NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm



Should America admitt the dropping of Atomic weapons was not needed and admitt to being wrong? I for one say yes, it was a terrible and unjust action, there was no need for it.

I never thought it was the right thing to do.

Yeah, let's not give some time for an invasion and a possible surrender beforehand. Let's just drop some nukes on innocent civilians and give them the finger.

You seek to redress an offense from those who were not alive to make it to those who were not alive to be offended.

I never thought it was the right thing to do.

Yeah, let's not give some time for an invasion and a possible surrender beforehand. Let's just drop some nukes on innocent civilians and give them the finger.

An invasion would have destroyed all of Japan.

You seek to redress an offense from those who were not alive to make it to those who were not alive to be offended.

Kingdom of Heaven was great.

Kingdom of Heaven was great.

I love Hollywood. So many beautiful lines so appropriate for so many occasions....

I maintain that it would have been a better idea to drop the Bomb in the sea close to the Emperor's residence, or military headquarters.

As it was, the actual extent of the destruction, and the type of weapon used, wasn't really clear to the Japanese leadership until much later.

But if the Americans admit that they could've done better (and that'll be the day hell freezes over), the Allies would also have to start fessing up about Dresden, and all the other late bombings that didn't affect military capacity at all, but killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

Do you have ANY idea how many people would have died trying to invade Japan? Japanese and American alike? Are you saying that killing 237,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll) people was worse than killing millions possibly tens of millions?
Yes, I realize that they were "civilians" but they would have been bombed into dust conventionally in an invasion too. Just look at London, Stalingrad, and Berlin in the same war.
Was it the best thing to do? Dunno, but I can't think of a way that would have spared more lives realisticly, since there was NO way the Japnese were simply going to surrender. Look at the battle of Okinawa and tell me that people that were THAT dedicated to a war would surrender easily, on their homeland.

I never thought it was the right thing to do.

Yeah, let's not give some time for an invasion and a possible surrender beforehand. Let's just drop some nukes on innocent civilians and give them the finger.
If I remember correctly, the US' conventional bombing did more damage the the nukes, because so much of Japan was wooden buildings.
That aside, the nuking of Japan showed the world that nuclear weapons aren't the kind of thing that you make a habit of fucking around with. Sure, there were tests, people could simulate the effect, and prove what would happen, but I don't think the effect would have worked quite as well without a direct demonstration.
Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki sitting in the back of their minds, one of the "gifted" men ruling the USSR or the US might have pushed the button, rather than stopping at the last minute for negotiations, and then we'd all be rather fucked.

The Japanese would have fought to the death, the Atomic bombs were both nessacary.

Do you have ANY idea how many people would have died trying to invade Japan? Japanese and American alike? Are you saying that killing 237,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll) people was worse than killing millions possibly tens of millions?
Yes, I realize that they were "civilians" but they would have been bombed into dust conventionally in an invasion too. Just look at London, Stalingrad, and Berlin in the same war.
Was it the best thing to do? Dunno, but I can't think of a way that would have spared more lives realisticly, since there was NO way the Japnese were simply going to surrender. Look at the battle of Okinawa and tell me that people that were THAT dedicated to a war would surrender easily, on their homeland.


Japan was ready to surrender in Febuary, even hoover admitted that. Read his quote, the bombs were not needed and even military advisors admitted to other options being just as effective.

More people died in the Incendiary Bombings of Tokoyo...An invasion would have meant huge bombing as in Europe, where tens of thousands of people were killed in single bombing reaids. Then you have the actual invasion, which would kill tens of thousands of Americans and Millions of Japanesse. If you do not surrender after an atomic bomb, you will not surrender when someone walks onto a beach from a boat.... Look at Okanwa, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Palau, Guadalcanal, and a number of others. Japanese soldiers threw gernades at each other and jumped with thier familes off clifs to avoid being captured at Okinawa. For an island. Invasion was going to be a blood bath. Truman was smart in his decision.

We should have first dropped it on berlin, to demonstrate its mighty power to the japanese.

If that failed, another demonstration on Moscow.

Only then should we have proceeded to Hiroshima.

If I remember correctly, the US' conventional bombing did more damage the the nukes, because so much of Japan was wooden buildings.
That aside, the nuking of Japan showed the world that nuclear weapons aren't the kind of thing that you make a habit of fucking around with. Sure, there were tests, people could simulate the effect, and prove what would happen, but I don't think the effect would have worked quite as well without a direct demonstration.
Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki sitting in the back of their minds, one of the "gifted" men ruling the USSR or the US might have pushed the button, rather than stopping at the last minute for negotiations, and then we'd all be rather fucked.


I guess the deaths of countless men,women and children and even a relative of mine don't account for much?

Japan was ready to surrender in Febuary, even hoover admitted that. Read his quote, the bombs were not needed and even military advisors admitted to other options being just as effective.

They weren't ready for an unconditional surrender however. And under international law, that was the only surrender that the US could accept.

We should have first dropped it on berlin, to demonstrate its mighty power to the japanese.

We would have, if we were still at war with Germany by the time they were on-line (but not if the Red Army were in Berlin).

If that failed, another demonstration on Moscow.

I'm going to assume that that's humor, since they did most of the leg-work to win the war and knew it....

Only then should we have proceeded to Hiroshima.

Except by this time we'd be out of nukes. What's more is that it would probably have harden the Japanese to us even more, as we would have destroyed the capital of a surrendered nation and the capital of one of our allies.

[url]

Should America admitt the dropping of Atomic weapons was not needed and admitt to being wrong? I for one say yes, it was a terrible and unjust action, there was no need for it.

It is not going to work no matter how hard you try and shift the blame. The atrocities committed by japan on a regular basis as a matter of war would have made the nazi's green with envy.
Japan's military doctrine of no surrender and it's decision to force the population to fight to the death gave the US no other option than to end the war as quickly as possible and without further loss of American lives. Estimated casualties for US forces to invade the mainland were as high as 1 million. No responsible commander would hesitate for even a second given the choice between hundreds of thousands of enemy combatants vs a million of their own troops.
A little considered fact, as awful as it may be. The bombings that killed upward of 200,000 people, actually saved not only untold numbers of American Soliders, it saved even greater numbers of Japaneese that would have died in an invasion.

More people died in the Incendiary Bombings of Tokoyo...An invasion would have meant huge bombing as in Europe, where tens of thousands of people were killed in single bombing reaids. Then you have the actual invasion, which would kill tens of thousands of Americans and Millions of Japanesse. If you do not surrender after an atomic bomb, you will not surrender when someone walks onto a beach from a boat.... Look at Okanwa, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Palau, Guadalcanal, and a number of others. Japanese soldiers threw gernades at each other and jumped with thier familes off clifs to avoid being captured at Okinawa. For an island. Invasion was going to be a blood bath. Truman was smart in his decision.


Truman would have been impeached if he didn't, and alot of his military advisors were against it. Listen, Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs, all the bombs did was embarass Japan and scare Russia.

Japan was trying to save face in a surrender, the USA just wanted to embarass Japan, Esienhower admitted Japan was doing this.

Just to put things into perspective, I don't think it is so much an issue of the nukes particularly, it's more an issue of bombing civilian areas full stop.

Many more people died in conventional bombings both on Japan, on Germany and before that on many other countries, and it particularly the way in which people at the time justified it (and still do) that sickens me. And that goes for all sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_firebombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay
"There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders." The New York Times reported at the time, "Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the B-29's of the entire Marianas area, declared that if the war is shortened by a single day the attack will have served its purpose."

I guess the deaths of countless men,women and children and even a relative of mine don't account for much?

Did you ever think that if an invasion had occured you might not be alive today?

Why should we apologize when the Japanese who captured our soilder did horrible medical experiment on them! First have them apologize for doing that to our men and women, and then we'll apologize for the atomic bomb.

They weren't ready for an unconditional surrender however. And under international law, that was the only surrender that the US could accept.
Oh, I don't think there was a requirement in international law. That was just Allied policy.

Where's the "Yes, even though it was needed" answer?

If I remember correctly, the US' conventional bombing did more damage the the nukes, because so much of Japan was wooden buildings.


Correct the Fire Raids killed more people.


That aside, the nuking of Japan showed the world that nuclear weapons aren't the kind of thing that you make a habit of fucking around with. Sure, there were tests, people could simulate the effect, and prove what would happen, but I don't think the effect would have worked quite as well without a direct demonstration.
Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki sitting in the back of their minds, one of the "gifted" men ruling the USSR or the US might have pushed the button, rather than stopping at the last minute for negotiations, and then we'd all be rather fucked.

Correct again :eek: ;)

People conviently forget that the two bombs bad as they were did leave an impression in peoples minds. They saw the effects and that probably stayed some hands during the cold war.

They weren't ready for an unconditional surrender however. And under international law, that was the only surrender that the US could accept.



Pfft. yeah, Bomb a nation into accepting your way of doing this.

Pfft. yeah, Bomb a nation into accepting your way of doing this.

There is no point saying that surrender could have happened in Feb, when the US was bound by law not to accept it in the manner it was offered.

Japan could have unconditionally surrendered earlier. It knew that those were the only terms that would be accepted. It had never been a secret, from the earliest days of the war.

I guess the deaths of countless men,women and children and even a relative of mine don't account for much?
Not to me, no. Death catches us all up, and, when measured next to the history of mankind, a more decades of misery removed from the end of a few hundred thousand lives are hardly a great loss.
And if someone during a hypothetical the Cold War that took place without the bombing of Japan had decided to see just what nuclear weapons were like in action, your family wouldn't be feeling so hot anyway.

Truman would have been impeached if he didn't, and alot of his military advisors were against it. Listen, Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs, all the bombs did was embarass Japan and scare Russia.

Japan was trying to save face in a surrender, the USA just wanted to embarass Japan, Esienhower admitted Japan was doing this.

they didnt surrender after we destryed Hiroshima. Ok? If someone dosent surrender when you nuke them, they werent going to surrender beforehand. Eishenhower wasnt even in control of the Pacific. That was MacArthur, so eishnoweer wouldnt even know about it. Japan wasnt about to surrender.

Pfft. yeah, Bomb a nation into accepting your way of doing this.

Like it or not that *is* the essence of war. :(

Japan was ready to surrender in Febuary, even hoover admitted that. Read his quote, the bombs were not needed and even military advisors admitted to other options being just as effective.

Japan was completely not ready to surrender. Roosevelt was President.

The Japanese were preparing their civilian population to fight to the death.

Dropping the bomb saved millions of lives on both sides. Nothing else would have made Japan see reason.

Like it or not that *is* the essence of war. :(



Thats way I hate war. War sucks.

they didnt surrender after we destryed Hiroshima. Ok?
The Japanese had no idea what hit them. The science advisor to the emperor and his staff were pretty damn sure that a nuke wasn't possible for another decade, and obviously they maintained that stance for the emperor.

For the first few days, there was no real discernable difference between a nuked Hiroshima, and a fire-bombed Tokyo. The only clue they may have had was that they didn't detect a large bomber fleet.

Japan wasnt about to surrender.
The leadership had been discussing it for some time though...the Yamato was destroyed, that had been their last hope on the sea, and their army in Manchuria had gotten their arses whooped royally by the Soviets.

There had been talking about it before, and there was a faction that thought Japan might be better off by trying to secure a favourable peace, and another that preferred to die with the weapon in hand.
It's really quite an interesting story, and if you look at the Japanese accounts of it, you'll often find that the Nuclear Bombs almost play a minor role, compared to the personal discussions between the two factions, and the military uprising that followed.

Truman would have been impeached if he didn't, and alot of his military advisors were against it. Listen, Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs, all the bombs did was embarass Japan and scare Russia.

Japan was trying to save face in a surrender, the USA just wanted to embarass Japan, Esienhower admitted Japan was doing this.

Good heavens where on earth did you ever get nonsense like this pumped into your head? ... Don't tell me, California right?

Thats way I hate war. War sucks.

Well then your country shouldn't have started it.

Well then your country shouldn't have started it.
Don't make it personal. It's just an internet forum.

Japan was completely not ready to surrender. Roosevelt was President.

The Japanese were preparing their civilian population to fight to the death.

Dropping the bomb saved millions of lives on both sides. Nothing else would have made Japan see reason.
What does Roosevelt being President have to do with anything? Even though he didn't even live to see the bombs get dropped...by five months.

War sucks.
Agreed

Don't make it personal. It's just an internet forum.

He made it personal when he called me a racist, psychopathic killer.

I am far from being racist and I have never killed anyone.

Don't make it personal. It's just an internet forum.

But he does have a point: it's kinda silly saying that you're against war and then acting shocked when a war started by the nation they're defending suffers the consequences of war.

He made it personal when he called me a racist, psychopathic killer.

