped. so Killing the only man who could stop the entire Imperial Forces would be rather... stupid.

So...you would rather the US had done a firebombing campaign against Japans mostly wooden cities, then invaded and lost millions of soldiers and killed millions of people?
A-bombs were (IMO) the best option at the time.

We (the US) had already carried out a massive firebombing campaign against Japan precisely because it contained mostly wooden cities before we dropped the atom bombs.

I think it is interesting that no one has mentioned the fact that the US intentionally did not bomb Kyoto and the imperial palace because of its cultural significance in Japan

While Kyoto was spared due to cultural signifigance, it almost wasn't. Part of Kyoto's protection from fire bombing was that it was also designated as a target city for the atomic bomb. Cities that fell into this group were not to be targeted. (Hiroshima Peace Museum)

The Imperial Palace in Tokyo was actually destroyed by fire bombing. The older palace constructed by the Meiji Emperor and the more modern additions were burned. I cannot remember where the Showa Emperor was at the time. The current palace is a reconstruction based off the plans for the Meiji Palace. Endo Jou, of course, had long since been destroyed. (Imperial Household Agency)

The rape analogy is deeply flawed. War was already ungoing, and begun by the Japanese. A better analogy may be "a man is awakened during the night by an intruder who is attemtping to kill him. He overpowers the intruder and gets to his pistol. He is about to shoot the intruder in the face, but instead shoots him in the leg and calls the cops."

War was already ongoing? So what? Let's say that the rapist's sister had been raped already, by the brother of the new rape victim. Whatever, I see this analogy was last on you.


Ever hear of the concept of the lesser of two evils? It appears not. The whole debate on using the atomic bombs takes place within that framework.

Obviously I am not arguing within your preferred framework.

Oh and you're right - I've never before heard of the concept of lesser of two evils. Thanks for fucking enlightening me.

There were not three option of a: drop the bomb, b: invade c: go home and think happy thoughts about the Soviet take-over of Japan. That's simply not how it was done.

Straw man, I never contritely listed the options and if you'll read my post you'll see I admit I don't know all of the possibilities. Do you?


Do you seriosuly doubt the ability of the US to carry out an invasion of Japan in late 1945 or early 1946? If so your ignorance of Allied capabilities at the time makes Mt Fuji itself seem a small speedbump. In the absence of a Japanese surrender, which in light of the fanatical resistance thus far encountered in the war was considered very unlikely, there [b]would[/u] have been an invasion. It's that simple.

Unless the USSR invaded first. Or unless Japan surrendered to the USA in a few days when the USSR declared war.

It's not that simple.

Please tell me how I'm ignorant of allied capabilities at the time. Apparently that's relevant to you.

The USSR was already at war with Japan, and gobbling territory. So the point is moot.

The USSR declared war on Japan on August 8th, 1945. "In view of the above, the Soviet Government declares that from tomorrow, that is from Aug. 9, the Soviet Government will consider itself to be at war with Japan."

So it's not a moot point.

They surrendered in the face of the Bomb. When one examines the records of the Japanese gov't at the time, thoughts of their simply throwing in the towel become exercises in wishful thinking. I got this opinion from a former professor of mine (married to a Japanese national, BTW) who's job during the 1950s was to go through these documents, translate them, and make reports on this subject to the US Gov't. i rather suspect he knows more than you.

Maybe, but appealing to authority doesn't get you anywhere. I was arguing the MORALITY of the bomb's use. God says, "thou shallt not kill." I rather suspect God knows more than you! See, I can appeal to authority too.

He is also an anti-nuclear weapon activist but agrees that the decision to drop the bombs, while sad, was very, very neccesary and that it saved "untold numbers" of Japanese civillians. He is confidant that had we invaded his future wife would have likely died, as she had been issued a pike to fight off the Americans alogn with the other girls in her schoo, and intended to use it.

Yes, and none of that is relevant. There are plenty of people for and against pretty much anything. That he agrees with you doesn't have much to say against my points, except that you like most people cling to the reduction of it being either/or - either invasion, or nuke. Nice and simple, just like the world isn't.


No one but fools or the uniformed argue that.

At least we agree. I hope you meant "uninformed" and not "uniformed" though.


Nevertheless, Japan started the war. They could have ended it at any time, but chose not to. Was the US suppsoed to leave in place and in peace a government clearly committed to attacking the US, simply to be nice?

No. Any other questions?

<sigh> You clearly lack any understand whatsoever of international politics or warfare. You can't kill the leaders because then there is no one with the authority to end the violence.

You haven't disagreed with me here. What is it I don't understand, again? Oh yeah, international politics or warfare. Sigh, more ad hominem.

It sounds like the people you tend to discuss this with are as ignorant as yourself, which may explain your vehemence. Please, try to do some actual research into the topic, in honest-to-god history books, not the sort of PC drivel you find some places.

Well, since you apparently didn't know when the USSR even declared war I'm not sure where you get off calling me ignorant, but you surely do since you've done practically nothing else. My vehemence comes from the fact that I am vehement, not ignorant. Next?

There was a powerful weapon available and it was used (Germany was considered as target for a while, but it's unlikely they would have done that, since it would have been too close to the zones of interest for the western allies. Also who cares if that device kills a few yellow buggers, I mean, don't we Asians look all the same to you westerners?).

Well, I just wrote you off as far as reasoned debate is concerned. I was quite impressed with your post while it was limited to quotes, but you obviously have no interest in researching timing.

Germany surrendered before the atomic bomb was useable. Look it up. It's right there on the Internet, something to which your computer is apparently connected. Looking for evidence of racial prejudice under every rug is hazardous at best.

The allies Bombed Berlin at every opportunity, but hitler was first in Bombing London

The US knew back then that the Emporer of Japan was a figurehead and had no say in the Japanese war effort, they also knew that Kyoto had no military value whatsoever and bombing it would just make civilians mad

Not 100% accurate. The emperor practically ordered the Rape at Nanking.

Not 100% accurate. The emperor practically ordered the Rape at Nanking.

He did? This is news to me. Even Hirohito: And the Making of Modern Japan, which is a damning testiment to the Showa Emperor's culpability in WWII, more or less cleared him from the Rape of Nanking. The conclusion I've seen in various treatments of it states that the orders came from the Imperial Army command in China at the time. However, when the Showa Emperor WAS informed of what was happening/happened, he did nothing to stop or punish those who did order it.

So may I ask what your source for this was?

He did? This is news to me. Even Hirohito: And the Making of Modern Japan, which is a damning testiment to the Showa Emperor's culpability in WWII, more or less cleared him from the Rape of Nanking. The conclusion I've seen in various treatments of it states that the orders came from the Imperial Army command in China at the time. However, when the Showa Emperor WAS informed of what was happening/happened, he did nothing to stop or punish those who did order it.

