The Hiroshima debate, emotionalism vrs history...

Originally posted by Frosty
Bombing civilians was necessary, not all troops voluntered, not sure if you've heard of the draft. So by that standard you people feel it ok to shoot troops who didn't volunteer but inhumane to drop bombs on civilians working in the heat of the war machine? Stop contradicting yourselves and I'll get back to you.

Uhh....what are you talking about?

Originally posted by Frosty
Bombing civilians was necessary, not all troops voluntered, not sure if you've heard of the draft. So by that standard you people feel it ok to shoot troops who didn't volunteer but inhumane to drop bombs on civilians working in the heat of the war machine? Stop contradicting yourselves and I'll get back to you.

See, you swallow the propoganda at the deepest level. Our troops were innocent cuddly bunnys with familys sat by the fire with cocoa waiting for brave daddy to come home, but the Japanese children and women of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were evil fiery machines of death that had less of a soul. Even if that is not what you meant, that is how it is coming across, and it's blatantly heinous. People have got Textbook fever, it's not about a lesser of two evils, it's about completely different levels of evil.

Jam, if your read my post more closely, I said "you live in an indolent and self focused society". I was not making a personal attack, not unless you take it personally that is.

Gee, excuse me if I actually try and take, what I now gather is an "idealistic" stance and not a real one, and challange that.

I guess the shock of bringing such airhead views to earth must really affect people. I am dreadfully sorry if your idealism doesn't stand up to scrutiny and analysis as an actual path that may have been undertaken in reality, but thats not my problem.

Maybe the answer would be to go back in time, change history to not drop the bomb, let the war create tens of thousands more allied casualties, and see if you pop out of existance because one of your grandparents didn't come back from the war. It would be a form of poetic justice I suppose




[edit on 7-8-2005 by Netchicken]

Originally posted by Netchicken
It would be a form of poetic justice I suppose




[edit on 7-8-2005 by Netchicken]

As there are many many people in other countries who are thinking "If the USA get's nuked, it'll be poetic justice for all the death they've handed out". The line between terrorist and patriot grows ever thinner.

Originally posted by Netchicken
Jam, if your read my post more closely, I said "you live in an indolent and self focused society". I was not making a personal attack, not unless you take it personally that is.

Gee, excuse me if I actually try and take, what I now gather is an "idealistic" stance and not a real one, and challange that.

I guess the shock of bringing such airhead views to earth must really affect people. I am dreadfully sorry if your idealism doesn't stand up to scrutiny and analysis as an actual path that may have been undertaken in reality, but thats not my problem.

Yes, that first part was an implication, after all, the individual does live in society.

I have no problem with you challenging anything. And I think my post, and my views are very similar to what you have said.

My only problem is the way you are, not challenging, but attacking members for writing their views about the Hiroshima bombing. Quite frankly, you are coming off as an arrogant asshole, and lashing out at members for thinking differently than you. My efforts in telling you this are to turn down your own ego that you are accusing other members of having.

I applaud the members here and people all over the world who want to give peace a chance. If we were not idealistic in our quest for peace, everyone's lives would be a horrible tragedy. And no matter what you or anyone else might think, peace is always an option, promoted through diplomacy. Albeit, sometimes it is not a viable, realistic one, as was probably the case with the Japanese during World War 2 (I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there). But, if we always think that we have to resort to war, then eventually that war will come back to your house, friends, and family.

So, while you stroke your ego with fantasies about the honor and glory of war, forgetting about the effects on real people who are unfairly caught in the carnage, there are those who find no justification for war, much less a nuclear strike.

And if you can't accept that people don't agree with you, then that is your problem.

Jam, the luxury of pacifism is only achievable during peace. Only then can you take an idealistic stand and be sure of not having it challanged in the real world.

However in WW2, the Japanese part was obviously good vrs evil (go on flame away at that statement) - considering the Japanaese atrocities and actions towards the people they conquored.

In this situation pacisfism becomes nothing more than parasitic, living on the backs of those who actually fought and died.