I am far from being racist and I have never killed anyone.

She.

What does Roosevelt being President have to do with anything? Even though he didn't even live to see the bombs get dropped...by five months.

There was some comment regarding "Hoover" saying Japan was ready to surrender. Since he wasn't President during the war - or ten years before it, I thought I'd mention that Roosevelt was around during the lead up to dropping the bomb - then Truman made the decision to do it.

In any event, any rational reading of the history of the time period demonstrates that Japan was NOT preparing to surrender or even close to doing so. To claim that they would've prior to our hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki is just revisionism.

She.

Prove it.

The Japanese had no idea what hit them. The science advisor to the emperor and his staff were pretty damn sure that a nuke wasn't possible for another decade, and obviously they maintained that stance for the emperor.

For the first few days, there was no real discernable difference between a nuked Hiroshima, and a fire-bombed Tokyo. The only clue they may have had was that they didn't detect a large bomber fleet.

Well apart from the Shortwave broadcasts, warning them, and the leaflets dropped before and afterwards informing them of what would/did happen, their confusion is perfectly understandable.


The leadership had been discussing it for some time though...the Yamato was destroyed, that had been their last hope on the sea, and their army in Manchuria had gotten their arses whooped royally by the Soviets.

The manchurian offensive didn't start until after hiroshima. It didn't really wrap up until after the Japanese had surrendered to the US. I don't think it was a factor at that point.

There had been talking about it before, and there was a faction that thought Japan might be better off by trying to secure a favourable peace, and another that preferred to die with the weapon in hand.
It's really quite an interesting story, and if you look at the Japanese accounts of it, you'll often find that the Nuclear Bombs almost play a minor role, compared to the personal discussions between the two factions, and the military uprising that followed.

People always overlook that the US was not able to allow the japanese to secure a favorable peace. The terms under which japan's surrender could be accepted were fixed by treaty. It was unconditional or nothing - the same ultimatum that was given to germany. All this specualtion about earlier peace is meaningless.

Prove it.

It's a little difficult to be a lesbian and be male, is it not?

Prove it.



Are you kidding me?

Are you kidding me?

Yes & No

In any event, any rational reading of the history of the time period demonstrates that Japan was NOT preparing to surrender or even close to doing so. To claim that they would've prior to our hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki is just revisionism.
The point is that most people don't bother getting into the details.

And those details are (AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong):

- The military leadership had lost the respect of the emperor, because they had promised him the world, and lost it all.

- The last military options had been lost only weeks earlier, if that. Before that, delusional plans about the Yamato and other ships destroying incoming US Forces were still around, as well as the pact with the USSR.

- There were a number of very rational people in the cabinet, who had urged the emperor to consider trying to get a good peace treaty, rather than to fight on. The debates between them and the Wannabe-Samurai continued for weeks.

- The Japanese really didn't know what had happened in Hiroshima until days later when their own investigations concluded that the US claims about a "nuclear weapon" were the only probable explanation.

- The Japanese military didn't concede defeat at any point, and did try to overthrow the emperor, resulting in them being disgraced and the sensible cabinet members to win by default.

I would agree that the nukes may have been a sort of final straw, but it is not inconceivable that with a few more weeks time, the Emperor would have decided for peace anyway.

But that's a "what if".

There was some comment regarding "Hoover" saying Japan was ready to surrender. Since he wasn't President during the war - or ten years before it, I thought I'd mention that Roosevelt was around during the lead up to dropping the bomb - then Truman made the decision to do it.

hmmmm
In any event, any rational reading of the history of the time period demonstrates that Japan was NOT preparing to surrender or even close to doing so. To claim that they would've prior to our hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki is just revisionism.
Exactly.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]The Japanese had no idea what hit them. The science advisor to the emperor and his staff were pretty damn sure that a nuke wasn't possible for another decade, and obviously they maintained that stance for the emperor.

For the first few days, there was no real discernable difference between a nuked Hiroshima, and a fire-bombed Tokyo. The only clue they may have had was that they didn't detect a large bomber fleet. [QUOTE\]

So what should we have done? Waited 10 years for them to decide it could have been a Nuke? Fire Bombed tokyo again and take more lives? Wait for the Russians to invade? Invade? Or drop another bomb and have them surrender?
He didnt really have a choice. And of course people will die. Its a war. But what i dont understand is this. We killed more people during the incendiary bobmings, during teh bombing of germany, and the Blitz. But why do we care so much about this? There is no thread, "Should the Allies apologize to Germany for Bombing Dresden?". People were going to die; this was the way with the least people to die.

Funny... Alot of people are in here complaining about something that happened 60+ years agao (which I find incredible). Others are giveing a rather good account of history, other are pure revisionists.

And out of the 31 people who have voted in the poll, 23 have said, "Hell yeah, Japan deserved it."

Very interesting.

The manchurian offensive didn't start until after hiroshima. It didn't really wrap up until after the Japanese had surrendered to the US. I don't think it was a factor at that point.
That is a point I will concede - I don't know when the Soviets did officially cancel the treaty, or whether they did at all.
Nonetheless, an argument could be made that Operation August Storm did more to make at least the military (which obviously cared more about its soldiers than Japan's civilian population) see how hopeless the situation was.

People always overlook that the US was not able to allow the japanese to secure a favorable peace.
Well, the Japanese tried it at first, even after the nukes, without a completely unconditional surrender, and that too is understandable.
Ultimately, the only condition they really wanted was that the Emperor stay in power - and since the rule about unconditional surrender was just an agreement between the Allies, perhaps there could have been a little lee-way.
But I'm just trying to figure out whether there would have been any chance that the same thing could have happened as did, just without the nukes.

- There were a number of very rational people in the cabinet, who had urged the emperor to consider trying to get a good peace treaty, rather than to fight on. The debates between them and the Wannabe-Samurai continued for weeks.

And ended when the moderates went to jail for treason and defeatism.

Good heavens where on earth did you ever get nonsense like this pumped into your head? ... Don't tell me, California right?

:rolleyes:

Yea California who has Berkeley and Stanford. Berkeley who has had more Nobel winners then the Soviet Union in it's history.

Hmm how many Nobel winners if any are from Kansas?

Keep up with those sweeping generalizations they really do you justice.....

There is no thread, "Should the Allies apologize to Germany for Bombing Dresden?". People were going to die; this was the way with the least people to die.
Oh, that debate does exist, believe me...;)

And out of the 31 people who have voted in the poll, 23 have said, "Hell yeah, Japan deserved it."
Probably because they can't be bothered to argue their point.
And the evil bit in me would also suggest that they might not actually know what they're talking about...

It's a little difficult to be a lesbian and be male, is it not?

Not at all!

I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body! ;)

Oh, that debate does exist, believe me...;)


Probably because they can't be bothered to argue their point.
And the evil bit in me would also suggest that they might not actually know what they're talking about...

That is a bad generalization, I know full well what I am talking about.

Oh, that debate does exist, believe me...;)


Probably because they can't be bothered to argue their point.
And the evil bit in me would also suggest that they might not actually know what they're talking about...

that could be true.....

Not at all!

I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body! ;)

People like that are described as being "metrosexual", not "lesbian", my good sir'am.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm



Should America admitt the dropping of Atomic weapons was not needed and admitt to being wrong? I for one say yes, it was a terrible and unjust action, there was no need for it.
For one peace was offered to Japan and they said no thanks.
B) It did save allied lives(Not just American)
C)Goats.

I don't think it should have been droped on a city surely they could have said 'hey Hori look out your window"

From there they could have dropped the bomb far out to sea outside of Tokyo Bay and then Hori would have gone.
"Forgineness Prease"

to save lives it was needed.

Ultimately, the only condition they really wanted was that the Emperor stay in power - and since the rule about unconditional surrender was just an agreement between the Allies, perhaps there could have been a little lee-way.


Possibly there would have been more discretion had Roosevelt and Churchill still been in charge, if only because they had worked together for so long their respective administrations were more comfortable with each other.

As it was, both the UK and the US had changes of administration and each was still feeling the other out at that point. I think that made them a little hidebound in respect of the alliance treaties.

People like that are described as being "metrosexual", not "lesbian", my good sir'am.

So much for the attempt of humor.

My understandings of that world are only so much.

And ended when the moderates went to jail for treason and defeatism.
Not really.

Koichi Kido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koichi_Kido) comes to mind. Suzuki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Kantaro) too.

<snip>
"Forgineness Prease"
<snip>

You mean, "Forugibnisu purisu"?

(My Japanese transliterating is a bit rusty.)

The point is that most people don't bother getting into the details.

And those details are (AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong):

- The last military options had been lost only weeks earlier, if that. Before that, delusional plans about the Yamato and other ships destroying incoming US Forces were still around, as well as the pact with the USSR.

- There were a number of very rational people in the cabinet, who had urged the emperor to consider trying to get a good peace treaty, rather than to fight on. The debates between them and the Wannabe-Samurai continued for weeks.

- The Japanese military didn't concede defeat at any point, and did try to overthrow the emperor, resulting in them being disgraced and the sensible cabinet members to win by default.

I would agree that the nukes may have been a sort of final straw, but it is not inconceivable that with a few more weeks time, the Emperor would have decided for peace anyway.

But that's a "what if".

Well, as we found out after the fact the Military was not out of options, they actually had a highly substancial reserve dug deeply into the mountains the allies were not even aware of. Large enough to conclude their projected losses may have been on the light side had they chose to invade by land.

There is also substancial film footage of the civilian population being trained to fight including women and children.

Surrender would not have been an option without the bombing, and the alternative bat bombs would never have had the shock effect necessary to prevent a long drawn out affair.

The were a very few cabinet members and diplomats that were in favor of surrender, however the militiary was the only group with the emperor's ear. Unfortunately, due to America's piss poor record after the fact, the emperor was effectively written out of any responsibility for the war and almost all documents were destroyed that would have detailed the extent of his actual control.

Not really.

Koichi Kido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koichi_Kido) comes to mind. Suzuki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Kantaro) too.

Well, I know that several members of the diet, including Prime Ministers (many of whom were ultra-nationalists) only managed to get to help run Japan after the war because they were put in jail for treason and/or defeatism.

I maintain that it would have been a better idea to drop the Bomb in the sea close to the Emperor's residence, or military headquarters.

As it was, the actual extent of the destruction, and the type of weapon used, wasn't really clear to the Japanese leadership until much later.

But if the Americans admit that they could've done better (and that'll be the day hell freezes over), the Allies would also have to start fessing up about Dresden, and all the other late bombings that didn't affect military capacity at all, but killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
OMG cewl we agree.:)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just so everyone knows i voted for the fourth option.
I think it was not neccasary to bomb the city but to show ones might was, to save Soldiers lives especially when you take into account the crazyness of Japans Soldiers and the questionable way U.S forces were controlled/used.

So much for the attempt of humor.

My understandings of that world are only so much.

So much for yours? So much for mine! I understood you perfectly (and it even made me giggle. A little. In my head.... STOP JUDGING ME!), but you didn't catch mine. *Faux weep*

There is also substancial film footage of the civilian population being trained to fight including women and children.
Sure...and you assume it would actually have happened? Look at the Werwolf units in Germany - same idea, didn't happen either.
And in Okinawa, the people preferred killing themselves to fighting to the bitter end.

Surrender would not have been an option without the bombing...
Right now, that is an unsupported assertion.

The were a very few cabinet members and diplomats that were in favor of surrender, however the militiary was the only group with the emperor's ear.
Not really.
The military had lost the ear it might have had at the latest when Okinawa was attacked, when they had sworn that no enemy would ever enter Japan. After that had happened, a number of pretty high people resigned and were replaced by more moderate people.
Shigenori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigenori_Togo) as well, according to wiki.

OMG cewl we agree.:)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just so everyone knows i voted for the fourth option.
I think it was not neccasary to bomb the city but to show ones might was, to save Soldiers lives especially when you take into account the crazyness of Japans Soldiers and the questionable way U.S forces were controlled/used.

Your option was not feasable or responsible. They only had three and didn't even know if it would work. You don't waste your bullets on demonstrations when the goal is to break the will of the enemy. That simply makes no sense.
It is well documented that the military was aware of the bombs ability, and had banked on the fact that we had no more.

The leadership had been discussing it for some time though...the Yamato was destroyed, that had been their last hope on the sea, and their army in Manchuria had gotten their arses whooped royally by the Soviets.

There had been talking about it before, and there was a faction that thought Japan might be better off by trying to secure a favourable peace, and another that preferred to die with the weapon in hand.
It's really quite an interesting story, and if you look at the Japanese accounts of it, you'll often find that the Nuclear Bombs almost play a minor role, compared to the personal discussions between the two factions, and the military uprising that followed.