So may I ask what your source for this was?

I suggest you read up on the news regarding recently released Japanese War documents. We discussed this in my intro to global politics class. The information is out there for anyone to research.

I suggest you read up on the news regarding recently released Japanese War documents. We discussed this in my intro to global politics class. The information is out there for anyone to research.
Could you provide a bit more guidance, as in journals or specific articles these papers were translated/analized?

Note: I'm not attacking your conclusions, I really am interested if something new has come out and what/where it might be.

So...you would rather the US had done a firebombing campaign against Japans mostly wooden cities ...
A-bombs were (IMO) the best option at the time.

We did do that. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were picked as targets because they were the least burned down of all the possible targets (Nagasaki was actually a bit more complicted to pick, but it was second on the short list).

At the rate we were going, we could have starved them into utter submission over several years, invaded and caused about 800,000 people to die, minimum, or stunned them into surrender with the atomic bomb. The last option inflicted the fewest overall casualities.

As general wutshisface said, "The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his". I think thats how it went, maybe not.

As general wutshisface said, "The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his". I think thats how it went, maybe not.Patton... and it's true.. "no man won a war by dying for his Country... he won it by makeing the other poor bastard die for his."

Patton... and it's true.. "no man won a war by dying for his Country... he won it by makeing the other poor bastard die for his."

Thanks. I knew it was some guy from WW2, but i didnt know if it was McArthur or Patton.

At the rate we were going, we could have starved them into utter submission over several years, invaded and caused about 800,000 people to die, minimum, or stunned them into surrender with the atomic bomb. The last option inflicted the fewest overall casualities.

Or how about, you know, actually using diplomatic means to end the war. Seeing as Japan knew quite well it was defeated and they had been seeking a diplomatic solution as early as a year beforehand, I'd be one to think that this would be the best solution AND the one inflicting the least casualties.

Of course, this all seems to be lost in the "it was for their own good" nonsense people are taught in high school. Being irradiated is in no one's best interests.

Or how about, you know, actually using diplomatic means to end the war. Seeing as Japan knew quite well it was defeated and they had been seeking a diplomatic solution as early as a year beforehand, I'd be one to think that this would be the best solution AND the one inflicting the least casualties.

Of course, this all seems to be lost in the "it was for their own good" nonsense people are taught in high school. Being irradiated is in no one's best interests. We did. the terms, I believe, were Unconditional and Total Surrender. They refused that.

Or how about, you know, actually using diplomatic means to end the war. Seeing as Japan knew quite well it was defeated and they had been seeking a diplomatic solution as early as a year beforehand, I'd be one to think that this would be the best solution AND the one inflicting the least casualties.

Of course, this all seems to be lost in the "it was for their own good" nonsense people are taught in high school. Being irradiated is in no one's best interests.
I agree. They should have surrendered unconditionally at their earliest convience. Unfortunately for the Japanese people, the leadership didn't find it convienent enough until after a failed coup following the second atomic bomb. Sure, they got to keep their emperor, but when he stood next to the american military leadership in charge of Japan, there we no illusions for the Japanese people. They knew EXACTLY what that ment.

One other thing the Japanese weren't completely ready to accept was occupation, and that just flat out was going to happen. The Americans couldn't make the Japanese be sensible. All they could do was keep killing them through a variety of direct and indirect means. Japan had known for a fact that they'd utterly lost the war well before the island hopping campaign was through. If Japanese leadership gave any kind of a crap about either the Japanese people at large or those in tasked with fighting what they knew to be a hopeless succession of battles they would have surrendered then. They didn't. The Japanese wanted their own people to die. It's what was expected, and it's exactly what happened. Absolutely ferocious military. They never broke faith inspite of an obvious and complete inability to achieve victory.

We did. the terms, I believe, were Unconditional and Total Surrender. They refused that.

First, Unconditional Surrender was believed to be a plausible threat to the life of the emporer and would have been rejected even if the US had actually made an effort on negotiating.

However, the US never even conscidered negotiating.

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.
http://www.marynet.com/hirosh.html

ah, the eternal the US is evil because it nuked Japan, even though the Japanese wouldn't quit arguements.

I think the overwhelming majority of military historians in the English speaking world (including the Brits and Australians) accept the fact that the Japanese Army wasn't ready to surrender until it was clear the further resistance was futile, and the atomic bomb attacks along with the Russian conquest of Manchuria made that very clear.

Only then were most of the Generals ready to accept surrender and even then a few tried a coup that mercifully for everyone failed.

I agree. They should have surrendered unconditionally at their earliest convience.
The vagueness of the term unconditional surrender and other factors led the Japanese government to believe that this meant a threat to the life of the emporer. It is clear that Japan would have accepted any other term except that one. It is perhaps ironic that the US pressed for unconditional surrender when the Japanese were willing to surrender on the one term that the emporer not be harmed, and then followed that condition once they realized the importance of the emporer.

One other thing the Japanese weren't completely ready to accept was occupation, and that just flat out was going to happen. What the hell are you talking about? Japan knew it was defeated and there were no conditions other than the emporer's safety. This was all that was required to accept occupation. That the Japanese Occupation was not marred with hardly any violence at all is testament to that.

The Americans couldn't make the Japanese be sensible. Because killing hundreds of thousands with a nuclear device is so sensible.

All they could do was keep killing them through a variety of direct and indirect means. While refusing to even attempt in negotiating a surrender.

If Japanese leadership gave any kind of a crap about either the Japanese people at large or those in tasked with fighting what they knew to be a hopeless succession of battles they would have surrendered then. Because, AS I ALREADY EXPLAINED, they wanted the Emporer to be safe. And if you'd bothered actually research any of this, the Japanese government was making signals for surrender as early as a year before the fact. The US blatantly refused to listen.

The Japanese wanted their own people to die. And your credibility has been reduced to zero with this single statement alone.

Chikyota, are you familar with the wartime Japanese slogan "Death is as light as a feather, duty as heavy as a mountain"?

The Generals had organized old people, children and women into militias and issued them bamboo spears, given children demo packs inadequately powerful to hurt an American tank but plenty strong enough to blow the kids into scrap meat, and were prepared to fight the Decisive Battle on the Kanto Plains and in southern Kyushu no matter the casualties?

Until it became clear that the Americans were going to nuke any large troop concentrations, making even this impossible?

and killing tens of thousands of Japanese in a single attack is moral if it brings the war that has killed tens of millions to an end. Which was the whole point of the US effort.. destroy the Japanese militaristic structure, liberate Japanese controlled territory, and force the Japanese Military to surrender.

First, Unconditional Surrender was believed to be a plausible threat to the life of the emporer and would have been rejected even if the US had actually made an effort on negotiating.

