It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Hiroshima debate, emotionalism vrs history...

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Hoggwash, because something is discussed or explored doesn't mean their findings will have anything to do with what, in reality, would transpire because that is based on personal feelings and emotions from all people envolved and no one, or group of people, can assess with any certainity what one person would do, let alone everyone.

BTW, Sad and Pathetic does seem to convey the right emotion to how people can be swayed into patriotic jingoism without thought.

Maybe dropping the bomb was the only chioce that seemed reasonable to them, but the fact remains that no one will ever know what happens on the road not travelled and to pretend to, is at the least dishonest.




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
What exactly are you calling "hogwash"?
Your contesting and calling historical documents used and readily found to substantiate the links I have given you as "hogwash"?

Are you a proponent of historical revisionism or simply advocating it?





seekerof



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
What exactly are you calling "hogwash"?
Your contesting and calling historical documents used and readily found to substantiate the links I have given you as "hogwash"?

Are you a proponent of historical revisionism or simply advocating it?





seekerof


Neither and you know it - hey look at me, reading peoples minds. What is hogwash is to suppose that because you or someone has considered an alternate action, it is impossible to "know" what will happen as you implied. The only way on know what will happen is by doing it, and once the bomb was dropped, there was never going to be anyway of knowing whether it was really needed or not.

But I suspect you knew what I was talking about.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PyrosWhat a completely uninformed, dim-witted, sarcastic, and absurd statement! Some of you folks should really proof-read what you are posting beford you hit that magic "Post Reply" button.........
Obviously I have hit a nerve, and one which gives you the tics, for it has left you devoid of counter yet full of hysterical defensless posturing. So just for that I repeat to be sure that you understand my abject contempt for yours and others disregard for human life;

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.


Thoughts like these are probably the product of cursory 21st century high school history classes that spend a total of two weeks reviewing important events of the 1930's and 1940's. Go back to class.
I have annoyed you, haven't I? Most excellent! It pleases me to see how the backs of the ignorant are easily riled when I point out just how jingoistic and backward they are. I trust you are also a God-faring Christian who readily preaches turn the other cheek too, except of course when it is your cheek that needs to be turned.


Read up about the American isolationist position, and how we were dragged, kicking and screaming into WWII because of European fascism and Japanese imperialism.
Then I would be like you and subject myself to one-sided mythology, wouldn't I?


Read up on the death grip that the Japanese military had on the Japanese society, and how the practice of bushido prevailed throughout the military.
As above, but I add this: Japan was a sovereign nation, and whatever laws it enforced on its populace had nothing to do with you! Because I know you will miss the profundity contained within that statement, just look around you on this forum alone and you will find some of your fellow Americans are not at all pleased with either the leaders or the direction of your country, does that mean then that some country should bomb the bejeezus out of San Diego harbour? Why given your bent rationale it certainly does.


Did you know that the Japanese POWs returned from Russia after the war in 1905 became social outcasts, and were driven to suicide and madness?....
And those interned in North America were jovial and celebrating life? Or is it that your history books purposely omitted that?


you would have preferred us to land a million men in an amphibious assault on the Japanese island of Honshu and defeat their combined military and civilain forces in a protracted land battle?
I would have preferred that you did not change the rules of warfare, then wail shamelessly thereafter that the Geneva convention is being usurped. And I would have preferred that such despicable annihilation and wanton disregard for human life was addressed in a different manner, as was necessitated during the Cuban missile crisis. But of course you were not in complete control at that point in time were you? Playng safe is after all a different story all together when said bomb would be raining down on your cities.


You had And you believe that would have spared the Japanese the horrors and destruction of 2 atomic bomb attacks? Geez...nice trade off. Personally, I always preferred the version where we win the war that we didn't start, and we don't have to suffer half a million casualties to force our enemy to capitulate.
Yes I do! I am quite comfortable taking that stance than that of those apologists who look for every subjective extrapolation of what could have happened otherwise.

The rest of your pitiful howlings are adequately addressed above.



[edit on 8/8/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterpNautical blockade! you know, where ships block the major ports of a country!!!


This isn't the 1800's were talking about, those ports were well maintained with heavy artillery.



You obviously have no knowledge of war tactics. Waiting can be as painful as invading.

I have enough knowledge to know that enticing a land invasion is not a good idea. Look at Pearl Harbour. Why would the US jput its citizens in further danger?



But there was no need to invade the Japan mainland! it was just an excuse made up for dropping the bombs! Japan was already destroyed from the fire bombing!

But they weren't surrendering, why allow them time to rebuild?



You and other posters here are stuck with the idea of invasion being the only solution. I was not talking about invasion, but using air and naval forces to take out the rest of military installations and other important targets.

And we did just that with the A-bombs.



But the 2nd bomb just 'happened' to be a plutonium one that killed 120,000 people. Can you say "experiment"???

The first was uranium and was the second bomb ever detonated, it was at its birth.




I don't think 3 days were enough. They barely have the time to realize what's happened. Give them a weekly warning, then blow a deserted island to smithereens.