How would you act, if the options were to either tell the families at home that their sons died because we didn't want to hurt any more of the enemy than necessary in a war that America didn't even start, or to be able to send home tens of thousands of men alive to their families, to carry on with their lives?

Attitudes such as chebobs disappear in the glare of reality and responsability.

This form of hiroshima revisionism was the initial focus of my initial post. So I am no more attacking the person than the issue I addressed at the beginning. Its only now there is someone trying to substantiate that position.


[edit on 7-8-2005 by Netchicken]

People, in WWII whole countries incluing the civillians are targets. the civillians are part of hte country at war and when the allies invade the civillians will have to fight to the death, well, for japan it is. if the US invade their home island they have to fight to the death all of them, so the a-bomb drop was a good choice at that time.

Wowzers, a flame topic if ever I saw one. All i'll say on the matter is karma. Somewhere along the line I guess your due a couple yourselves.

Originally posted by Netchicken
How would you act, if the options were to either tell the families at home that their sons died because we didn't want to hurt any more of the enemy than necessary in a war that America didn't even start, or to be able to send home tens of thousands of men alive to their families, to carry on with their lives?

Well, this thread originated from a military point of view. How do we win this war without losing our military personnel? In that view, people are supposing that the atomic weapons were the best choice. I believe that is the context the original post was made in. As well, the emotionalism surrounding the events is what you were trying to avoid. But, the question you raise above is based on emotionalism. Interesting isn't it?

Your question supposes that the atomic weapons were necessary. Well, I have come across some interesting quotes from Eisenhower, Hoover, MacArthur, and more questioning whether it was really necessary....

www.doug-long.com...

DWIGHT EISENHOWER

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

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

HERBERT HOOVER

On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.

On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142

GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

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

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

So, if we extrapolate your decisions regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki to plant them among the various other wars up until the present, we can ask, why didn't we drop anymore atomic weapons seeing that it could have saved the life of american soldiers? I assume that you would have been in favor of more atomic weapons because, bringing up this topic about history, you were probably already familiar with the quotes on that website.

We can throw quotes at each other over this issue forever.

However reading the article I see the difference is between personal opinion, and objective facts gained from cracking the Japanese communications.

Your proponents state ... "It is my opinion " etc, they are short on facts and long on ethics and opinion.

The weekly standard article states that

The critics share three fundamental premises. The first is that Japan's situation in 1945 was catastrophically hopeless. The second is that Japan's leaders recognized that fact and were seeking to surrender in the summer of 1945. The third is that thanks to decoded Japanese diplomatic messages, American leaders knew that Japan was about to surrender when they unleashed needless nuclear devastation.

The critics divide over what prompted the decision to drop the bombs in spite of the impending surrender, with the most provocative arguments focusing on Washington's desire to intimidate the Kremlin. Among an important stratum of American society--and still more perhaps abroad--the critics' interpretation displaced the traditionalist view.

However further information has come to light since that time and since those opinions were voiced, and those facts are the heart of the quoted article (did you read it Jam?)

But beginning in the 1970s, we have acquired an array of new evidence from Japan and the United States. By far the most important single body of this new evidence consists of secret radio intelligence material, and what it highlights is the painful dilemma faced by Truman and his administration. In explaining their decisions to the public, they deliberately forfeited their best evidence.

So outdated quotes are surpassed by new information. I won't post any more points, Edsinger did a good job of that back on page2, but if you want to broaden your knowledge of the time, instead of staying stuck in a politically correct hug-a-whale-and-plant-a-disabled-lesbian-tree pacisfist view, then read it.

In conclusion

There are a good many more points that now extend our understanding beyond the debates of 1995.

But it is clear that all three of the critics' central premises are wrong. The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a negotiated end to the war that preserved the old order in Japan, not just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence, American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand, understood--as one analytical piece in the "Magic" Far East Summary stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and diplomatic intercepts--that "until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies." This cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945.

War is WRONG!
It is no wonder that so many people in the world HATE Americans!
It's ok for the USA to have Nukes and Bio weapons but God forbid if any other country wants them!