However, the US never even conscidered negotiating.


http://www.marynet.com/hirosh.html

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless. with that in mind, yeah, I can see their response. You see. Japan started the War with a Cowardly Attack (in the American eyes) then tried to ligitimise it by formally Declaring War (damn time difference) after a bloody and brutal War, the Japanese wanted to surrender by their terms and you expect the US to accept that?

And realize that this was after World War I... where Germany tried to take over Europe. and then they were trying again. So the mentallity then would be, Destroy any and all hope that they will make War again. Berlin was split... and in the case of the Japanese, their war machine not just dismantled, but smashed.

Oh and By the way, My High School never even entertained the Notion that the A-Bombs were Good things. just Lessions that needed to be learned on all sides.

The Generals had organized old people, children and women into militias and issued them bamboo spears, given children demo packs inadequately powerful to hurt an American tank but plenty strong enough to blow the kids into scrap meat, and were prepared to fight the Decisive Battle on the Kanto Plains and in southern Kyushu no matter the casualties?
I have never advocated that an invasion was ever necessary. I am aware that an invasion would have been devastating, but if you look at my posts I've consistently argued that a diplomatic solution not only would have worked but might have also ended the war months in advance, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

First, Unconditional Surrender was believed to be a plausible threat to the life of the emporer and would have been rejected even if the US had actually made an effort on negotiating.

However, the US never even conscidered negotiating.


http://www.marynet.com/hirosh.html
Which would mean something if this came in 1941, or '42. However, by mid '45 the United States and all others had stated, repeatedly, that the only terms that would be accepted was unconditional surender. The Japanese knew this. FDR and then Truman stated it an had agreed upon it with the Allies. As much as it is easy to now state, 'If only America had bent and allowed the Emperor to remain...' that assumes that only Japan and America were fighting. It was Japan and the Allies and I doubt that Stalin and Churchill would have agreed to a sudden change in the overall goals of the war.

Also, it should be noted, that in many cases, what the Japanese were asking for was not to retain the Emperor as a figurehead, as the Imperial system is now, but for the Emperor to retain the real power he had as under the Meiji Constitution. Given 4 years of telling the American public that the Showa Emperor had started the war, how could the President then state that he would be allowed to keep full powers and escape any punishment? It was a hard enough sell to explain why he wasn't on trial in Tokyo.

Most of the tours the Showa Emperor did after the war was less to show the Japanese people that he wasn't a god, and more to convince the American and international public that he was a harmless little man in an ill-fitting suit that said "Aa soudesu" all the time.

I have never advocated that an invasion was ever necessary. I am aware that an invasion would have been devastating, but if you look at my posts I've consistently argued that a diplomatic solution not only would have worked but might have also ended the war months in advance, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

Toland (best work, The Rising Sun), probably the best historian on the subject, pretty much believes that the Generals weren't willing to quit, irregardless of the wishes of the moderate civilian and military leaders and Hirohito dared not move against the die hards without sufficient support. Diplomacy wasn't working at that point.

Whether the Soviet destruction of the Kwantung Army (which was occuring at the same time) would have been enough to finally force the issue along with the bombing, mine campaign and tight blockade is one of those eternal questions we will never know. But there was not sufficient reason for the US policy makers to believe so at that point.

Incidently, I have read that the Australians and Chinese weren't too happy about Hirohito being allowed to continue to reign. This was a coalition war, and the US was not the only decision maker at the table.

The two bombs caused, in total, 120,000 instantly dead. There was severe radiation poisening in a 10 mile radius, and even to this day there is a higher cancer rate in the two cities. I'll be generous, let's say 600,000 died from the atomic bombs. The holocause killed 12 million (6 million is the common number, but that was just Jews. The Nazis had a lot more enemies). The Japanese were notoriously vicious against the people they captured- enslaving, raping, and plundering. Finally, the Japanese emperor was believed at the time to be god on earth, the god. Tojo, who controlled the emperor, made him tell the people to fight. You now have a country who not only believe they are being demanded by god, but is in a culture which says surrender is dishonerable.

Invasion would have caused millions of deaths on both sides, far more than the atomic bombs.

But besides, can you really criticize Truman? Imagine being in his position. You are faced with the decision of continuing what has already been a long and bloody war, causing the death of even more Americans, or unleashing a weapon whose full power is not known. All they knew was that it would cause massive destruction, how much is impossible to tell unless you try. I know I personally would not want to have to live with either decision, it's lose-lose.

What would you have done in his place? Do you have some genius idea, because if you can't come up with a better solution don't criticize.

Toland (best work, The Rising Sun), probably the best historian on the subject, pretty much believes that the Generals weren't willing to quit, irregardless of the wishes of the moderate civilian and military leaders and Hirohito dared not move against the die hards without sufficient support. Diplomacy wasn't working at that point.
It is true that Japanese government, by the late 30s, had essentially been factioned off between the militarists and the "peace party" that had never wanted war between Japan and the US, which included Hirohito and a number of naval officers. The two groups were at odds over surrender, with the militarists wanting vainly to carry on. However, it should be noted that the actual government was attempting at peaceful means and that the military could be subdued by official word from the Emporer, as was the case when the actual surrender took place.


Incidently, I have read that the Australians and Chinese weren't too happy about Hirohito being allowed to continue to reign. This was a coalition war, and the US was not the only decision maker at the table.

I imagine so, especially for the Chinese. Hirohito's role in the Nanjing massacre is unknown, but the same cannot be said of many other atrocities. He was surely not clean of any crimes, but it was necessary for the sake of the Occupation that he remain as emporer.

The two bombs caused, in total, 120,000 instantly dead. There was severe radiation poisening in a 10 mile radius, and even to this day there is a higher cancer rate in the two cities. I'll be generous, let's say 600,000 died from the atomic bombs. The holocause killed 12 million (6 million is the common number, but that was just Jews. The Nazis had a lot more enemies). The Japanese were notoriously vicious against the people they captured- enslaving, raping, and plundering. Two wrongs do not make a right. This is not a playground; just because someone kicks a person in the balls doesn't mean you are justified in returning in kind.

Finally, the Japanese emperor was believed at the time to be god on earth, the god. Tojo, who controlled the emperor, made him tell the people to fight. You now have a country who not only believe they are being demanded by god, but is in a culture which says surrender is dishonerable. No, they believed not dying in war (essentially failing to serve the emporer) was dishonorable. Take note, once the Emporer okayed the surrender everyone was more or less fine with it. Hardly any violence, unlike certain occupations in Iraq.

Invasion would have caused millions of deaths on both sides, far more than the atomic bombs.
And as I have said previously, I never have advocated for an invasion either.