The Japs knew well what was going on, they had plans of building there own bomb, when they received word that an entire city had just been destroyed with one bomb and one plane, they knew what was happening.
LMAO, why would we just waste such an expensive bomb and warn them. Like I said, one bomb wasn't enough.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofSave the terrorism rhetoric for those anti-nuke and anti-war rally's.
Apparently to you, Nanking was not an act of terrorism?
Banzai attacks and kamikaze attacks were not an act of terrorism?
The damn list can go on for your mis-mentioned use of terrorism when applying it to the dropping of the atomic bombs.
Really, and that is supposed to be an aqeduate response how? I asked you a question! I want to know if you would have been so amenable to these bombs dropping on your country, if you were unlucky enough to be born in Nagasaki. Where is your response?

I bet you shed a tear or two when the twin towers fell, Seekerof. Well, those on the other side of the coin, like you with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, felt no remorse either. That warms your insides to know that, does it not? And it evens it up too doesn't it, to know that they are as heartless and as uncaring as you?


Save the "we" did not have to drop to their same level, cause in war, real war, the goal is to win and to win decisively and with the least amount of life taken in a timely fashion, thus negating further loss of life. To continue to spout that terrorism 'this and that' is ludicrous. War is simply one act of terrorism after another, committed by all sides involved, period.
Save what? You obviously have your thoughts confused with my clarity dear boy. You did not drop to their level, no. You dropped to depths far below theirs, a depth that is yet to be matched.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Dropping of the bomb was probably the best idea for humanity. It showed the world the destructive force man posessed at level with which has put an end to the world war. Since then there have been no more world wars. The worst conflict after WWII was Korea followed by Vietnam, Rwanda, and Iran Iraq. Conflicts in general have been decreasing in destruction and death because of the bomb.

Without it we would probably be in the mist of a fifth world war with only a few hundred million people left on earth spending their every waking hour to the war effort...well, maybe a slight exageration.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   

by Netchicken
Am I the only person annoyed at the anti bomb stance at the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima day?

Reading the articles in the media you are left with the feeling that the nasty American forces killed all those innocent Japanese out of spite, or to test their weapon, or scare the russians.

The actual historical antecedents around the event are lost in the outpouring of "oh poor people look what you suffered" articles.


No you are not the only one annoyed. I am disgusted with it. I went to read a few of the articles thinking that they would be full of history. Instead the articles were all twisted to make it look like the US was terrible, and should have just surrendered without a shot. It was sickening.

I am very glad that you posted your thoughts. I had wondered if it was just me. I am also appalled at the majority of the posts here.

Why didnt the US just blockade their ports?
Should have given them a warning?
Should have just fought without the nukes
They were ready to surrender
The US was just afraid of the Russians

These are not indicitve of and do not reflect the reality of the war that was forced on the US and the rest of the world. I do not recall the US going out of its way to start or join that world war. In fact quite the opposite. But once pressed into it......


Again, thank you Netchicken, at least I know that there is someone besides myself who was disturbed by the spin on these articles.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
The drop of atomic bombs opened a new era of atomic warfare. If Hiroshima hadn't happened and all countries agreed to "no atomic weapons", then there would be no nuclear threat for US today.


The Soviets had a bomb program going during the war. They would have developed a nuclear capcity not long after. THe Manhattan project gave the US the ability to keep pace and catch the Soviets. Were it not for the atomic bomb, Stalin may have been inclined to march right accross Europe simply taking the place of Hitler. To say there would be no nuclear threat is naive at best



Because killing 200,000 in 10 minutes is a very 'bad' thing to do?


It is customary in war to notify the enemy of pending actions? I can see it now:

LeMay: "LeMay here, we are on way to drop firebombs on your cities , the B-29's will be at FL 20 bearing 237. Oh and don't forget Its Iwo Jima this Monday :shk:



War has its rules though.


Enlighten me about the rule that was violated by this?



So you should have just killed the emperor, then.


SImplistic at best. The war was run by a ruling clique of generals, even when the Emperor gave the order to surrunder, both sides wainted to see if everybody would comply. Killing him would simply allow the generals free rein to try whatever tactics they wanted.



[edit on 8/8/05 by FredT]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Im going to say this once on this thread. There is alot of low level sniping and things are getting a bit personal. Please maintain civility and no personal attacks please.

Thanks......

Back to the discussion



[edit on 8/9/05 by FredT]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I don't remember exactly what was posted.

[edit on 8/9/05 by FredT]

[edit on 9-8-2005 by howmuchisthedoggy]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
I need to apologise, I went to reply to your post and instead hit the edit button and some of your post was lost. It was unintentional and if you could please repost it.

Again I aplogise

Fred

[edit on 8/9/05 by FredT]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso
These are not indicitve of and do not reflect the reality of the war that was forced on the US and the rest of the world. I do not recall the US going out of its way to start or join that world war. In fact quite the opposite. But once pressed into it......