For what it's worth; years ago I met a Doctor from Japan. He saw I was reading a book about the Pacific war and asked questions. He went on to tell me about being a kid in the war and hiding in ditches during B-29 strikes.

He also mentioned that he was taught how to use a spear towards the end of the war in preperation for the invasion.

Keep in mind it is only one man but it does give the impression they were not going to surrender and they were ready to fight to death for the emperor.

Hmm. Probably should.. But probably won't.

Sure...and you assume it would actually have happened? Look at the Werwolf units in Germany - same idea, didn't happen either.
And in Okinawa, the people preferred killing themselves to fighting to the bitter end.


Right now, that is an unsupported assertion.


Not really.
The military had lost the ear it might have had at the latest when Okinawa was attacked, when they had sworn that no enemy would ever enter Japan. After that had happened, a number of pretty high people resigned and were replaced by more moderate people.
Shigenori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigenori_Togo) as well, according to wiki.

Certainly I assume that would have happened and absolutely everything we know today supports it. There is no way on earth you can compare the dedication to the emperor of a closed society such as Japans, to that of the German population which had been consistantly, bombed, starved, burned and sacrificed for months on end.

And an And to your And in Okinawa the people preferred killing themselves instead of surrendering because they had nothing left to fight with, or were told that the americans were going to do horrible things to them. Plenty of documentation for that also. Any population so brainwashed that they would throw their kids off a cliff before jumping themselves has got to be considered highly malleable and a formidable weapon in their own right.

I think you missed my point with the emperor's ear. My point was that we do not know for certain and will never know, but it can only be assumed that the emperor was in complete control of what the military was doing right up until the end. His inaction after the first bomb should be more than enough evidence that he was still in control of the military or he himself believed the military's position that we didn't have the ablity to follow up with more bombs and was willing to test the theroy.

I think it could have been done a bit better possibly

I hate seing civilians hurt

But I can understand the goals and understand that hindsight is 20 20

why only for hiroshima? why not nagasaki as well?

you also have a flawed poll...the first two options are the same. It was needed, but we should still apologise for it.

Just out of curiosity, what city was next in line had the japanese not surrendered after the second bomb?

why only for hiroshima? why not nagasaki as well?

you also have a flawed poll...the first two options are the same. It was needed, but we should still apologise for it.

Just out of curiosity, what city was next in line had the japanese not surrendered after the second bomb?

Unknown. We only had two in ready condition. I think there were crossing their fingers when the second one went.....

I don't believe the dropping of the atomic bomb was neccesary to end the war, MacArthur himself whom we all know just loves dropping atomic bombs said that he felt there was no military justification for the bombings. Japan was in a weakened state prior to the bombings and, as has been pointed out, had attempted to make peace efforts. The Potsdam declaration, which stated that the allies would only accept an unconditional peace was after these attempts had begun and it was by no means binding law but merely a statement of intent. In reality, the final state of affairs in Japan could have been achieved without an unconditional surrender as Japan was mostly concerned with the preservation of the Emperor and he was allowed to remain in the end anyway.

The main reasons, as I see it, for the dropping of the atomic bomb do not relate to World War 2 at all but to the cold war. The USSR was preparing to attack Japan and the US feared that it would be a repeat performance of Europe with the USSR quickly gaining control of vast swathes of Asia. It also demonatrated American power to the USSR and, as has been pointed out, served as a valuable lesson in the dangers of atomic weapons. I fear the cold war may have taken a very different path had the US not used the atomic bomb.

i don't see the point of apoligizing

i'm sorry, in war utalitarianism wins

I guess the deaths of countless men,women and children and even a relative of mine don't account for much?

About just as much as the internment followed by abuse and rape of little girls by the Japanese military "so they could relax and forget the war", which even included a relative of mine.
Though I admit the Japanese government issued an apology for that. It went something like "Yeah- we're sorry". Would that do for an American apology too ?

why only for hiroshima? why not nagasaki as well?

you also have a flawed poll...the first two options are the same. It was needed, but we should still apologise for it.

Just out of curiosity, what city was next in line had the japanese not surrendered after the second bomb?

I honestly do not know if they even designated one as Fat Man was actually the third bomb and they had no more completed when it was dropped.

The first bomb was used as our own proof of concept, the second one was actually the first one used in anger. (from my understanding)

Not again... :headbang:

Ok, the closing of WWII will probably never be fully known or understood as the diary and personal papers of the Showa Emperor is under raps and I doubt very much that the Imperial Household Agency will ever let them be unsealed. It would contain too much that would be too embarrising for the Imperial Family.

Here's what we do know. Shortly after Midway, Japan was well aware that it was losing the war. The idea was to hopefully hold the Allies to the current borders, it didn't work. By the summer of 1945, everyone, except the Japanese general population, knew it was only a matter of time. The Showa Emperor directed that a diplomatic mission to Moscow be dispatched. The idea was to get the Soviets to interceed for a cease fire between America and Japan. The Japanese goverment's (i.e. the Emperor's) main puropse was to allow the Imperial Family to survive. With any luck, keeping the Showa Emperor on the throne, but at least allowing the Emperor to maintain all powers granted to him under the Meiji Constitution (which those powers were damn near absolute). The Soivets, having already made a deal with the US at the Potsdam Confence to enter into the war against Japan. The Potsdam Declaration also stated that only unconditional surrender was acceptable to the Allied Forces.

Japan, after receiving the declaration rejected it and said it wasn't even worth meeting about.

In Moscow, the diplomatic mission was well aware that Stalin had NO inclination to act as a peace broker between America and Japan. However, the Showa Emperor refused to accept this and continued to pressure the mission in order to secure himself on the throne with full powers.

After the bombings, Japan was thrown into a state of chaos. The Army felt that it was worth to continue to fight, their defence plan was nicely entitled 100 Million Deaths With Honor. The idea was that every man, woman, and child would engage in the defence of the home islands and gurrila tactics. The Navy, and a small peace faction within the cabnet and the Imperial Household attempted to convince the Emperor to surrender. Word of the the entry of the USSR into the war, the defeat of Imperial forces in China, and the seizing of Japanese islands north of Hokkaido, had the Showa Emperor casting around for ANY excuse for surrender.

At this time, a note from the US Secretary of State came in regards to the question on if the Emperor would be allowed to remain. The note stated that the athority of the Emperor would be seconded to the SCAP. However, in the translation of the note, members of the Imperial Household used wording that seemed to suggest that the note was saying that while the Emperor would have to bow to the will of SCAP, he would be allowed to remain (the note said nothing of the sort). They used this to convince the Emperor Showa that the line would be preserved, and he would be allowed to remain. The bombs became the face saving device needed to effect surrender, and the Emperor so ordered it.

It didn't almost happen thanks to an attempted coup, but there you are.

The short version of this is that yes, Japan was willing to surrender. The cost was to let the Emperor maintain all the powers he had granted to him. The system that brought Japan to its current situation would not have changed at all. It would be as if the Allies allowed Germany to surrender, but kept Hitler in power and with all athority granted to him as Fuhrer, or Saddam as president of Iraq.

I honestly do not know if they even designated one as Fat Man was actually the third bomb and they had no more completed when it was dropped.

The first bomb was used as our own proof of concept, the second one was actually the first one used in anger. (from my understanding)
A bit, the Trinity bomb was the same type as Fat Man. Little Boy was a different type and they were not too sure it would explode. After both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman bluffed and stated that he would start destroying every Japanese city, starting with Tokyo.

I guess the deaths of countless men,women and children and even a relative of mine don't account for much?

Since you're going to act all haughty about how evil Amerikkka was in the war and pretend that there's no blood on Japan's hands, I'm going to say one word:

Nanking

<snip>

You, sir, deserve a cookie for knowing your shit.

Enjoy! :D

Unknown. We only had two in ready condition. I think there were crossing their fingers when the second one went.....
Thats what I thought...after Nagasaki and Hiroshima, there wern't many decent targets left that would have done any good to help end the war

You, sir, deserve a cookie for knowing your shit.

Enjoy! :D
Yea!
*munches cookie*
Thank you!

A bit, the Trinity bomb was the same type as Fat Man. Little Boy was a different type and they were not too sure it would explode. After both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman bluffed and stated that he would start destroying every Japanese city, starting with Tokyo.

But is my understanding correct that Tokyo had been ruled out from the beginning because it had already been somewhat devestated and it was felt that war production had been moved out of that area?

But is my understanding correct that Tokyo had been ruled out from the beginning because it had already been somewhat devestated and it was felt that war production had been moved out of that area?

The only thing that was left to bomb in Tokyo was the Imperial Palace. And killing the Emperor in a nuclear blast isn't the way to get a surrender.

The rest of Tokyo was pretty much ash, having been put to the torch by American and British napalm and other incindieries.

Your option was not feasable or responsible. They only had three and didn't even know if it would work. You don't waste your bullets on demonstrations when the goal is to break the will of the enemy. That simply makes no sense.
It is well documented that the military was aware of the bombs ability, and had banked on the fact that we had no more.
You can Break the will of your enemy by demonstrating ones force.
They could have always built more.

Japan Lost over 7000 Planes at Okinawa to the Allies 700+ (according to what i am currently reading) they had lost their Navy and Allied Ships could Bombard Okinawa at will.
Japan was in no position to launch any 'significant or decisive' attack.

But is my understanding correct that Tokyo had been ruled out from the beginning because it had already been somewhat devestated and it was felt that war production had been moved out of that area?
It wasn't the actual plan, this was the bluff that Truman said AFTER Nagasaki, when producing another bomb would be the work of a number of weeks. In other words, he didn't mean it as a statement or a plan, but as a threat.

You can Break the will of your enemy by demonstrating ones force.
They could have always built more.

Japan Lost over 7000 Planes at Okinawa to the Allies 700+ (according to what i am currently reading) they had lost their Navy and Allied Ships could Bombard Okinawa at will.
Japan was in no position to launch any 'significant or decisive' attack.
But they had a huge number of kamikaze in reserve for the defence of the home islands. They knew they could not win, but they were damn sure going to make it hurt.

You can Break the will of your enemy by demonstrating ones force.
They could have always built more.

Japan Lost over 7000 Planes at Okinawa to the Allies 700+ (according to what i am currently reading) they had lost their Navy and Allied Ships could Bombard Okinawa at will.
Japan was in no position to launch any 'significant or decisive' attack.

Japan's defense of Okinawa wasn't supposed to be decisive, nor was it supposed to set up some sort of counter attack.

It was supposed to be a defense to the last man, to show the Allies that taking Japan would cost them dearly in blood and gold.

But they had a huge number of kamikaze in reserve for the defence of the home islands. They knew they could not win, but they were damn sure going to make it hurt.
Perhaps they had many of those 'fool' Gliders(Cant remember its Japanese name) If that was true surely they could have shot down a measly bomber.

Japan's defense of Okinawa wasn't supposed to be decisive, nor was it supposed to set up some sort of counter attack.

It was supposed to be a defense to the last man, to show the Allies that taking Japan would cost them dearly in blood and gold.
That is not what i said.:rolleyes:

That is not what i said.:rolleyes:

Yes you did!

>>
<<

You just editted after I clicked "reply"! ;)

Perhaps they had many of those 'fool' Gliders(Cant remember its Japanese name) If that was true surely they could have shot down a measly bomber.
What they were saving were normal planes, and manned German V2 Rocket based planes (When I get home I have a picture I can post). They were also planning to change tactics of targeting the capital ships and going after the slower moving, lightly armored transports. They knew they would lose everything, but they hoped to drown Allied personel by the thousands.

I guess the deaths of countless men,women and children and even a relative of mine don't account for much?

Sure they do, they account for your freaking former fascist country (who were allies with Hitler, who, had my family lived in Europe then, would have been slaughtered under) sneak attacking a sleeping giant, and bombing pearl habor.



Damn fascist bastards.

This is what I was talking about.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/P1000162.jpg
It's a human piloted version of the V2 rockets. A human bomb ment for kamikaze attacks. Japan was producing them for use in attacks on any fleets heading to the home islands.

Sure they do, they account for your freaking former fascist country (who were allies with Hitler, who, had my family lived in Europe then, would have been slaughtered under) sneak attacking a sleeping giant, and bombing pearl habor.



Damn fascist bastards.

Actually, Japan was not facist. It was an imperial power, whose politics were dominated by the military and the giant corporations that are still an earth-moving force in Japan today. Facism requires that companies be nationalized: Japan never did this.

It was only allied with Germany because both Germany and Japan were anti-communist (the treaty that created the "Axis" was the Anti-Comintern Pact). In fact, if you study the Germano-Japanese "alliance" you'll find that things were very one way: Germany gave Japan all sorts of stuff (including Me-262 jet fighters and a single King Tiger, which was then lent to the Germans), but the Germans didn't get anything out of it. Except for the free King Tiger.