But besides, can you really criticize Truman? Imagine being in his position. You are faced with the decision of continuing what has already been a long and bloody war, causing the death of even more Americans, or unleashing a weapon whose full power is not known. All they knew was that it would cause massive destruction, how much is impossible to tell unless you try. I know I personally would not want to have to live with either decision, it's lose-lose.
Just now you have limited it to only two options. However, nothing in life is so two-dimensional. There were plenty of other options to go for, including the diplomatic method which I have been advocating here.

What would you have done in his place? Do you have some genius idea, because if you can't come up with a better solution don't criticize. I have already given better solutions, perhaps you had better actually read some of the thread before posting.

Here we go with this arguement once more. The Japanese in 1944 werent willing to surrender unless they got to keep their empire. FDR wanted to avoid having to fight the Japanese 20 years down the line much like what happened with WWI. FDR wanted unconditional surrender and that wasnt happening. The Japanese were fighting to the very last man,woman and child. Read up on the defense of Iwo Jima and Okinawa and how many Japanese prisoners were taken from both islands. I went to a high school with more people than what surrendered in both battles. This is out of TENS OF THOUSANDS of Japanese on Iwo Jima, and twice the numbers of Okinawa including civilians who rather than be captured by Americans killed fellow Japanese or tossed themselves onto rocks.

Furthermore, if the Atom Bombs had not been dropped in November of 1945 Operation Olympic would have started. Normandy would be a footnote because Olympic was promising to be 3x as larger, and just as bloody as Iwo Jima. The Marine Corps monument in D.C. would be radically different as well because the KIA/WIA rates for Olympic on the allied side were expected to be horrendous. ANZAC and the Brits were going to be asked to supply forces, troops from Europe were being redeployed to the Pacific..and for some reason ending the war quickly was a bad thing? Give me a break. We were fighting a fanatical enemy that believed if they threw themselves at our ships they could turn the tide of war.

Its easy to sit now and look back at the past and say "Oh gee..that was wrong..and that was wrong..and oh look this says that they were wrong." Back then they didnt know that. Couldnt have known that. They could only guess what would happen, and guess what would be the future. Those atom bombs were dropped to stop a war that was more destructive than anything seen before. You can be damn sure that in 1945 not one person cared for the plight of the Japanese. And you can be damn sure that not one POW, or civilian who had to live under Japanese occupation cared either. Does it make the bombing anymore right? I dont know..can you put yourselves in the shoes of a US Marine? Or a fire fighter aboard an Essex class CV? Or how about in the shoes of a 14 year old being trained to run up to a US tank and blow himself and it up to stop the americans. When it comes down to it, no one now can argue whether it was right or not. Only those who made the choice. Those are the people haunted or relieved by what they did.

No, they believed not dying in war (essentially failing to serve the emporer) was dishonorable. Take note, once the Emporer okayed the surrender everyone was more or less fine with it. Hardly any violence, unlike certain occupations in Iraq.


This is utter bullshit, there were hundreds of suicides in the following months after the war, and even an attempted coup by military officers before the surrender could be publically announced. Surrender by all means was dishonorable. And if it meant defying the Emperor to fight to the death there were plenty still willing to do it. The civilians may have been swayed by the Emperor but the Military sure as heck wasnt willing.

This is utter bullshit, there were hundreds of suicides in the following months after the war, and even an attempted coup by military officers before the surrender could be publically announced. Surrender by all means was dishonorable. And if it meant defying the Emperor to fight to the death there were plenty still willing to do it. The civilians may have been swayed by the Emperor but the Military sure as heck wasnt willing.
Exactly. The Japanese do not take lightly to defeat (ever heard of Seppeku?). After the first bomb, barely anyone was advocating surrender. Even after the second, and after the U.S. dropped phamphlets saying "We'll wipe out a city every day until you surrender" (which was a bluff, they had no more bombs), there were still people who advocated fighting. The only option you've suggested was diplomacy. The Japanese weren't negotiating, that's even more dishonorable than surrendering.

No, they believed not dying in war (essentially failing to serve the emporer) was dishonorable. Take note, once the Emporer okayed the surrender everyone was more or less fine with it. Hardly any violence, unlike certain occupations in Iraq.
He only changed his policy after the second bomb. Up until then, the official policy was against the Americans, meaning people were willing to fight America with their bare hands. Once the emperor finally got his power back and was able to tell people to back down, they did exactly as he said.

But, it works both ways. Eisenhower went in to Japan with no body gaurds, and nobody harmed him. Emperor says surrender- they did exactly as he told. Emperor says fight- they kill or be killed.

Two wrongs do not make a right. This is not a playground; just because someone kicks a person in the balls doesn't mean you are justified in returning in kind..

the short answer to that is yes you are

I have already given better solutions,

well, you are basing your arguements primarily on historical hindsight, so there is plenty of room to disagree with you.

This is utter bullshit, there were hundreds of suicides in the following months after the war, and even an attempted coup by military officers before the surrender could be publically announced. Surrender by all means was dishonorable. And if it meant defying the Emperor to fight to the death there were plenty still willing to do it. The civilians may have been swayed by the Emperor but the Military sure as heck wasnt willing.
Your argument hinges on the military not being swayed by the emporer. Now this depends on the scope; the actual bulk of the military, the soldiers, very much were swayed by the emporer. The generals were not so much and it was they who initiated the attempted coup. This does not constitute "many willing to do it" as you so boldy colored it, but rather irritionality in the leadership. Take note that hardly anyone, military or no, was willing to fight to the death after surrendering.

As for suicides, Japan has always had a high suicide rate. The fact of the matter still remains that by and large the population accepted the Occupation once it began.

Your argument hinges on the military not being swayed by the emporer. Now this depends on the scope; the actual bulk of the military, the soldiers, very much were swayed by the emporer. The generals were not so much and it was they who initiated the attempted coup. This does not constitute "many willing to do it" as you so boldy colored it, but rather irritionality in the leadership. Take note that hardly anyone, military or no, was willing to fight to the death after surrendering.

As for suicides, Japan has always had a high suicide rate. The fact of the matter still remains that by and large the population accepted the Occupation once it began.because to do so would dishonor the Emperor. and to do that the offender won't even have the option of committing suicide to attone for that offence.

well, you are basing your arguements primarily on historical hindsight, so there is plenty of room to disagree with you.

I'd contend that there was plenty of question even then. General McArthur, for instance, was disgusted by the idea of unconditional surrender and was also opposed to the dropping of the bomb. He essentially argued the same point as I am, that the US could have ended the war at least weeks earlier by agreeing to the condition the Japanese had laid out. I could note that Eisenhower too was opposed to the use of the bomb.