Originally posted by Netchicken
So outdated quotes are surpassed by new information. I won't post any more points, Edsinger did a good job of that back on page2, but if you want to broaden your knowledge of the time, instead of staying stuck in a politically correct hug-a-whale-and-plant-a-disabled-lesbian-tree pacisfist view, then read it.

Outdated? Hardly. You, yourself stated that they were concerned more with ethics and humanity of the situation rather than military intelligence. And, I wouldn't say morality is ever outdated.

But, to tell you the truth, I really don't have any desire to read the article, nor do I have a strong stance regarding Hiroshima. You were probably right, it was necessary from a military point of view.

From a humanistic point of view, no war is necessary. And I believe you are the one so adamant about the environment, I have a good memory of those days back in chat. Don't hate who you are NetC.

Just one more thing to mention to those 'anti-bomb the Japanese folks'about this is in 1945 when the bombs were dropped, the medium and long term effects of radiation were unknown. No one knew of the cancers or the other long term effects.

The American government experimented on her own troops by sending squads into radioactive areas soon after atomic bomb test after the war to see what effect radiation had on the troops. In case the Russans dropped a bomb on U.S. soil they needed to know how first response troops could manage after a blast in a radioactive location.

To kick back in your computer chair after looking back upon 60 years of history and come to the conclusion that dropping the bombs, based on the current state of this planet, was wrong in the year of 1945, when the world was going through the worst all out kill or be killed war in modern history where twenty plus million people died (much more deaths than the bombs caused) is something you simply can't do and quite frankly shouldn't even try to do.

That bomb was dropped on a military target, Hiroshima. Like someone else said, 150,000 plus troops, factories kicking out war machines... If they were there then they were a target and I feel no shame for my country or pity for the civilians that died. They ALL brought it on themselves. War is hell.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
You're not the only one annoyed by it. The dropping of the bomb was entirely justified and anyone who speaks otherwise simply must not know thier history.

People and thier attempts to revise history to make the US and her allies seem as "evil" are really out of whack.

I agree,

What I don't understand about nuclear war though is why the people get killed and not government workers or head honchos?

Why is it always innocent people? Those people had nothing to do with the government's desire to harm america.

He harmed his own people, he tried sending bio weapons over here in red helium balloons on the west coast.

Why can't government attack government buildings and the dictator's home and all that? Why does it always have to be a major city filled with innocent people?

I've never understood that, if your going ot have a beef with another coutnry beef it with the leader and not the people.

There is actually a debate about whether or not violence is inbuilt into human nature....

Originally posted by MagicaRose
War is WRONG!
It is no wonder that so many people in the world HATE Americans!
It's ok for the USA to have Nukes and Bio weapons but God forbid if any other country wants them!

Lots of countries have nuclear weapons and any country that has chemical plants and a clean lab is capable of producing WMD's

Yes in a perfect world war would be wrong, but we do not live in such a place. SO if war is wrong, then should we have not defended ourselves? :shk:

was it morally wrong to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki? how about was it morally wrong to firebomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there been no atomic weapons. would the world criticize us still? casualties from the firebombing would be more horrific then the atomic weapons. in anicase atomic or not we would still bomb those cities and it may have ended the war. however the atomic weapon was more awe inspiring and put fear in the Japanese which realize that just one bomb annihalated an entire city where hundreds of B-29 bombers would be required to achieved the same number or more casualties in a similar city. u can debate all you want if U.S. should or shouldnt have dropped the bomb the results would have been the same. more Japanese soldiers and civilians died and the war ended. thats the end of the story. besides the atomic weapon was just another new weapon that the human race has created to add the carnage to a violatile world.

It always amuses me to see how Japanese colonial adventures in the early years of the 20th century are demonised on ATS. How quickly it is forgotten about American and European expansions of their own respective spheres of influence. The US expansion into former Spanish colonies in that time are quietly glossed over.

No, of course it was the savage Japanese subjugating the poor defenceless peoples of Asia. The heroic US went to their rescue. Sorry, but this is bull of the highest order. Let's take a look at the attitude of US politicians of that era:

The Philippines are ours forever...and just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets...the Pacific is our ocean.