Japan's sneak attack on the US was not any more cowardly than literally thousands of attacks launched by the US (a particularly famous one involved Christmas, George Washington, and Hessians). If anyone had been paying attention, or if the Japanese consulate were on the ball at all, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.

It was the right thing to do. I think we might have afforded to drop more of those things, but I guess worked out.

It was the right thing to do. I think we might have afforded to drop more of those things, but I guess worked out.

I suppose I shouldn't be as surprised as I am to learn that you of all people would think we should have dropped more nukes than we did.

This is what I was talking about.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/P1000162.jpg
It's a human piloted version of the V2 rockets. A human bomb ment for kamikaze attacks. Japan was producing them for use in attacks on any fleets heading to the home islands.


Didn't they call that Baiku?

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm



Should America admitt the dropping of Atomic weapons was not needed and admitt to being wrong? I for one say yes, it was a terrible and unjust action, there was no need for it.

So you would have prefered the death of millions of servicemen, British, Russian, Japanese, and American?

The firebombing of Tokyo killed more than the A-bombs. That's a well known fact. America was not wrong, in fact, it was correct, in nuking Japan.

I suppose I shouldn't be as surprised as I am to learn that you of all people would think we should have dropped more nukes than we did.we dropped the bombs, nuff said. it was during war. nuff said.

but here's my question for you. would you rather the bomb be used then? or Now, when it's in the megaton range.

if not for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the true horrors of the bomb won't be realized, thus more countries would have them, (because there won't be any Nuclear watchdog) and of those countries, no one would be afraid to use em.

Can you imagine the London bombing being done with nuclear weapons? the bombing in Madrid? or WTC?

After studying this matter in great detail, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey rejected the notion that Japan gave up because of the atomic bombings. In its authoritative 1946 report, the Survey concluded:

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms ...

The mission of the Suzuki government, appointed 7 April 1945, was to make peace. An appearance of negotiating for terms less onerous than unconditional surrender was maintained in order to contain the military and bureaucratic elements still determined on a final Bushido defense, and perhaps even more importantly to obtain freedom to create peace with a minimum of personal danger and internal obstruction. It seems clear, however, that in extremis the peacemakers would have peace, and peace on any terms. This was the gist of advice given to Hirohito by the Jushin in February, the declared conclusion of Kido in April, the underlying reason for Koiso's fall in April, the specific injunction of the Emperor to Suzuki on becoming premier which was known to all members of his cabinet ...

Negotiations for Russia to intercede began the forepart of May 1945 in both Tokyo and Moscow. Konoye, the intended emissary to the Soviets, stated to the Survey that while ostensibly he was to negotiate, he received direct and secret instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity ...

It seems clear ... that air supremacy and its later exploitation over Japan proper was the major factor which determined the timing of Japan's surrender and obviated any need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date of the planned American invasion], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

The Rocketplane is called Ohka and was nearly useless, It had to be carried to its target by a G3M bomber, which was defenseless against fighters with such a heavy weight.
Japan gave Germany alot of resources, first through the Transsiberian raillines, later with blockaderunners and submarines, in return Japan received technology.

So you would have prefered the death of millions of servicemen, British, Russian, Japanese, and American?

The firebombing of Tokyo killed more than the A-bombs. That's a well known fact. America was not wrong, in fact, it was correct, in nuking Japan.

Right and wrong are matters of opinion, not fact.

Especially in war.

we dropped the bombs, nuff said. it was during war. nuff said.

but here's my question for you. would you rather the bomb be used then? or Now, when it's in the megaton range.

if not for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the true horrors of the bomb won't be realized, thus more countries would have them, (because there won't be any Nuclear watchdog) and of those countries, no one would be afraid to use em.

Can you imagine the London bombing being done with nuclear weapons? the bombing in Madrid? or WTC?

I believe our use of the nuclear weapons we possessed was justified and has helped scare the rest of the world out of using them left and right, but I don't think we needed to detonate more than two.

Right and wrong are matters of opinion, not fact.

Especially in war.
You don't understand here. The point is, more people, LOTS more people would have died if we would have launched a conventional invasion. Secondly, it showed the world the danger of nuclear weapons. It's clear, plain, and simple, that the atomic attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified and neccessary.

BUT

Never think that war, no matter how justified or neccessary, is not a crime.

This is what alot of "OMG DONT GO TO WAR OR KILL PPLX" idiots don't get. The people promoting conflict, eg, Iraq, or even this case here, aren't saying it's a good thing people die (well, most people anyway) we are saying that it was neccessary they died.

I believe our use of the nuclear weapons we possessed was justified and has helped scare the rest of the world out of using them left and right, but I don't think we needed to detonate more than two.How many do you think was dropped on Japan?

Two.

so what's your problem?

You don't understand here. The point is, more people, LOTS more people would have died if we would have launched a conventional invasion. Secondly, it showed the world the danger of nuclear weapons. It's clear, plain, and simple, that the atomic attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified and neccessary.

BUT

Never think that war, no matter how justified or neccessary, is not a crime.

This is what alot of "OMG DONT GO TO WAR OR KILL PPLX" idiots don't get. The people promoting conflict, eg, Iraq, or even this case here, aren't saying it's a good thing people die (well, most people anyway) we are saying that it was neccessary they died.

Question: Have you ever served?

Chances are, if we hadn't dropped the nukes, we wouldn't have been able to dismantle the institutions in Japan that caused the war in the first place. There wouldn't have been the removal of the military's influence from the government, which would have probably meant another war in the future.

It's totally speculative, and unlikely, that not dropping the bombs would have been a better choice so to say the US was "wrong" is impossible.

How many do you think was dropped on Japan?

Two.

so what's your problem?

I know how many we dropped, thank you.

My problem is that Herr UNambasadorship seems to think we should have dropped three or four or even more.

Did the people that designed the atom bomb?

No, I haven't served. I have no idea what it's like to kill someone and I hope I never will. I am sorry if I offended anyone who is a member of the military and has served, but that is what I believe. If only the people who had had experience in X could have opinions on X then this world would be screwed over.

You don't understand here. The point is, more people, LOTS more people would have died if we would have launched a conventional invasion. Secondly, it showed the world the danger of nuclear weapons. It's clear, plain, and simple, that the atomic attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified and neccessary.

BUT

Never think that war, no matter how justified or neccessary, is not a crime.

This is what alot of "OMG DONT GO TO WAR OR KILL PPLX" idiots don't get. The people promoting conflict, eg, Iraq, or even this case here, aren't saying it's a good thing people die (well, most people anyway) we are saying that it was neccessary they died.

I agree with you. I think that many more people would have died if we had not dropped the atomic weapons (assuming that they had an effect on the outcome of the war, in terms of casualties). But, we can only engage in counter-factual history on the matter.

The question is, knowing what America knew then, was dropping the atomic arsenal on Japan justified? I say yes. But I also say that nuclear weapons are a horrid, horrid evil that should only be used in the most dire of circumstances.

Did the people that designed the atom bomb?

No, I haven't served. I have no idea what it's like to kill someone and I never will. I am sorry if I offended anyone who is a member of the military and has served, but that is what I believe. If only the people who had had experience in X could have opinions on X then this world would be screwed over.

Just a question as I have noticed where people that seem to "justify" soldiers and or civilians dying usually have not served.

Again, not meaning to offend, when you join the service you should expect that at some point you may have to give your life. How can you complain if you join the Army when there's a war on and you return home with no legs? Obviously you deserve respect for what you've been through (in my opinion, the military alwayts deserves ultimate respect) but does it give you the right to then complain about it?

I know how many we dropped, thank you.

My problem is that Herr UNambasadorship seems to think we should have dropped three or four or even more.then I stand corrected. and will say that UN A...hem... never learned the lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Should America admitt the dropping of Atomic weapons was not needed and admitt to being wrong?

No entry found for admitt.
Did you mean ad mitt?

then I stand corrected. and will say that US A...hem... never learned the lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I'd say we did. We haven't used them since then, have we?

I'd say we did. We haven't used them since then, have we?
Sorry meant UN Ambassador... mis typed that... :D

Sorry meant UN Ambassador... mis typed that... :D

Oh! ^^

Facism requires that companies be nationalized: Japan never did this.
No, no, no, no.
That is the big feature of fascism: It does not require them to be nationalised. Fascism is Corporatism in the sense that a few big firms (privately owned and controlled) dominate the economy, and get together with a few big unions and the government to commonly decide what's best for the community as a whole.

Just thought this needed clearing up.

Just a question as I have noticed where people that seem to "justify" soldiers and or civilians dying usually have not served.

I've served and I believe it can be justified. I think you would find that most former military, particularly American, believe there are absolutely appropriate justifications for war and for killing both soldiers and incidental civilians (almost nobody justifies targetting civilians when it can be avoided). Some things are worth dying for and clearly in a voluntary military this is a position accepted by any reasonable person entering the armed forces.

No, no, no, no.
That is the big feature of fascism: It does not require them to be nationalised. Fascism is Corporatism in the sense that a few big firms (privately owned and controlled) dominate the economy, and get together with a few big unions and the government to commonly decide what's best for the community as a whole.

Just thought this needed clearing up.

If I recall my facist theory correctly, facism required that the state direct all the resources of the nation into the war machine, that nations are organisms and must either expand or die. Most historians get rather queasy when pondering whether or not to label Imperial Japan as being a facist nation. Especially given that, by your defination, every imperial power at the beginning of the Twentieth Century and the end of the Nineteenth would have been facist.

You seek to redress an offense from those who were not alive to make it to those who were not alive to be offended.

Um, those who are not alive to be offended are not alive because they were nuked. Otherwise, I contend that a great deal of offenders/offended are still around, I mean Israel is still finding and trying Nazi's and thats contemporary to the nukes. When people try to justify the bombing to save the soldiers (on both sides) lives during an invasion, it annoys me. Soldiers understand that their lives are at risk, they have a job to do and are trained (at least in the US) in understanding the rules of war and the Geneva conventions. One can't justify killing an innocent civilian to save 10 volunteer soldiers, they are different categories; its apples and oranges. The bombing of hiroshima/nagasaki to influence Japanese military leadership is metaphorically the same as bombing a hospital as a demonstration to convince terrorists in a compound to surrender. If I remember correctly the smaller of the two cities America bombed was essentially a town concerned with fishing, correct me if I'm wrong on this last point.

<snip>

Actually, they're not alive because of: Nuke, radiation poisoning, old age.

And the justification has never included saving the lives of Japanese soldiers, only those of Japanese civilians.

And if you think that the military cannot or will not justify killing one civilian to save ten volunteer soldiers, you're being a fool. They'd justify killing one hundred civilians to save ten volunteer soldiers. And they would be right to do so. Why? "Because it's about the man next to you."

If we did start bombing every hospital, every mosque that held terrorists, as the Geneva Conventions allow us to do, I think you'd suddenly find fewer terrorists hiding in mosques and hospitals.

Nagasaki was a major port. Historically, it was Japan's largest port, as it was the only place in Japan were foreigners (from Europe or the mainland) were allowed to be... with out losing their head. At the time, it was probably a major embarkation/debarkation point for goods from Japan's sattellite nations and territories.

Hiroshima was a heavily industrialized town. Both of them were considered unimportant and were specifically spared fire-bombing (along with Kyoto among others) for the purposes of demonstrating nuclear weaponry to the Japanese on Japanese soil. To show that we were willing to destroy their entire nation, if we needed to, and that we could do it with out losing as many soldiers as the militarists wanted us to.

If I remember correctly the smaller of the two cities America bombed was essentially a town concerned with fishing, correct me if I'm wrong on this last point.
You are wrong there. Hiroshima was a military/industrial city and had, at various points in time, served as military training grounds, military industry, headquaters for segments of the Army, port for the Navy, and Imperial General Headquaters.

Nagasaki was one of Japan's largest ports.

BTW, for the straitic bombing survey, newer material surplants that. For one, there was a massive attempt to help shield the Showa Emperor from any war responcibility, and indeed, heighten the role he played in bringing peace. The diaries of the Moscow mission for example contain nothing of these so called secret orders from the Emperor, but do have a lot of complaints about the Emperor Showa's constant push to get Russia to interceed with the idea of keeping him in the throne, or the Imperial line, but with full powers. There's also the diary of the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, who recounts mistranslating the note from the US Sec of State and convicing the Showa Emperor that it hinted that the US agreed to keep the Imperial family.

But again, we will probably never really know unless the Showa Emperor's own papers are unsealed.

But I would again state has I have before in these threads, I dislike in the extream that we droped the bombs. Not only for moral and logical reasons, not only as a visitor to Hiroshima, but for personal reasons as well. But, after visiting Hiroshima and studying this issue from both America AND Japan, I can honestly say, I don't like it, but if I put myself in 1945, even knowing what we know now, I cannot figure out a way to have ended the war without dropping those bombs that would not have claimed even more lives.