I'd contend that there was plenty of question even then. General McArthur, for instance, was disgusted by the idea of unconditional surrender and was also opposed to the dropping of the bomb. He essentially argued the same point as I am, that the US could have ended the war at least weeks earlier by agreeing to the condition the Japanese had laid out. I could note that Eisenhower too was opposed to the use of the bomb.

yes, both of them were. Eisenhower had the advantage of seeing first hand the destruction rained on Germany. Macarthur, well, some historians hate him and would say he just wanted to command the greatest military force ever gathered together for an invasion of Japan. Others would say he was concerned about the changes in warfare brought by the Second World War and the greatest change was the destruction of cities by bombers, especially one bomber with a nuke.

Feelings on the matter were mixed on the US side but the feelings of most American troops and sailors slated for the invasion was of overwhelming relief.

The bottom line is this:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with the destruction of the Kwantung Army by the Soviets, the continued blockade, and threat of starvation and the certainty of a US invasion made the decision to surrender possible. Even the most die hard of the Japanese Generals realized the war was lost at that point. Would they have still agreed to surrender without Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That is the question, and hard to answer.

So the debate will continue for a long time to come.

Its september 1945. The japanese have been kicked out of pretty much everywhere except japan. The japanese war machine is weak, and they can barely manufacture firearms, much less aircraft and ships. Allied forces maintain a blockade on the resource-poor nation, while russian forces are on the horizon, and easily defeating any japanese resistance(actually in august, but whatever).

What to do? You can kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, to try and force japan to surrendur. You can invade, with high projected casualties. OR, you can do neither. Maintain the blockade. Japan, under heavy blockade, will run out of not only oil, but basic resources. A heavy blockade, with submarines and heavily protected convoys(to protect against kamikaze's, who would soon become rare as oil and planes became rare).

Suppose you choose blockade. Japan is quickly being starved out. The choice to surrendur is in japan's hands, and it has as much time as it needs to decide to surrendur. Once it see's it cant feed its people, or defend against bombers, etc, it can decide to slowly die, or surrendur. Even if it chooses to wait, it will slowly starve out, and the emporer is to blame.

The point of this is, the bombings were not required. Nor was an invasion. There were more than 1 possibility. Even while maintaining unconditional surrendur.

I'd contend that there was plenty of question even then. General McArthur, for instance, was disgusted by the idea of unconditional surrender and was also opposed to the dropping of the bomb. He essentially argued the same point as I am, that the US could have ended the war at least weeks earlier by agreeing to the condition the Japanese had laid out. I could note that Eisenhower too was opposed to the use of the bomb.

Neither McArthur, no Einsenhower knew of the bombs existance before they were used.

Eisenhower was incharge of the European Theater, he wouldnt be privy to something destined for the Pacific. McArthur was a brash hot head who by the way was the designer of Operation Olympic. If he knew about the bomb, you can be damn sure after getting the preliminary KIA/WIA estimates he would have voted for using the bomb. Truman himself didnt know about the bomb until after Stalins death. Very very few in the military knew of the bombs existance.

Would they have still agreed to surrender without Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That is the question, and hard to answer.

So the debate will continue for a long time to come.

On this point I agree. I maintain they would have, you may not, but the actual answer is likely unknowable. We can only infer based upon the data we have, and so this debate will definately continue for a long time.

Neither McArthur, no Einsenhower knew of the bombs existance before they were used.

Eisenhower was incharge of the European Theater, he wouldnt be privy to something destined for the Pacific. McArthur was a brash hot head who by the way was the designer of Operation Olympic. If he knew about the bomb, you can be damn sure after getting the preliminary KIA/WIA estimates he would have voted for using the bomb. Truman himself didnt know about the bomb until after Stalins death. Very very few in the military knew of the bombs existance.


What are you talking about? You are saying truman didnt know about the manhattan project until 1953? Hmm...so, he approved the nuclear bombing of japan in 1945, but didnt know about nuclear weapons until 8 years in the future?

Would they have still agreed to surrender without Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That is the question, and hard to answer.
Just to toss some oil onto the fire here, I've also read that the atomic bombs had nothing at all to do with Japan's surender (The reason why it took a week). It was the advance of the USSR and the real possiblity that Japan would end up split down the middle like Germany that finally forced Japan to capitulate.

This theory rests on the fact that Japan and Russia have a history of hating and fearing each other. Russia from not only the Russo-Japanese war, but sociatal 'memories' of the Mongolian invasion. Japan for pretty much the same reasons.

Its september 1945. The japanese have been kicked out of pretty much everywhere except japan. The japanese war machine is weak, and they can barely manufacture firearms, much less aircraft and ships. Allied forces maintain a blockade on the resource-poor nation, while russian forces are on the horizon, and easily defeating any japanese resistance(actually in august, but whatever).

What to do? You can kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, to try and force japan to surrendur. You can invade, with high projected casualties. OR, you can do neither. Maintain the blockade. Japan, under heavy blockade, will run out of not only oil, but basic resources. A heavy blockade, with submarines and heavily protected convoys(to protect against kamikaze's, who would soon become rare as oil and planes became rare).

Suppose you choose blockade. Japan is quickly being starved out. The choice to surrendur is in japan's hands, and it has as much time as it needs to decide to surrendur. Once it see's it cant feed its people, or defend against bombers, etc, it can decide to slowly die, or surrendur. Even if it chooses to wait, it will slowly starve out, and the emporer is to blame.

The point of this is, the bombings were not required. Nor was an invasion. There were more than 1 possibility. Even while maintaining unconditional surrendur.

the death toll from further blockade very well might have been higher than the death toll of the invasion. Most Japanese civilians by August 1945 were not getting enough calories (in food) to maintain health and in some cases to avoid starvation as it was. Only the immediate import of hundreds of thousands of tons of food post surrender prevented actual starvation in Japan in the winter of 1945-46. Its hard to say for sure, but you can bet the last people to starve would be the Army. Kind of rough on the Japanese civilians though.

That arguement (continued blockade) was brought up by the Allied Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time and rejected because it would likely cause more deaths, create more hard feelings postwar in Japan, and might not work in any case, and was not political possible for the American government (trying to sell that would have been flat impossible for a number of reasons).

Eisenhower was incharge of the European Theater, he wouldnt be privy to something destined for the Pacific.

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him 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 that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380


McArthur was a brash hot head who by the way was the designer of Operation Olympic. If he knew about the bomb, you can be damn sure after getting the preliminary KIA/WIA estimates he would have voted for using the bomb.

In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

You should check up on this stuff.

What are you talking about? You are saying truman didnt know about the manhattan project until 1953? Hmm...so, he approved the nuclear bombing of japan in 1945, but didnt know about nuclear weapons until 8 years in the future?

my guess would be he meant Roosevelt. As far as Eisenhower is concerned, he was cleared on information on the Manhatten Project, and his opinion was consulted. He was against using the bombs against cities, but along with Marshal wondered if they could be used in the pre invasion bombardment.