The power that rules the Pacific is the power that rules the world...That power is and will forever be the American Republic.

We are the ruling race of the world. We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, Under God of the civilization of the world...He has marked us as his chosen people...He has made us adept in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples

Senator Albert Beveridge (Indiana)
Beveridge cited in Rubin Westin, Racism in U.S. Imperalism
quoted from Addicted to War by Joel Andreas.

So we have the Marines invading everywhere from China to Russia between the 1890's and mid 1930's. Who would blame Japan for getting nervous? It amuses me all the more in other threads whining about Japanese whitewashing of history texts when from reading this discussion you would assume that Pearl Harbour occured in a vacuum, without any provacation.

One earlier poster brought up the excellent point of Western colonial adventures in Asia. Like so much else, it was glossed over as it didn't suit the U.S. to have this shady side of their history known. No, of course we hear about the Rape of Nanjing. We never hear of the genocide by US forces in the Phillipines of 600,000 Filipinos through their circa. 1898 Burn All - Kill All policy.

So Japan fought hard and long against a superior foe. They had no hope of winning but the still fought bravely. Even when facing defeat and the invasion of their homelands, they swore defense of their country. How many threads and discussions on ATS have you seen where die-hard American Patriots swear to fight to the end if invaded by whatever percieved enemy? I have seen plenty.

Yet, when the Japanese were set to do it they were deemed "fanatical"? Would you not defend your home country from a foreign invader? With all their fight, they knew the end was near and through recent reports in the media we now know that they knew they were defeated and surrender was imminent. Yet someone had to show off their new toy and now two city names will always be associated with death and destruction.

In the larger scheme of things after 60 years which country's name is synomonous with war and imperalism? Certainly not Japan. In the larger scheme of things, the defeat of Japan can be seen as yet another step by the U.S. towards it's aspirations of global domination. The atrocities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki will hopefully seen as what they truly were in 1945; the first flexings of a fledgling Imperial power's muscle.

History will record how after the war, Japan foreswore war and advocated peace. Will it take a couple of mushroom clouds over U.S. cities for the lesson to be learned that it is time for us as a global society to step beyond the need for war? I hope not, but if the attitudes of U.S. members on this board are anything to go by, it seems History is about to repeat itself.

Dropping the two nuclear bombs was right, because it (dropping the two nuclear bombs) saved many lives. Besides, if it wasn't for the US, Japan would rule all of Asia.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 8-8-2005 by AtheiX]

60 years on from Hiroshima it seems very PC to critisize the dropping of the bomb, but released transcripts of the messages between the japanese leaders shows that they would have "unleashed hell" had America tried to invade Japan.

I take it then that should anyone ever invade your country, you would expect your fellow citizens to relax on their porches and take the rampage and killing of your brethren in stride.

I am endlessly fascinated by the intolerant and callous nature of all people who justify destruction and death from a single perspective. In truth there are no enemies, only opposing sides who do not share in each others perverted realities, and each side sees itself as upholding the righteous reality. But this ignorant intolerance is exactly what propagates hatred and wars because man cannot see fit to think and act in other than selfish terms.

Why, I am sure NetChicken, you nodded in agreement as you saw non-Americans dancing in the streets and celebrating the death and destruction they deemed befitting those whose lives were lost on Sept. 11, 2001, and I am certain that with your sense of humanism, it would be quite satisfactory to you were disgruntled Iraqis to unleash a dirty bomb on your city in return for invading their country.

As peaceful a nation as Japan now is, do you suppose the Majority of Japanese people, including any survivors or descendents of the dead and afflicted share your taste for the ugliness brought about by two atomic bombs? And where do you think you would stand if you were unlucky enough to have been born in Nagasaki?

Do you suppose when Oppenheimer uttered what must be putrid words to you; “I am become like death, the destroyer of worlds,” that he too became a loathsome revisionist wuss?

The dropping of those bombs was a vile and repugnant terrorist act! But obviously since it was America carrying out the terrorism, the terms and conditions of warfare, those like you scream about Iraqi insurgents not upholding, do not apply.