So how would you have done so?

Dropping the bomb was justified. The other option would be to invade by land, costing the Allies millions in casualties (as opposed to hundreds of thousands dead from the bomb). So get over it.

[QUOTE=New Rafnaland]

And if you think that the military cannot or will not justify killing one civilian to save ten volunteer soldiers, you're being a fool. They'd justify killing one hundred civilians to save ten volunteer soldiers. And they would be right to do so. Why? "Because it's about the man next to you."

If we did start bombing every hospital, every mosque that held terrorists, as the Geneva Conventions allow us to do, I think you'd suddenly find fewer terrorists hiding in mosques and hospitals.[QUOTE]

I'm not saying it doesn't justify it from the usual military perspective or that they wouldn't (um, history obviously show that they would), I'm saying that it doesn't justify it in a moral sense (of course its my version of morality, but other people share it), ergo I am not being a fool. Your absolutly right in suggesting that "it's the man next to you", that is the common way of valuing human life.

Um, the Geneva Conventions does not allow us to bomb mosques and hospitals. However, if a terrorist (enemy combatant) pretends to be a protected person (clergy, medic, other) under the geneva conventions (which is illegal) you can kill him. You can also consider a protected person a viable target if they act as an enemy combatant (also illegal), and yes I know our enemies don't obey these rules and we decreasingly do, but thats the rule ( I am have a Geneva Conventions Card).

Whoops! signed on as cocytium; I am Revnia also, sorry about that.

Don't China and Korea ask essentially the same question of Japan all the time? If you're waiting for a nation to admit past wrongs, you're going to be waiting the rest of your life.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
Should America admitt the dropping of Atomic weapons was not needed and admitt to being wrong? I for one say yes, it was a terrible and unjust action, there was no need for it.

Wrong again.

No apologies. Not now, not ever.

Dropping the bomb was a good thing, it was the right thing, and as the son of a WWII vet who fought in the Pacific, I'm GLAD we did it. Hundreds of thousands of American casualties were avoided by not having to invade Japan. As for Japanese casualties, they should have considered the possibility of being devastated by a vengeful America BEFORE they back-stabbed us at Pearl Harbor.

Japan had plenty of time to surrender before we nuked them. Too bad for them that they didn't.

War is hell. Deal with it.

Reference to an old 78 in my possession is appropriate here.

"Atomic Power" by the Buchanan Brothers (1946)

Oh this world is at a tremble with its strength and mighty power
They're sending up to heaven to get the brimstone fire
Take warning my dear brother, be careful how you plan
You're working with the power of God's own holy hand

Atomic power, atomic power
Was given by the mighty hand of God
Atomic power, atomic power
It was given by the mighty hand of God

You remember two great cities in a distant foreign land
When scorched from the face of Earth their power of Japan
Be careful my dear brother, don't take away the joy
But use it for the good of man and never to destroy

Atomic power, atomic power
Was given by the mighty hand of God
Atomic power, atomic power
It was given by the mighty hand of God

Hiroshima, Nagasaki paid a big price for their sins
When scorched from the face of Earth their battle could not win
But on that day of judgment when comes a greater power
We will not know the minute, and we'll not know the hour

Atomic power, atomic power
Was given by the mighty hand of God
Atomic power, atomic power
It was given by the mighty hand of God

http://www.authentichistory.com/1950s/atomicmusic/1946_Atomic_Power-Buchanan_Brothers.html

Dropping the bomb was necessary..Of course i say this because of all the facts put forth before my posts

Dropping the bomb was a good thing, it was the right thing, and as the son of a WWII vet who fought in the Pacific, I'm GLAD we did it.
Life can be so easy sometimes, can't it.

As for Japanese casualties, they should have considered the possibility of being devastated by a vengeful America BEFORE they back-stabbed us at Pearl Harbor.
Actually, the US started it. They were asking for it by choosing sides early in the war, supporting Japan's enemies and then starting an embargo on it.
Your leadership must have been pretty damn dumb to think that that still counts as neutrality.

Actually, the US started it. They were asking for it by choosing sides early in the war, supporting Japan's enemies and then starting an embargo on it.
Your leadership must have been pretty damn dumb to think that that still counts as neutrality.

Actually, JAPAN fired the first shot, and so JAPAN started it. "Choosing sides" does not constitute a casus belli, nor does refusing to sell war resources to a potential enemy. Nice try, but that dog won't hunt.

Actually, JAPAN fired the first shot, and so JAPAN started it. "Choosing sides" does not constitute a casus belli, nor does refusing to sell war resources to a potential enemy. Nice try, but that dog won't hunt.
All I was addressing is your painting it as "backstabbing".
In reality, you were turning your back to them, giving money and weapons to its enemies while loudly proclaiming how much you hated them.
It made economic, military and diplomatic sense to begin a war sooner rather than later, and to begin it with the same tactic that had won Japan the war of 1905.

Dropping the bomb was totally necessary.
Read the book, "The Last Mission of WWII".
To put it in a nutshell, the Japanese war generals were refusing to surrender even AFTER the double nuclear whammy. They conspired to kidnap the Emperor and destroy the surrender records. They then would have spoken on his behalf to tell the country to keep fighting. Since no one has really heard the emperor speak, the people would assume its true. They were about 30 seconds away from actually pulling off the kidnapping if it wasnt for a US bombing mission over an oil refinery north of Tokyo. That caused a blackout over the palace causing the would be kidnappers to stumble in the darkness fumbling to get at the Emperor. But they missed him by mear feet! So they went on a rampage to destroy the records in the palace, but didnt find them. So they failed. They even tried to kamikaze the USS Missouri during the surrender, but luckly they failed that too.

America did not start the war. Japan started it years earlier. China, Indochina, and small islands throught out the Pacific fell to the Japanese. Of coure America embargoed them; we couldnt stand for it, and were not going to declare war. The SNEAK ATTACK on a SUNDAY MORNING on an country that had never been at war with them started the war. America did not blow up the USS Arrizona. Japan did. And they knew damn well what they were getting into. I forgot who, but one the the Japanese cabinet members said, "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant."

I'm not saying it doesn't justify it from the usual military perspective or that they wouldn't (um, history obviously show that they would), I'm saying that it doesn't justify it in a moral sense (of course its my version of morality, but other people share it), ergo I am not being a fool. Your absolutly right in suggesting that "it's the man next to you", that is the common way of valuing human life.

The only way someone gets through a war is to say that it's about the person next to them. An objective assessment says that all lives are equal, but a subjective assessment says otherwise. Were the soldiers in Mogidishu, Somalia justified in killing three-thousand enemy combatants, when the lives of a couple hundred of their own were on the line? Was the 7th Cav in the I Drang Valley in Vietnam justified in killing nearly two thousand Vietnamese soldiers to keep as many of their three-hundred and ninety-five soldiers alive as possible?

In war, morality is either thrown out the window or completely and radically altered. In war, one cannot fight and survive, let alone win, if one tries to keep the war objective. They must view it subjectively, because that is the only way to wage a moral war (or at least a more moral war).

Um, the Geneva Conventions does not allow us to bomb mosques and hospitals. However, if a terrorist (enemy combatant) pretends to be a protected person (clergy, medic, other) under the geneva conventions (which is illegal) you can kill him. You can also consider a protected person a viable target if they act as an enemy combatant (also illegal), and yes I know our enemies don't obey these rules and we decreasingly do, but thats the rule ( I am have a Geneva Conventions Card).

Actually, "enemy combatants" have to be wearing uniforms and insignia of a recognized, legal government in order to enjoy the protections of the Geneva Conventions. If said enemy combatant uses a mosque or hospital as a staging area for operations, it is considered legal, under the Geneva Conventions, to destroy the mosque or hospital in question.

In a previous war, combatants who were caught with out a uniform on, or the uniform of the enemy, were arrested and then hung. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are somewhat lucky that we aren't doing that to them.

It made economic, military and diplomatic sense to begin a war sooner rather than later, and to begin it with the same tactic that had won Japan the war of 1905.

And you see where it got them in 1945.

And you see where it got them in 1945.

And you can see where the same thing has gotten us so far, in 2006.

I forgot who, but one the the Japanese cabinet members said, "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant."

I think it was Admiral Yamamoto who said it. He knew what he was talking about, having, IIRC, spent time in the US as a naval attache and having attended Harvard (an early example of the US educating its future enemies). And he proved to be right.

And you can see where the same thing has gotten us so far, in 2006.

Yep, I see 50 million people liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq, two enemy regimes eradicated, two democratically elected new governments, and our casualties after almost three years of combat in Iraq totaling less than the number of men killed TRAINING for D-Day. Props to President Bush for maintaining the course to eventual victory! :D

I think it was Admiral Yamamoto who said it. He knew what he was talking about, having, IIRC, spent time in the US as a naval attache and having attended Harvard (an early example of the US educating its future enemies). And he proved to be right.

Yamamoto said it right after he heard back from his units over Pearl Harbor about how successful the operation was going. To clarify when he said it.

I might also point out that Yamamoto was completely against going to war with the US. Of course, I also think that it's funny how our largest proponents in enemy nations tend to come from their navies....

Yep, I see 50 million people liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq, two enemy regimes eradicated, two democratically elected new governments, and our casualties after almost three years of combat in Iraq totaling less than the number of men killed TRAINING for D-Day. Props to President Bush for maintaining the course to eventual victory! :D

On top of 2,000 dead Coalition soldiers, 20,000+ dead Iraqi non-combatants, and 3,500+ dead Afghani non-combatants. An eraditcated national surplus, an economy weaker than ever, and completely shattered credibility in the international community.

And you might like to remember that Afghanistan's democratically elected national government doesn't control anything beyond the city limits of Kabul.

The only way we'll win this war on terror is if the terrorists give in before we go home: all they have to do is survive to win. That or talk them back into returning to normal society, as we're seeming to do with Iraqi native insurgents in Iraq, now.

If Bush pulls us out of those talks, then we'll be back into a quagmire with no way out but back.

On top of 2,000 dead Coalition soldiers, 20,000+ dead Iraqi non-combatants, and 3,500+ dead Afghani non-combatants. An eraditcated national surplus, an economy weaker than ever, and completely shattered credibility in the international community.

And you might like to remember that Afghanistan's democratically elected national government doesn't control anything beyond the city limits of Kabul.

The only way we'll win this war on terror is if the terrorists give in before we go home: all they have to do is survive to win. That or talk them back into returning to normal society, as we're seeming to do with Iraqi native insurgents in Iraq, now.

If Bush pulls us out of those talks, then we'll be back into a quagmire with no way out but back.
You know not to make any judgment on the current situation, but this sounds like the situation the the proponets of the bombings are saying was avoided through the bombings, i.e. a land invasion of Japan dragging down into a quagmire of gurrila warfair with the Japanese people fighting to the death, the same way they had fought across the pacific.

You know not to make any judgment on the current situation, but this sounds like the situation the the proponets of the bombings are saying was avoided through the bombings, i.e. a land invasion of Japan dragging down into a quagmire of gurrila warfair with the Japanese people fighting to the death, the same way they had fought across the pacific.

Nuking Baghdad or Najif wouldn't have solved anything. We should have engaged in a slow, grinding ground war, rather than a lightning fast one, and used our bombers to level their towns (after we plaster them with leaflets telling folk to get the hell outta dodge). Then the Iraqis would have been exhausted by the war and ready to rebuild, instead of sitting around in their homes, sitting in darkness caused by American bombs, and not being able to drink clean water because of American bombs, and feeling completely impotent: A perfect candidate for an insurgency.

Nuking Baghdad or Najif wouldn't have solved anything. We should have engaged in a slow, grinding ground war, rather than a lightning fast one, and used our bombers to level their towns (after we plaster them with leaflets telling folk to get the hell outta dodge). Then the Iraqis would have been exhausted by the war and ready to rebuild, instead of sitting around in their homes, sitting in darkness caused by American bombs, and not being able to drink clean water because of American bombs, and feeling completely impotent: A perfect candidate for an insurgency.
I was in no way suggesting that we should have nuked Baghdad or Najif:rolleyes: I was merely pointing out that the mess we have now with insurgents conducting a gorilla campaign seems to match what those arguing in favore of the bombing of Japan, are saying might have habbened in Japan. They seem to be basing this on the fact that up to that point the Japanese had fought tooth and nail over every scrap of land they gave up and that it seems reasonable that if they were willing to fight that hard over that territory thy would be willing to fight that hard in defence of their homeland.