Well, they didn't really know about radiation yet is all you can say about that one.

the death toll from further blockade very well might have been higher than the death toll of the invasion. Most Japanese civilians by August 1945 were not getting enough calories (in food) to maintain health and in some cases to avoid starvation as it was. Only the immediate import of hundreds of thousands of tons of food post surrender prevented actual starvation in Japan in the winter of 1945-46. Its hard to say for sure, but you can bet the last people to starve would be the Army. Kind of rough on the Japanese civilians though.

That arguement (continued blockade) was brought up by the Allied Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time and rejected because it would likely cause more deaths, create more hard feelings postwar in Japan, and might not work in any case, and was not political possible for the American government (trying to sell that would have been flat impossible for a number of reasons).

I realize it might have equaled more deaths. But they would have been on the emporers hands. He would be able to call for surrendur, and stop it at any time, while the blockade would slowly kill the japanese. Atomic bomb deaths were immediate, the emporer couldnt stop it when 10 thousand died, or 50.

What are you talking about? You are saying truman didnt know about the manhattan project until 1953? Hmm...so, he approved the nuclear bombing of japan in 1945, but didnt know about nuclear weapons until 8 years in the future?

Umm..Roosevelt died in 1945. Truman finds out about the bomb after he becomes President. In 1945. Truman wasnt told about the Manhattan project until several months before August 1945. Where the fuck did you get 1953 from? He wasnt President then either. Eisenhower was.

Edit, in my earlier post I meant Roosevelt. Sorry I'm going back and forth between IRC and the boards. Discussion about Stalin and him knowing about the US abomb before Truman.

On this point I agree. I maintain they would have, you may not, but the actual answer is likely unknowable. We can only infer based upon the data we have, and so this debate will definately continue for a long time.
well, lets look at the positive side then. (yes there are positive sides to the bombings)

1) we know the horror of Atomic/Nuclear weapons. the lasting effects of Radiation and the evidence is one that no one can refute.

2) the mentallity of Nuclear weapons changed. can you imagine the power of todays Nuclear weapons with the mentality of a people that don't have proof of their acutal devistative power?

3) The groups now designed to limit the building and possible spread of Nuclear weapons are formed because of those two bombs.

4) Less Nations that have em and even less willing to use em.

Suppose you choose blockade. Japan is quickly being starved out. The choice to surrendur is in japan's hands, and it has as much time as it needs to decide to surrendur. Once it see's it cant feed its people, or defend against bombers, etc, it can decide to slowly die, or surrendur. Even if it chooses to wait, it will slowly starve out, and the emporer is to blame.

The point of this is, the bombings were not required. Nor was an invasion. There were more than 1 possibility. Even while maintaining unconditional surrendur.
Yes, we can see how well the starvation idea worked on North Korea. The civilians in Japan were all ready on meger rationings (One of the reasons the occupation went over so well was that the FIRST action the Americans took was to feed the Japanese. "Send me food, or by God send me bullets"). It also ignores the still large army Japan had in China and on other islands that we hopped over.

The problem with food fights is that while they work on castle and town seiges, they don't work nearly as well on countries. Usually a country is able to grow enough food and provide enough materials to equipt the army, even if everyone else is starving to death, again, see North Korea.

Neither McArthur, no Einsenhower knew of the bombs existance before they were used.

Eisenhower was incharge of the European Theater, he wouldnt be privy to something destined for the Pacific. McArthur was a brash hot head who by the way was the designer of Operation Olympic. If he knew about the bomb, you can be damn sure after getting the preliminary KIA/WIA estimates he would have voted for using the bomb. Truman himself didnt know about the bomb until after Stalins death. Very very few in the military knew of the bombs existance.

And for the record, I never said Truman was president in 1953(though technically, he was in january).

And for the record, I never said Truman was president in 1953(though technically, he was in january).


Yea check, my editted post. Realized the mistake. Although from how I made it out you could have assumed instead of trying to make a snide remark about it.

Yes, we can see how well the starvation idea worked on North Korea. The civilians in Japan were all ready on meger rationings (One of the reasons the occupation went over so well was that the FIRST action the Americans took was to feed the Japanese. "Send me food, or by God send me bullets"). It also ignores the still large army Japan had in China and on other islands that we hopped over.

The problem with food fights is that while they work on castle and town seiges, they don't work nearly as well on countries. Usually a country is able to grow enough food and provide enough materials to equipt the army, even if everyone else is starving to death, again, see North Korea.

North korea isnt at war with anyone, well not really(I dont count the korean war still happening). North korea has enough to last its people, if only barely(or a little under). Japan was already low on...everything, before it was completely blockaded. The soviets showed how easily they could beat the japanese in august 1945, they would have little trouble throwing the japanese out of manchuria. If the japanese wanted to sit on their island, and starve to death, they could.

Yea check, my editted post. Realized the mistake. Although from how I made it out you could have assumed instead of trying to make a snide remark about it.

There are many things in my life I could have done, and chose not too. I dont regret anything(Well, one thing, but other than that).

well, lets look at the positive side then. (yes there are positive sides to the bombings)
1) we know the horror of Atomic/Nuclear weapons. the lasting effects of Radiation and the evidence is one that no one can refute.
2) the mentallity of Nuclear weapons changed. can you imagine the power of todays Nuclear weapons with the mentality of a people that don't have proof of their acutal devistative power?
3) The groups now designed to limit the building and possible spread of Nuclear weapons are formed because of those two bombs.
4) Less Nations that have em and even less willing to use em.

I still would have preferred that the bombs not have been dropped, but there is an admittedly beneficial side coming from these points. The sheer horror of the end result of the bombings was such that no one wants to dare use them. Even the most militaristic of people are wary of nuclear war knowing what it can do to people. There is definately a positive aspect to that.

North korea isnt at war with anyone, well not really(I dont count the korean war still happening). North korea has enough to last its people, if only barely(or a little under). Japan was already low on...everything, before it was completely blockaded. The soviets showed how easily they could beat the japanese in august 1945, they would have little trouble throwing the japanese out of manchuria. If the japanese wanted to sit on their island, and starve to death, they could.
Yes, they could, assuming of course the Soviet Union could be made to pull back. My point being though, if we tried to starve Japan into surender, we could still be sitting there waiting for it to surender. While we could blockade Japan from getting raw materials, we could not stop it from growing enough food to feed itself.

The point of this is, the bombings were not required. Nor was an invasion. There were more than 1 possibility. Even while maintaining unconditional surrendur.
As others have mentioned choosing starvation would have undoubtedly killed far more people than bombing, no matter the weapons used.

The Japanese military leaders thought it was perfectly acceptable to absorb as many as four atomic weapons, even considering all of their other difficulties. Furthermore they had their own super-weapon, biological weapons, and were preparing to deploy them against California. Had *that* happened, the only Japanese people alive today would be living on reservations.

As for Big Mac's anti-nuke stance. You must be joking. He wanted to detonate a string of nukes between the Korean peninsula and mainland China to create an irradiated DMZ. That guy was bold general, but he passed through brilliant on his way to foolhardy. See: the Korean War. He was the American Monty, only his ego was as big as the pacific as opposed to just north Africa. Patton wanted to save American lives, Doug wanted to be immortalized in textbooks.

What you seem to be glossing over, incessantly, is that if the Japanese wanted to surrender they could have. They had been losing the war for a long time, if they'd surrendered early enough, they might have even been able to keep some of the empire. But that's not what they wanted. They wanted every Japanese person everywhere to fight to the last breath, and if their children wouldn't they wanted them thrown off sea cliffs. Even at the end, after the first atomic weapon, they cared more about certainty in the preservation of their Emperor than avoiding the certainty of their nation's utter annihilation. The Japanese leadership wanted their people to die. To prove their faith, their fealty. If they didn't they would have left instructions for the forces holding islands to hold out as long as possible, and then surrender. But that certainly never happened, or probably even occurred to them. It was their choice to keep fighting a war which had been irretrievably lost since Midway.

That said,... on the subject of vile deaths starvation/dehydration would probably top the list thanks. Perhaps followed by various infections. Drowning in one's own bodily fluids while suffering radiation burns probably isn't much fun. But when you start to compare it to an infected shrapnel wound, shitting yourself to death, being suffocated or having your lungs and other tender tissues scorched by superheated air, it's not so bad, especially when you've got pretty decent odds of going in a bright flash you'll never even feel. Growing up near the Renton Boeing plant in the 80's I've made my peace with a flash followed by harp music, I'll even put it at the top of the preferred final exit list. The only people who could save the lives of Japanese people were the leaders who weren't ready to choose the survival of their nation until after two atomic weapons had been used.

I don't know which would have stung worse for Japan: being invaded by 3 million American GIs or having all your beaches renamed after American car companies for decades to come :D
The article leaves out Truman's intention to help clear the way for the invasion with 10 atomic bombs though. That's ultimately the reason Japan surrendered. Who would be crazy enough to engage in a nuclear conflict without nukes??

Actually, that wasn't Truman's intention, it was his "illusion" of plan, to scare the Japanese into surrender...

It was the world's greatest poker bluff... We only had three bombs... The Trinity test bomb, "Fat Man" a rather largish 1 kiloton Slug-type test bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima, and "Little Boy" a smaller 2kiloton implosive-type test bomb dropped on Nagasaki... And it would take alot more time to even generate enough fissionable material to field more bombs... His stated goals were "to keep dropping bombs..." but it was a bluff... We didn't have the capability to continue such...

The Japanese military leaders thought it was perfectly acceptable to absorb as many as four atomic weapons, even considering all of their other difficulties. Furthermore they had their own super-weapon, biological weapons, and were preparing to deploy them against California. Had *that* happened, the only Japanese people alive today would be living on reservations. A deployment against California that late in the game? Any proof of this? I've heard little of the sort.

As for Big Mac's anti-nuke stance. You must be joking. He wanted to detonate a string of nukes between the Korean peninsula and mainland China to create an irradiated DMZ.
This should actually defend my point more than yours. He was quite willing to use the bomb against an adversary of potential strength (China) yet he opposed using it against Japan because he knew Japan was already beaten. Point in case.

What you seem to be glossing over, incessantly, is that if the Japanese wanted to surrender they could have. And what you keep glossing over is that the government was willing to agree to any terms other than "unconditional surrender"

They had been losing the war for a long time, if they'd surrendered early enough, they might have even been able to keep some of the empire. This is a rediculous statement. No one, not even the Japanese leadership, believed that.

They wanted every Japanese person everywhere to fight to the last breath, and if their children wouldn't they wanted them thrown off sea cliffs. Throwing children off cliffs? You have no clue what you are talking about, do you? Honestly, this is sounding like propaganda films from the 40s.

Even at the end, after the first atomic weapon, they cared more about certainty in the preservation of their Emperor than avoiding the certainty of their nation's utter annihilation.
Because the emporer essentially was the nation. Maybe you don't get that concept, but it is a different mindset than yours.

The Japanese leadership wanted their people to die. To prove their faith, their fealty. Preposterous. What proof have you of this want? Conscidering they had been trying to reach some sort of negotiations for months beforehand, there is little basis in your statements.

There were thousands of women on Okinawa who threw themselves and their children off the cliffs to avoid capture by the Americans. There are films of it. It's truly gruesome.

They were told that the US forces were going to rape and enslave them, and eat their children.

A deployment against California that late in the game? Any proof of this? I've heard little of the sort. .[/QUOTE]

The Japanese used high altitude balloons to delivery bombs from 1944-45 with the objective of setting fire to American forests... it didn't work very well but a substantial number (over a hundred) actually reached the US. US casualties numbered 4 killed (a family who ran across one on a picnic). Later versions were supposed to have biological weapons aboard but time ran out before they could be deployed.

As wacky as that sounds (and its well documented), the US had an even sillier plan that never got carried out. The US had a project to raise tens of thousands of bats which were supposed to be released over Japan with little firebombs aboard. They were supposedly going to find Japanese attics and set fires. Needless to say saner heads eventually pointed out that this was a profoundly silly idea. After a lot of money had already been spent.


Throwing children off cliffs? You have no clue what you are talking about, do you? Honestly, this is sounding like propaganda films from the 40s..

the incident in question occured at Saipan in 1944. The cliffs involved are now called the Samuri Cliffs (or Suicide Cliffs depending on the source). As US troops closed in, Japanese adults killed their children and then jumped in after them. Soldiers also killed civilians and then themselves. The Saipan campaign is extremely well documented.


Preposterous. What proof have you of this want? Conscidering they had been trying to reach some sort of negotiations for months beforehand, there is little basis in your statements.

based on Japanese suicidal resistance to that point in the war, the Kamikaze attacks, the incident at Saipan, the horrendous casualties Japanese civilians and soldiers were taking, the fact that the Japanese Navy had been nearly completely destroyed and the fact that Japan was under close blockade and clearly on the verge of starvation.... yet would not surrender....led a lot of reasonable people on the Allied side to make that assumption about the Japanese leadership. Fair or unfair, at the time and since that isn't an unreasonable assumption (although a bit culturally biased).

As others have mentioned choosing starvation would have undoubtedly killed far more people than bombing, no matter the weapons used.