I was in no way suggesting that we should have nuked Baghdad or Najif:rolleyes: I was merely pointing out that the mess we have now with insurgents conducting a gorilla campaign seems to match what those arguing in favore of the bombing of Japan, are saying might have habbened in Japan. They seem to be basing this on the fact that up to that point the Japanese had fought tooth and nail over every scrap of land they gave up and that it seems reasonable that if they were willing to fight that hard over that territory thy would be willing to fight that hard in defence of their homeland.

That just seems like commonsense, though, don't it? I mean, hell, Bush might even fight if the US were occupied by a foreign power!

That just seems like commonsense, though, don't it? I mean, hell, Bush might even fight if the US were occupied by a foreign power!
Honestly yeah I'd agree that that sounds like a sensible position to me, however some in this thread have argued that a land invasion would have been a better route to take than the bombings. This was mainly the position I was criticizing since most of the information I have read/ come across on the topic seems to suggest that such an invasion would have cost more lives on both sides than were lost in the bombings. Of course there is always the possibility that the info I have seen is wrong. :shrug:

We should have first dropped it on berlin, to demonstrate its mighty power to the japanese.

If that failed, another demonstration on Moscow.

Only then should we have proceeded to Hiroshima.

Berlin? Moscow? Are you insane?

More people would have died in either of those cities than in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And, believe it or not, the Russians were our allies. Had we nuked Moscow, America wouldn't be a country anymore. It wouldn't be anything be a wasteland.

Besides, a mainland invasion of Japan would have likely cost more lives than the nukes, and it may not have even worked. Japan has NEVER been successfully invaded by outsiders in known history.

Honestly yeah I'd agree that that sounds like a sensible position to me, however some in this thread have argued that a land invasion would have been a better route to take than the bombings. This was mainly the position I was criticizing since most of the information I have read/ come across on the topic seems to suggest that such an invasion would have cost more lives on both sides than were lost in the bombings. Of course there is always the possibility that the info I have seen is wrong. :shrug:

Well, you have to have boots on the ground, sooner or later. Otherwise you can't even say that you won temporarily. Like the way things are going, right now.

Personally, I think that the Administration was suffering a bout of Imperial Japanese Nonsensicality: They seemed to believe that once you sacked the captial, the military would surrender and hostilities would cease over-night. Like what they Japanese though when they sacked Beijing and Nanjing. Obviously, it didn't work for the Japanese, either.

Berlin? Moscow? Are you insane?

More people would have died in either of those cities than in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And, believe it or not, the Russians were our allies. Had we nuked Moscow, America wouldn't be a country anymore. It wouldn't be anything be a wasteland.

Besides, a mainland invasion of Japan would have likely cost more lives than the nukes, and it may not have even worked. Japan has NEVER been successfully invaded by outsiders in known history.
Uh, why would America be a wasteland?

I guess the deaths of countless men,women and children and even a relative of mine don't account for much?

What about the dishonorable attack on Pearl Harbor? That was done WITHOUT a declaration of war. Under Japanese were disgraced because of that.

What about the dishonorable attack on Pearl Harbor? That was done WITHOUT a declaration of war. Under Japanese were disgraced because of that.

An attack? With out a declaration of war? You mean like what happened in March 2003?

Truman would have been impeached if he didn't, and alot of his military advisors were against it. Listen, Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs, all the bombs did was embarass Japan and scare Russia.

Japan was trying to save face in a surrender, the USA just wanted to embarass Japan, Esienhower admitted Japan was doing this.

Where they ready for Unconditional Surrender?

Pfft. yeah, Bomb a nation into accepting your way of doing this.

So if we had invaded, we would've used Chemical Weapons. 5 MILLION Japanese would've died from that. Many more civilians would've died if we had invaded. Did your mind ever consider that?

Thats way I hate war. War sucks.

Especially if you lose.

Funny... Alot of people are in here complaining about something that happened 60+ years agao (which I find incredible). Others are giveing a rather good account of history, other are pure revisionists.

And out of the 31 people who have voted in the poll, 23 have said, "Hell yeah, Japan deserved it."

Very interesting.

Care to point out the hell yea option please?

Nanking

Have Japan issued an appology for this yet? I don't know if they have or not.

Have Japan issued an appology for this yet? I don't know if they have or not.
I thought they were still denying that it happened, at least I remeber some recent fuss about them leaving it out of their school history texts on the period.

then I stand corrected. and will say that UN A...hem... never learned the lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Agreed.

Japan was ready to surrender in Febuary, even hoover admitted that. Read his quote, the bombs were not needed and even military advisors admitted to other options being just as effective.


ok... someone's trying to rewrite history again... even IF Hoover truly believed that, the FACT is that the Japanese weren't going to surrrender even after the second attack. If a planned assassination attempt on the Emporer had not failed, the Japanese would never have surrendered.

Yep, I see 50 million people liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq, two enemy regimes eradicated, two democratically elected new governments, and our casualties after almost three years of combat in Iraq totaling less than the number of men killed TRAINING for D-Day. Props to President Bush for maintaining the course to eventual victory! :D

Not just D-day my friend but the attack on Pearl harbor too but not by much.

An attack? With out a declaration of war? You mean like what happened in March 2003?

..hmmm... last time I checked, Iraq did not live up to its Terms of Surrender after the Gulf War. Since they did not abide by those terms, according to international law, we had every right to reinitiate hostilities

Berlin? Moscow? Are you insane?

More people would have died in either of those cities than in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And, believe it or not, the Russians were our allies. Had we nuked Moscow, America wouldn't be a country anymore. It wouldn't be anything be a wasteland.

US a wasteland in 1945? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Besides, a mainland invasion of Japan would have likely cost more lives than the nukes, and it may not have even worked. Japan has NEVER been successfully invaded by outsiders in known history.

However, in this case, it would've. I suggest you read up on how we planned on invading Japan!

An attack? With out a declaration of war? You mean like what happened in March 2003?

uhh.. we gave them 48 hours notice before we started dropping bombs.

You were saying?

I thought they were still denying that it happened, at least I remeber some recent fuss about them leaving it out of their school history texts on the period.

Ahh yes, I remember now. And it is one of the main reasons China opposes Japanese entrence as a permenant security council member.

..hmmm... last time I checked, Iraq did not live up to its Terms of Surrender after the Gulf War. Since they did not abide by those terms, according to international law, we had every right to reinitiate hostilities

Which is all beside the point that the attack at Pearl Harbor was a very well orchestrared plan that succeeded in most of its objectives, at least in the short term. Of course, I suppose that a nation's military is obliged to tell another's where it is going to attack them all the time? Forgive me, but much of the point of many military operations is to achieve surprise.

And had anyone been paying attention, it wouldn't have even achieved that.

uhh.. we gave them 48 hours notice before we started dropping bombs.

You were saying?

Warning? Delete four letters from that and you'll get what I was asking about. War, delcaration of. Where is it?

Warning? Delete four letters from that and you'll get what I was asking about. War, delcaration of. Where is it?

In the Congressional Record under the title of:

"Authorization of the Use of Force Against Iraq"

Passed in October 2002!

In the Congressional Record under the title of:

"Authorization of the Use of Force Against Iraq"

Passed in October 2002!

Does that say, "Declaration of a State of War Between the United States and the State of Iraq"?

Does that say, "Declaration of a State of War Between the United States and the State of Iraq"?

Nope but Congress did authorize the war in Iraq in October 2002. Once that happened, the President could've gone in at anytime but no he didn't now did he? He wanted till March 2003 to launch an attack and that was after he gave Saddam 48 hours to leave office.

All by the book. No surprise attack here.

However, this is about the Atomic Bombings and not Iraq so I suggest we get back on topic.

Americas use of the Atomic bomb was as justified as the unprovoked, unannounced attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese.

In Addition, the use of the atomic bomb also served notice to the rest of the world, that the USA was now THE top power in the world.

Had we been wise at the time, we then would have bombed the Soviets into submission before they themselves developed the bomb, thereby eliminating our only rival to power. (this might have prevented China becoming a communist power, which might have eliminated a second rival atomic power).

And what do the Japanese have to complain about? They eventually beat us in the post-war economic theatre anyway.

Americas use of the Atomic bomb was as justified as the unprovoked, unannounced attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese.

In Addition, the use of the atomic bomb also served notice to the rest of the world, that the USA was now THE top power in the world.

Had we been wise at the time, we then would have bombed the Soviets into submission before they themselves developed the bomb, thereby eliminating our only rival to power. (this might have prevented China becoming a communist power, which might have eliminated a second rival atomic power).

And what do the Japanese have to complain about? They eventually beat us in the post-war economic theatre anyway.

Pearl Harbor was provoked. I mean, unless you call giving their enemies guns and cutting off their gas perfectly acceptable and non-provocative.

Pearl Harbor was provoked. I mean, unless you call giving their enemies guns and cutting off their gas perfectly acceptable and non-provocative.

Our response, provoked by the Japanese invasion of China.

Have Japan issued an appology for this yet? I don't know if they have or not.
Yes, they have. The Goverment of Japan has admited and appologized for what it has done. However, it disagrees with China about how many casualities were suffered due to actions of the Imperial Japanese Army, as well as some of the more horrific stuff.

However, thanks to some right wing wack jobs in Japan (both professors and some members of local legislatures and the national Diet), as well as Prime Minister Koizumi's anual visits to Yasukuni Jinja, the feeling in China is that Japan wasn't being honest when it offered those appologies.

Of course, as I have stated, THAT issue is a mixtue of nationalism on BOTH sides, as well as the goverments of both the PRC and South Korea attempting to use the issue to focus people on Japan rather than their own goverments.

However, thanks to some right wing wack jobs in Japan (both professors and some members of local legislatures and the national Diet), as well as Prime Minister Koizumi's anual visits to Yasukuni Jinja, the feeling in China is that Japan wasn't being honest when it offered those appologies.

Another reason is that Japanese culture (well.. Asian in general even) has different degrees of apologies indicating how seriously they take the matter themselves. The ones they offered concerning the war sofar were not of the "our honour is disgraced.. we are ashamed and bow to your judgement" kind, but more like "oops - some waterdrops landed on your windows when I was cleaning mine".
Naturally the surviving women of the sexcamps found this a little insulting.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm



Should America admitt the dropping of Atomic weapons was not needed and admitt to being wrong? I for one say yes, it was a terrible and unjust action, there was no need for it.
On behalf of every single Chinese person touched by the experiements and butchery of the Japanese from the days of WWII on through to the geneic defects and sickness still in the country sides attributed to Japanese biological programs.

No.

America should not apologize, not until reparations are made to each family the Japanese helped destroy, to each person descended fro mthe people tortured and murdered at the hands of those monsters in places as bad as any Nazi death Camp ever conceived.

Places so bad that German SS officers wrote to Hitler to ask him to petition the Japanese to go a little easier on the Chinese.

No.

America should not apologize, as the Japanese have benefited so greatly from WWII to in almost every respect be able to call it a victory.

Frankly I am insulted anyone would suggest such an absurd idea.

What they were saving were normal planes, and manned German V2 Rocket based planes (When I get home I have a picture I can post). They were also planning to change tactics of targeting the capital ships and going after the slower moving, lightly armored transports. They knew they would lose everything, but they hoped to drown Allied personel by the thousands.
But they would never have had enough.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Should America admitt the dropping of Atomic weapons was not needed and admitt to being wrong? I for one say yes, it was a terrible and unjust action, there was no need for it.
Agreed. Hundreds of thousands of innocents were killed, and many were affected by the nuclear bomb afterwards. To this day its effects are still manifested. American scientists knew well the full potential of the weapon, and in fact were unimpressed by it and sought to enhance its power. I am surprised that the USA has not payed for this. Oh well, the victors write history after all. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

On behalf of every single Chinese person touched by the experiements and butchery of the Japanese from the days of WWII on through to the geneic defects and sickness still in the country sides attributed to Japanese biological programs.

No.

America should not apologize, not until reparations are made to each family the Japanese helped destroy, to each person descended fro mthe people tortured and murdered at the hands of those monsters in places as bad as any Nazi death Camp ever conceived.

Places so bad that German SS officers wrote to Hitler to ask him to petition the Japanese to go a little easier on the Chinese.

No.

America should not apologize, as the Japanese have benefited so greatly from WWII to in almost every respect be able to call it a victory.

Frankly I am insulted anyone would suggest such an absurd idea.
So its okay just to go kill say 400 000 innocent civilians because you want a war to end quickly? Hmm. So should we wage warfare this way all the time? Should the USA nuke Iran because it'll end a war faster that way? Or if it finds China to become too big a threat to handle, should it just nuke if off the map? Hell, lets nuke the whole planet! :rolleyes:

Let it alone

i don't see the point of apoligizing

i'm sorry, ...

Hmm...