The Japanese military leaders thought it was perfectly acceptable to absorb as many as four atomic weapons, even considering all of their other difficulties. Furthermore they had their own super-weapon, biological weapons, and were preparing to deploy them against California. Had *that* happened, the only Japanese people alive today would be living on reservations.

As for Big Mac's anti-nuke stance. You must be joking. He wanted to detonate a string of nukes between the Korean peninsula and mainland China to create an irradiated DMZ. That guy was bold general, but he passed through brilliant on his way to foolhardy. See: the Korean War. He was the American Monty, only his ego was as big as the pacific as opposed to just north Africa. Patton wanted to save American lives, Doug wanted to be immortalized in textbooks.

What you seem to be glossing over, incessantly, is that if the Japanese wanted to surrender they could have. They had been losing the war for a long time, if they'd surrendered early enough, they might have even been able to keep some of the empire. But that's not what they wanted. They wanted every Japanese person everywhere to fight to the last breath, and if their children wouldn't they wanted them thrown off sea cliffs. Even at the end, after the first atomic weapon, they cared more about certainty in the preservation of their Emperor than avoiding the certainty of their nation's utter annihilation. The Japanese leadership wanted their people to die. To prove their faith, their fealty. If they didn't they would have left instructions for the forces holding islands to hold out as long as possible, and then surrender. But that certainly never happened, or probably even occurred to them. It was their choice to keep fighting a war which had been irretrievably lost since Midway.

That said,... on the subject of vile deaths starvation/dehydration would probably top the list thanks. Perhaps followed by various infections. Drowning in one's own bodily fluids while suffering radiation burns probably isn't much fun. But when you start to compare it to an infected shrapnel wound, shitting yourself to death, being suffocated or having your lungs and other tender tissues scorched by superheated air, it's not so bad, especially when you've got pretty decent odds of going in a bright flash you'll never even feel. Growing up near the Renton Boeing plant in the 80's I've made my peace with a flash followed by harp music, I'll even put it at the top of the preferred final exit list. The only people who could save the lives of Japanese people were the leaders who weren't ready to choose the survival of their nation until after two atomic weapons had been used.

blunt but very true...

Its hard to take MacArthur's 1945 stand against the A Bomb completely seriously when he advocated its use in 1951 when things were desperate in Korea. (That stand was one of the many reasons for his relief by Truman as it was scaring the hell out of US allies)

Could you provide a bit more guidance, as in journals or specific articles these papers were translated/analized?

Note: I'm not attacking your conclusions, I really am interested if something new has come out and what/where it might be.

Go through the Japanese Archives. You'll find your information there. That is if its still around.

What I find really utterly stupid is that people complain about all the atrocies that happened in WW2 by the Nazi's and Japanesse is that the US A-bombed Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of people and poisoned people for genarations and basically killed off New York in comprapsion. Its not that Im saying the Holocaust wasn't bad or anything but give it a rest. The US ruined 100's of square kilometers(or miles) of land and killed hundreds of thousands

Peace Out - No one deserves to die... At dusk and in the morning we will remember Them


when messing with an the great allies (Britain,U.S.A,Russia,France)
You get as much as you give.

There were thousands of women on Okinawa who threw themselves and their children off the cliffs to avoid capture by the Americans. There are films of it. It's truly gruesome.

They were told that the US forces were going to rape and enslave them, and eat their children.

DOn't forget the Suicide Cliffs on Saipan!

Sick japanese bastards!.
Now i hate them even more.
I mean yeah the samuri stuff is cool but that is just sick.
Fighting their cowards war.

As wacky as that sounds (and its well documented), the US had an even sillier plan that never got carried out. The US had a project to raise tens of thousands of bats which were supposed to be released over Japan with little firebombs aboard. They were supposedly going to find Japanese attics and set fires. Needless to say saner heads eventually pointed out that this was a profoundly silly idea. After a lot of money had already been spent.
actually, I heard about this plan. and it worked to... for the bats escaped and roosted in a hanger... which promptly burned down.

Um... We did it to end the war, not to kill people. The Holocost was genocide, the A-bomb was a terror weapon used to end the war.

Dresden would have been an example of American attrocity. That was just plain wrong... But leave the A-bomb alone.

As general wutshisface said, "The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his". I think thats how it went, maybe not.

If I'm not mistaken, this was General Patton.

The only people who could save the lives of Japanese people were the leaders who weren't ready to choose the survival of their nation until after two atomic weapons had been used.
And even then, the Japanese leadership didn't want to surrender. It was only after the Emperor ordered them to that they reluctantly did so.

Preposterous. What proof have you of this want? Conscidering they had been trying to reach some sort of negotiations for months beforehand, there is little basis in your statements.
Do you think you could find a more annoying way to reply to posts? I bet a friend $20 you couldn't without using your caps lock key.

That said, while a history book would be ideal, even some history channel would do some good at this point. You're not even cognizant of the major events in the War in the Pacific. Or even important figures. Your mischaracterization of Douglas MacArthur is nothing short of stunning. You want to pimp a black eye for the US, he is *your* boy. Look up the war crimes trials in Manila, which produced repercussions still being strongly felt to this day. He was very much like the Japanese. Far more concerned with his potential epitaph than the people he was responsible for, also, he was fond of just killing people because he hated the very idea of them.

In light of the post I'm responding to, I'm going to revise my opinion of you. You're not a delusional mouth breather, more like you just haven't had the opportunity to investigate something, that while it essentially provides the political foundation of our modern world, is admittedly somewhat obscure. Sufficed to say, you should look into Unit 731 and MacArthur's role in making sure that the Japanese scientists involved never saw justice. And for just pure evil, I would have to give it to the members of Unit 731, they'd even beat out the Germans. And just since we don't get all touchy feeling about our good divine emperor, and trained biologist, Hirohito, it was founded with his explicit approval. So what the Japanese leadership wanted, for anything, is pretty insignificant when it comes to issues of "morality". The people that Hirohito condemned to some of the most horrible deaths imaginable, they wanted to live, they didn't get what he wanted. That the Japanese leadership didn't get what they wanted, well, maybe that's karma.

But as you grow, and learn more about the War in the Pacific, you'll gain new appreciation for how the completely alien practices of the Japanese complicated the politics of ending the war. Given that the Japanese knew two things, 1. The Americans could live in a world without Japan or Japanese people, 2. The nation of Japan had long since been unable to preventing the Americans from making this happen through force of arms. Given those two accepted truths on both sides, Japan should have surrendered to whatever US demands might have been at their earliest opportunity to do so. And the only people to blame are the Japanese leadership, who were all too willing to walk right up to the threshold of door number one, opening it, and putting one foot through to the other side.

And even then, the Japanese leadership didn't want to surrender. It was only after the Emperor ordered them to that they reluctantly did so.

And not even then. There was an attempted military coup when Emperor Hirohito issued the cease-fire decree.