So its okay just to go kill say 400 000 innocent civilians because you want a war to end quickly? Hmm. So should we wage warfare this way all the time? Should the USA nuke Iran because it'll end a war faster that way? Or if it finds China to become too big a threat to handle, should it just nuke if off the map? Hell, lets nuke the whole planet! :rolleyes:


Can you possibly imagine a full-scale landfall invasion of Japan, in 1945?
Do you have any idea of the kind of casualties that would have resulted on both sides, and likely prolonged the war for years?

Further, can you imagine a prolonged jungle warfare, in the entire South East?

The amount of casualties attributed to both nuclear bombs would be nothing compared to the above.
When faced with that kind of choice...is there a right one?
The only option was the lesser of two evils.

If you want to bitch about any incident in WW2 that the Americans should probably apologize for, I would start with Dresden, Germany.
There were so many deaths as a result of the crafted firestorm, we still arent exactly sure how many.

If the US hasnt apologized for that, were certainly arent going to for Hiroshima, nor Nagasaki.

Can you possibly imagine a full-scale landfall invasion of Japan, in 1945?
Do you have any idea of the kind of casualties that would have resulted on both sides, and likely prolonged the war for years?

Further, can you imagine a prolonged jungle warfare, in the entire South East?

The amount of casualties attributed to both nuclear bombs would be nothing compared to the above.
When faced with that kind of choice...is there a right one?
The only option was the lesser of two evils.
I'd rather see soldiers die than innocent civilians.

If you want to bitch about any incident in WW2 that the Americans should probably apologize for, I would start with Dresden, Germany.
There were so many deaths as a result of the crafted firestorm, we still arent exactly sure how many.

If the US hasnt apologized for that, were certainly arent going to for Hiroshima, nor Nagasaki.
And who said you won't be made to one day? :)

I'd rather see soldiers die than innocent civilians.

So, you would rather see millions die, rather than a fraction of that?

Do you realize what kind of monster that makes you?
Soldiers are people too, you know.
They have families, and occasionally, even friends.

In a global war, its really about minimizing casualties, as much as possible.
Cold as it may seem, killing a couple hundred thousand, to save the lives of millions....is the only logical answer.


And who said you won't be made to one day? :)

Knowing the track record of my country, particularly its current leader, I wouldnt hold your breath, If I were you.

I'd say yes, it was justified. Mabye use of nuclear weapons wasn't the best choice but people make mistakes, misjudgments. At the time, I myself probably would have been in favor of the bomobing. However, that doesn't mean that the states shouldn't apologize for it happening.

So, you would rather see millions die, rather than a fraction of that?

Do you realize what kind of monster that makes you?
Soldiers are people too, you know.
They have families, and occasionally, even friends.

In a global war, its really about minimizing casualties, as much as possible.
Cold as it may seem, killing a couple hundred thousand, to save the lives of millions....is the only logical answer.
I don't think the alternative would result to millions dying. Germany was falling, and allied focus would soon turn to Japan, including that of the USSR. So to be honest? I don't see why the bomb had to be dropped. I do not care if that makes me a monster. I wonder though, do Japanese lives perhaps matter less than American ones?


Knowing the track record of my country, particularly its current leader, I wouldnt hold your breath, If I were you.
Things change. Drastically.

I'd rather see soldiers die than innocent civilians.
You don't think an invasion of Japann would have resulted in innocent civilian casualties? I'm not saying thatmore than 40,000 civilians would have died had the US invaded, however there likely would have been many, many thousands civilian casualties, and that combined with the undoubtably millions of soldier casualties.... who knows? Whats done is done. The US should appologize anyway.

Mabye a good alternative to bombing Japan would have been to show the Japense leadership the potentail devestation of nuclear weapons by setting some off over open water.(?)

Heiroshima and Nagasaki both contained major military targets near-by that were so heavily guarded it'd be near impossible to get enough troops on the ground to capture them.

HOWEVER, what WAS uncalled for was the dropping of the bombs within the city, rather then over the target itself, so for me it's hard to choose.

You do NOT want to set it off over open water, unless they, at the time, wanted to radiate Japan, China(Our Allies), Korea(Japanese protectorate at the time), Indochina(FRENCH), Australia(Allies), and India(Mostly British still at the time). If we detonated a nuke near the Japanese coast they'd still have glowing water today.

I don't think the alternative would result to millions dying. Germany was falling, and allied focus would soon turn to Japan, including that of the USSR. So to be honest? I don't see why the bomb had to be dropped. I do not care if that makes me a monster. I wonder though, do Japanese lives perhaps matter less than American ones?

Certainly not.

The casualties in the figures of millions would have been on BOTH sides.
A full scale land invasion of Japan would have been started by bombing raids, to soften land to air defenses.
This means military and civillian casualties.
This would have been followed by the actual land invasion, with Urban warfare in coastal cities, and assuredly, civillian resistance...that means peasants with guns...that means dead peasants.

Keeping in mind the jungle warfare that would have continued in the South Pacific.

Millions of dead and wounded.



Things change. Drastically.

Sometimes.
More often, they stay the same.

The Vatican recently aplogized for the Crusades, and the Inquisitions, too.
It took them roughly the same amount of time that America will take to apologise for Dresden, or Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

You don't think an invasion of Japann would have resulted in innocent civilian casualties? I'm not saying thatmore than 40,000 civilians would have died had the US invaded, however there likely would have been many, many thousands civilian casualties, and that combined with the undoubtably millions of soldier casualties.... who knows? Whats done is done. The US should appologize anyway.
I doubt that the soldier death toll would rise into the millions, yet I agree with you that qu'etait, etait. What was, was. I hope the US does apologise some day. What further exacerbates the matter is that the nukes did not have a one-off effect. They caused genetic mutations, countless generations of defective children and devastated the landscape. Its not just a huge death toll.

Mabye a good alternative to bombing Japan would have been to show the Japense leadership the potentail devestation of nuclear weapons by setting some off over open water.(?)
Perhaps even a domestic demonstration. It may have moved the Japanese to surrender.

I don't think the alternative would result to millions dying. Germany was falling, and allied focus would soon turn to Japan, including that of the USSR. So to be honest? I don't see why the bomb had to be dropped. I do not care if that makes me a monster. I wonder though, do Japanese lives perhaps matter less than American ones?

How does the fact that the allies were beginning to focus exclusivly on Japan make the bombings less of a viable option? The same number of people would have died invading Jpaan, be they just Americans, or Americans, Soviets, British Australian, Canadian, Indian and Chinese.

Things change. Drastically.
I'd be very, very suprised if Bush ever appologizes for the bombings.

Sometimes.
More often, they stay the same.

The Vatican recently aplogized for the Crusades, and the Inquisitions, too.
It took them roughly the same amount of time that America will take to apologise for Dresden, or Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
The apology is worthless though. The current Vatican is hardly accountable for what its predecessors did nearly a thousand years ago. A timely apology is far more worthy. Who is even to say that the US will exist in 800 years time?

How does the fact that the allies were beginning to focus exclusivly on Japan make the bombings less of a viable option? The same number of people would have died invading Jpaan, be they just Americans, or Americans, Soviets, British Australian, Canadian, Indian and Chinese.
Still better than crushing a city with a nuclear bomb.


I'd be very, very suprised if Bush ever appologizes for the bombings.
I'd be surprised if he apologises for anything he has ever done, let alone something he didn't.

I maintain that it would have been a better idea to drop the Bomb in the sea close to the Emperor's residence, or military headquarters.

As it was, the actual extent of the destruction, and the type of weapon used, wasn't really clear to the Japanese leadership until much later.

But if the Americans admit that they could've done better (and that'll be the day hell freezes over), the Allies would also have to start fessing up about Dresden, and all the other late bombings that didn't affect military capacity at all, but killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

Perhaps they could have dropped the bomb near a fault line around 100 miles from their southerly coast the resultant tsunami would have been devastating

The apology is worthless though. The current Vatican is hardly accountable for what its predecessors did nearly a thousand years ago. A timely apology is far more worthy. Who is even to say that the US will exist in 800 years time?


So, by that same logic, why would you seek an apology from a government, who did something 60 years ago?
Not many people who were alive then, are still, and certianly, none in power.

As for the US still existing 800 years from now, who can say?
However, statistically, the odds are in our favor.
Hell the British Empire is still going strong.

I kinda wonder what the benefits to America ( of apologising ) are supposed to be...

So, by that same logic, why would you seek an apology from a government, who did something 60 years ago?
Not many people who were alive then, are still, and certianly, none in power.
I don't see anyone from 800 years ago still alive. The effects of the nuclear bombs are still felt in current Japan. Its not the same. 60 years is much more alive in human memory than something that happened 800 years ago.

As for the US still existing 800 years from now, who can say?
However, statistically, the odds are in our favor.
Hell the British Empire is still going strong.
The British Empire has been reduced to an island nation. The US has three potential superpowers competing with it (Russia, China and the EU...potentially Japan and India too). I don't see how it plans on staying on top forever.

I kinda wonder what the benefits to America ( of apologising ) are supposed to be...
Getting rid of the guilt associated and showing that its an honest nation that can take the blame for its actions. It has little to lose.

Getting rid of the guilt associated and showing that its an honest nation that can take the blame for its actions. It has little to lose.

I don't do guilt. Especially not for something that happened when my parents were still toddlers.

I don't do guilt. Especially not for something that happened when my parents were still toddlers.
You may not, many others do. I find it very convenient how some Americans maintain this stance, yet blame modern Germans for the Nazi party.

I don't see anyone from 800 years ago still alive. The effects of the nuclear bombs are still felt in current Japan. Its not the same. 60 years is much more alive in human memory than something that happened 800 years ago.

Nevertheless, everyone who was in power in those days....are dead.



The British Empire has been reduced to an island nation. The US has three potential superpowers competing with it (Russia, China and the EU...potentially Japan and India too). I don't see how it plans on staying on top forever.[/QUOTE]


Well, lets see...The EU, isnt much of a threat, and its very alliance is fairly shaky at best.
Russia isnt really muich of a Superpower anymore.

China...is the only other "superpower" in this world, other than the United States.

You may not, many others do. I find it very convenient how some Americans maintain this stance, yet blame modern Germans for the Nazi party.


If a thing were convenient for me, why should I bitch about it?

Well, lets see...The EU, isnt much of a threat, and its very alliance is fairly shaky at best.
Russia isnt really muich of a Superpower anymore.

China...is the only other "superpower" in this world, other than the United States.
The EU is already an economic power. Contrary to what many think, its not falling apart. So yes, it could be a very real threat. The USSR is on the way to re-establishing its dominion, and China may well become a huge threat the the USA.

If a thing were convenient for me, why should I bitch about it?
To avoid being called a hypocrite? :rolleyes:

The EU is already an economic power. Contrary to what many think, its not falling apart. So yes, it could be a very real threat. The USSR is on the way to re-establishing its dominion, and China may well become a huge threat the the USA.


China wont be a threat to the US, nor vice versa, as long as we remain so deeply entrenched in each others pockets.
Are you aware of how much trade these countries do?
A war, any war, is unacceptable at this point, on both sides.

China wont be a threat to the US, nor vice versa, as long as we remain so deeply entrenched in each others pockets.
Are you aware of how much trade these countries do?
A war, any war, is unacceptable at this point, on both sides.
China is already going to lengths to ensure it doesn't remain dependent on the USA. India is right next door as a potential market, as is Japan, should China ever decide to reconcile with it. The USSR is also on friendly terms. The USA has threatened to intervene if China goes for Thailand. Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer. I wonder for how long the USA will manage to keep China close though. Maybe when its blood is sucked completely dry.

You may not, many others do. I find it very convenient how some Americans maintain this stance, yet blame modern Germans for the Nazi party.
and some people say Mulims are all crazies.
and some people say Repulicans are Devil Worshippers
and some people say the same for Democrats.

I never saw anyone who thinks Germans are the same as Nazi's. they would be the first (and they are non Germans) who would point out that many who were hunted in Germany duing WWII had alot of help from Germans.

To avoid being called a hypocrite? :rolleyes:

What gave you the idea that I'd give a hoot?

and some people say Mulims are all crazies.
and some people say Repulicans are Devil Worshippers
and some people say the same for Democrats.

I never saw anyone who thinks Germans are the same as Nazi's. they would be the first (and they are non Germans) who would point out that many who were hunted in Germany duing WWII had alot of help from Germans.
I have met people who believe that you can't blame the US for its past actions, but you can blame Germans for the Nazi party.

What gave you the idea that I'd give a hoot?
I am beginning to wonder...:rolleyes:

I have met people who believe that you can't blame the US for its past actions, but you can blame Germans for the Nazi party.


Who exactly?

Many of them?

Or some friends of yours?

"someone you heard once"?

I have met people who believe that you can't blame the US for its past actions, but you can blame Germans for the Nazi party.
well, to be fair, the Germans (During WWII) did form the Nazi Party... but I don't blame Germans for keeping it alive.

That's the same as saying it's America's fault for the Democractic/Republican Party.

Who exactly?

Many of them?

Or some friends of yours?

"someone you heard once"?
People I have met from America, usually other students. We get into debates here a lot, and some of them tend to drop that line.

Well, given that the alternative was dying in a land invasion in a painful and bloody way, I'm inclined to think that instant vaporization is merciful in comparison. There really wasn't anything the US could do otherwise and let's face it, Japan had to be stopped. They were committing genocide, torturing POWs, taking over huge territories, etc. Should everyone else just let this happen?

well, to be fair, the Germans (During WWII) did form the Nazi Party... but I don't blame Germans for keeping it alive.

That's the same as saying it's America's fault for the Democractic/Republican Party.
During WWII, yes. Nowadays though? Not really.

You don't think an invasion of Japann would have resulted in innocent civilian casualties? I'm not saying thatmore than 40,000 civilians would have died had the US invaded, however there likely would have been many, many thousands civilian casualties, and that combined with the undoubtably millions of soldier casualties.... who knows? Whats done is done. The US should appologize anyway.

In truth, more civilians would've died if the US invaded. Guess what we were planning to use? CHEMICAL WEAPONS!!! That's right. We had plans to use chemical weapons against the Japanese mainland as part of our invasion.

No! We will not apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki and if any president does.... I'll start hounding my people in congress for the bastard's impeachment.

Mabye a good alternative to bombing Japan would have been to show the Japense leadership the potentail devestation of nuclear weapons by setting some off over open water.(?)

It was suggested but written off.

I am beginning to wonder...:rolleyes:

It's the whole thing. Guilt by association might bother you. But, personally, I just don't give a rat's ass.

And the whole thing ( should the US apologise ) is, to me, about guilt by association.

To avoid being called a hypocrite? :rolleyes:
:LOL:
People will call America Hypocrites no matter what America does.

Help a country with financial aid? we're imposing Captialism!
Send Food? We're poisoning them with Genetically altered grain/meat!
Free people from a dictator? We're empire building!
Cut back on any form of Aid? We're selfish!

it don't matter wether or not we apologise, we will still be called whatever people out there wanna call us.

so why try to impress them? it won't work in any case.

It's the whole thing. Guilt by association might bother you. But, personally, I just don't give a rat's ass.

And the whole thing ( should the US apologise ) is, to me, about guilt by association.
lol with that being the example to follow, I doubt any nation in the future will see any need to apologise for any of its actions...or even justify them.

Perhaps they could have dropped the bomb near a fault line around 100 miles from their southerly coast the resultant tsunami would have been devastating

Anyone else disturbed by this?

People I have met from America, usually other students. We get into debates here a lot, and some of them tend to drop that line.


So, suffice it to say, a very very small number of people, perhaps even as small as 2...or 3.

Thats hardly enough people to warrant any kind of serious attention, and really shouldnt be used as a source for an opinion of many people.

:LOL:
People will call America Hypocrites no matter what America does.

Help a country with financial aid? we're imposing Captialism!
Send Food? We're poisoning them with Genetically altered grain/meat!
Free people from a dictator? We're empire building!
Cut back on any form of Aid? We're selfish!

it don't matter wether or not we apologise, we will still be called whatever people out there wanna call us.

so why try to impress them? it won't work in any case.
Small-minded people, maybe. Everything one does is based on pure self-interest, and the same principle applies to nations. In the end, the result is more important than the actual intention, so if the US does help by giving a country financial aid, all the better.

So, suffice it to say, a very very small number of people, perhaps even as small as 2...or 3.

Thats hardly enough people to warrant any kind of serious attention, and really shouldnt be used as a source for an opinion of many people.
Try 8-9 people. I never said its a serious number anyway, I just found their attitude extremely hypocritical.

Getting rid of the guilt associated and showing that its an honest nation that can take the blame for its actions. It has little to lose.

guilt? What about the guilt of the Japs who started the war and committed atrocious warcrimes?

People I have met from America, usually other students. We get into debates here a lot, and some of them tend to drop that line.
that's why. I had some interesting conversations with students.

many believe US History shouldn't teach that the US once kept slaves because it's demeaning.

we shouldn't teach about Pearl Harbor because it opens hostilities between Japanese and Americans

we shouldn't teach about the Holocaust because it's traumatizing to Jews.

and not all these students were American either.

that's why. I had some interesting conversations with students.

many believe US History shouldn't teach that the US once kept slaves because it's demeaning.

we shouldn't teach about Pearl Harbor because it opens hostilities between Japanese and Americans

we shouldn't teach about the Holocaust because it's traumatizing to Jews.

and not all these students were American either.
That is scary. :eek: I wonder when they will say they should stop teaching the Holocaust because Germans might find it offensive. :p

guilt? What about the guilt of the Japs who started the war and committed atrocious warcrimes?
No one said they shouldn't apologise. Its quite shocking that they haven't.

Anyone else disturbed by this?
*Nods*
Glad the bombs were dropped when and where they were... can you imagine someone like that dropping bombs with today's tonnage??
:shudders:

lol with that being the example to follow, I doubt any nation in the future will see any need to apologise for any of its actions...or even justify them.

I don't think they will. Unlike revenge, apology only has a meaning is served 'hot', so to speak.
'Sowwy' after everyone is dead is utterly pointless.

As for 'justification'... I am even more sceptical. It always ends up attempts to explain how a wrong thing was really a good thing, if you only took the trouble to look at it from THEIR point of view.

In answer to the poll question-- after much thought, Hiroshima was justified, so the US should not apologize.

However, I am not sure that Nagasaki was necessary so soon afterwards. The US could have given the Japanese some more time after the 5th to decide their course. Maybe for that, an apology might be in order...but not until the Japanese apologize for their numerous atrocities and disinterr the Class A war criminals from Yakusune.

I don't think they will. Unlike revenge, apology only has a meaning is served 'hot', so to speak.
'Sowwy' after everyone is dead is utterly pointless.
Agreed, but this will still not stop victims of atrocities from demanding one. An unapologetic tormentor, they feel, is worse than one who tries to make amends. There are still people who think the British Empire should apologise for all its "crimes." Especially in former colonies. I suppose to them its the principle of the matter.

As for 'justification'... I am even more sceptical. It always ends up attempts to explain how a wrong thing was really a good thing, if you only took the trouble to look at it from THEIR point of view.
I was actually referring to those excusing an action before it takes place, as it gives a means of predicting a country's movement patterns. Ones given after are obviously less useful.

Agreed, but this will still not stop victims of atrocities from demanding one. An unapologetic tormentor, they feel, is worse than one who tries to make amends. There are still people who think the British Empire should apologise for all its "crimes." Especially in former colonies. I suppose to them its the principle of the matter.
Are they asking for one? or is everyone else who has a bad image of America, asking for one?

either way, I've never believed in these apologies. It doesn't do any good. past attrocities will always be brought up. no matter what.

Agreed, but this will still not stop victims of atrocities from demanding one. An unapologetic tormentor, they feel, is worse than one who tries to make amends. There are still people who think the British Empire should apologise for all its "crimes." Especially in former colonies. I suppose to them its the principle of the matter.

I understand that they think it's a matter of principle, but based on the sentiments I expressed about the meaning and value of apology and justification and assocication by guilt, to me it is a matter of tough shit.

It's not that I think tormenting is good.. it is that I think apologies 60 years later are at best pointless. And at worst downright negative.

I understand that they think it's a matter of principle, but based on the sentiments I expressed about the meaning and value of apology and justification and assocication by guilt, to me it is a matter of tough shit.

It's not that I think tormenting is good.. it is that I think apologies 60 years later are at best pointless. And at worst downright negative.
True. My stance was simply that one nation should not demand an apology from another, if it isn't willing to give one itself. I find it pointless for either America or Japan to say sorry at this point. In this way, Japan got away from much of the guilt association that plagued Germany.

Are they asking for one? or is everyone else who has a bad image of America, asking for one?

either way, I've never believed in these apologies. It doesn't do any good. past attrocities will always be brought up. no matter what.
Sometimes they do have merit though; like the alleged Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Empire. It was quite severe. Although I doubt anything will ever be done with regard to this.

Why give up a habit of a life time? lets face it the american military love killing civilians :eek: :mp5:

True. My stance was simply that one nation should not demand an apology from another, if it isn't willing to give one itself. I find it pointless for either America or Japan to say sorry at this point. In this way, Japan got away from much of the guilt association that plagued Germany.

It only plagues you if you let it.
I'm sure you noticed I refused to, in the harshest terms possible.

I'm sure the folks who blamed modern day Germans for events in 1940-1945 were less interested in extracting an apology than they were in indulging in Kvetching.

It only plagues you if you let it.
I'm sure you noticed I refused to, in the harshest terms possible.

I'm sure the folks who blamed modern day Germans for events in 1940-1945 were less interested in extracting an apology than they were in indulging in Kvetching.
I am not a person who believes in apologies either.

What exactly is Kvetching?

Everyone has been throwing the "nuke" word around like it's the same type of bombs that we have today. Todays bombs are 100's if not 1000's times more powerful than the Atomic Bombs of WWII. Not claiming they weren't devestating just pointing that out. Also, not forget we are looking at this through 20/20 hindsight. Do you honestly think ANYONE had any clue about the longterm affects of the A-Bomb? I don't. They knew it was a big bomb that would go boom. People still had clocks at their bed side tables that glowed in the dark because they were radio active! Also, in a different vain, if we didn't drop the bomb then, and learn of the absolute devestation, perhaps us or the Soviets would have been more inclined to use a 100 times more devestating H-Bomb somewhere else, and cause even more destruction. In a backwards logic type of way, it worked out for the entire world better.

I am not a person who believes in apologies either.

What exactly is Kvetching?


Mentally hurting. Nagging. Scalding. To inflict a (mental ) injury. Kvetchen is a jiddish verb. I supposed it would be easy to understand for speakers of german. Mah bad...

I am not a person who believes in apologies either.

What exactly is Kvetching?

think kvetching means complaining. not sure google it or something :p

Mentally hurting. Nagging. Scalding. To inflict a (mental ) injury. Kvetchen is a jiddish verb. I supposed it would be easy to understand for speakers of german. Mah bad...
I suppose it would be, if I spoke more than a minimal amount of German. :)

I lived in Japan for three years as a part of my military service. I visited the Hiroshima bomb site, and it was a surreal experience. This was around the same time that the movie Pearl Harbor came out.

The Japanese people and its government are ashamed of their role in WWII. However they teach their children the errors of their past in school, the mistakes that their fathers and grandfathers made. The Japanese widely consider their alliance with the Axis powers to the the blackest mark on their nation's history.

I applaud them for facing the truth of their past, and for passing on the lessons learned from those mistakes so they as a people are less doomed to repeat them.

It is far more than what we as a nation have done in the past 30 years, getting involved in multiple conflicts without apology or admission of error. The generation of Americans about to rise to positions of power are blinded by the fact that they have been taught that the U.S. in infoulable, and it is further illustrated by our inability to admit that dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong. If you need more proof, look at the reasons for the current war, which have changed without admission of error in planning since the buildup for the conflict.

The U.S. currently is paralleling Stalin's regime in 1930-1950 Russia in frightening fashion, using the word "terror" as a justification for any and all action in the name of national security. The idea that terror is out there strikes fear into enough people that the administration feels it has the right to act in any way, legal or not, without approval to achieve its goals.

I only hope history teaches the next generation of Americans how wrong we have been and how to properly lead a democracy and set an example of justice and fairness for the world. We are living in dark days, ruled by fear, and we definately have not learned from the past, learned what unchecked pursuit of "terror" can lead a nation to.

I suppose it would be, if I spoke more than a minimal amount of German. :)

Mah bad for once again presupposing that crosscultural understanding is possible!:headbang:

I suppose it would be, if I spoke more than a minimal amount of German. :)
I always thought Kvetching was a Polish/yiddish word?

I always thought Kvetching was a Polish/yiddish word?

Mentally hurting. Nagging. Scalding. To inflict a (mental ) injury. Kvetchen is a jiddish verb. I supposed it would be easy to understand for speakers of german. Mah bad...

...

...
looked it up. Dictionary.reference.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2002/06/01.html)
Kvetch comes from Yiddish kvetshn, "to squeeze, to complain," from Middle High German quetzen, quetschen, "to squeeze."

Guess we were both right. :p

Mah bad for once again presupposing that crosscultural understanding is possible!:headbang:
I had already inferred the meaning of the word, though I wanted to see exactly what it meant. Certainty is always better than assumptions. It would have helped if the word was actually germanic, greek or latin-based, since they are related to the languages I speak.