I disagree totally. The U.S. was no more forced into WWII than it was forced into it's current "War on Terror". It saw an opportunity for carpet-bagging, profiteering and expanding it's already growing sphere of influence. Despite what John Wayne told you, there never was any noble reasons to join this war.

The Pro A-Bomb people on this thread would have you believe that history begins with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Of course this is glossing over many years of colonial adventures and U.S. Marine Corp. invasions of countries in the area. Pearl Harbour was a measured response to a long period of provocations.

The sooner the U.S. stops crying over it and 9/11 the sooner they can see to what ends the blood of their sons and daughters is being spilled. The soldiers who fought in WWII in the Pacific arena were no better than thugs or hoodlums working for the mob. The sad thing is they went for purely alutristic reasons. They were good and honorable people but their strength was misdirected towards evil goals. Evil goals which included the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What better mob message to send to the Asian neighborhood that a new outfit was in town, than those two mushroom clouds?

It gives me chills to read in this thread how the taking of hundreds of thousands of lives are so coldly dismissed as an almost "charitable" act towards the Japanese. Be they military or not, the "Japs" as they are so lovingly referred to in this thread, were still fleh and blood people.

When the Japanese grieve their dead in Hiroshima it is sickingly hypocritical to hear people accuse them of forgeting why they "deserved" it. Not so long ago we had to put up with much wailing and gnashing of teeth over 9/11. A lot of people in the world would agree the U.S. more than deserved that, yet we gave you space to grieve your dead, without asking any awkward questions, like "Why"?

But that's different isn't it? The residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were viscious little "Japs" that didn't appreciate the "Freedom" that the U.S. was gifting them.

Sounds a little to close for comfort to current events.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
This post contains so much unmitigated horse manure I barely know where to begin, nor am I sure that I will be able to adequately address all of the glaring errors and misconceptions it contains......


Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
I disagree totally. The U.S. was no more forced into WWII than it was forced into it's current "War on Terror". It saw an opportunity for carpet-bagging, profiteering and expanding it's already growing sphere of influence. Despite what John Wayne told you, there never was any noble reasons to join this war.


I will only take issue on the last sentance of this last piece of drivel. Tell that to the French, Danish, Belgian, Polish, Greek, Russian, Dutch, Czech, Austrian, Norwegian, etc., etc., folks who frequent this board. Tell them liberating their countries from the Nazis wasn't a noble cause. Tell that to the people of London who endured The Blitz. Tell the survivors of Nanking that their plight wasn't noble. Tell the 6 million jews that destrying the nazi war machine wasn't noble. Although the attack on Pearl harbor provided us with the impetus to enter the war, to imply that the US had morality in this cause is just plain stupid. Stupid.


Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggyThe Pro A-Bomb people on this thread would have you believe that history begins with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Of course this is glossing over many years of colonial adventures and U.S. Marine Corp. invasions of countries in the area. Pearl Harbour was a measured response to a long period of provocations.


Please provide us with some fine examples of your enlightened view of world history that illustrates this claim. Show me where US Marines invaded Japanese territory, or any foreign soil in the Pacific during the 1920's and 1930's. And BTW, what the heck is "Pro A-Bomb people" supposed to mean? It is a historical fact that cannot be argued with.


The sooner the U.S. stops crying over it and 9/11 the sooner they can see to what ends the blood of their sons and daughters is being spilled. The soldiers who fought in WWII in the Pacific arena were no better than thugs or hoodlums working for the mob. The sad thing is they went for purely alutristic reasons. They were good and honorable people but their strength was misdirected towards evil goals. Evil goals which included the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


What wonderful praise and insult in the same breath. It probably a good thing for you that most of the fine people who did fight in the Pacific are all in wheelchairs, or too feeble to kick your arse. Because I would love to see you drum up even just a few survivors who would buy into your skewed perspective on history, that didn't have Alzheimer's Disease.



It gives me chills to read in this thread how the taking of hundreds of thousands of lives are so coldly dismissed as an almost "charitable" act towards the Japanese. Be they military or not, the "Japs" as they are so lovingly referred to in this thread, were still fleh and blood people.


So nice of you to have feelings for the Japanese people who suffered and were killed. How about the other 60 million people all around the globe who died during the war? Or, are their deaths OK because they weren't bombed with nuclear weapons by the US? Bombing the Japanese was never an act of charity. However, it was an act of cold determination made with the utmost deliberation with the objective of stopping the war and reducing the amount of friendly deaths and casualties. The Allies won WWII because, fortunatly for us, opinions like your, for the most part, did not exist.


When the Japanese grieve their dead in Hiroshima it is sickingly hypocritical to hear people accuse them of forgeting why they "deserved" it. Not so long ago we had to put up with much wailing and gnashing of teeth over 9/11. A lot of people in the world would agree the U.S. more than deserved that, yet we gave you space to grieve your dead, without asking any awkward questions, like "Why"?

But that's different isn't it? The residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were viscious little "Japs" that didn't appreciate the "Freedom" that the U.S. was gifting them.

Sounds a little to close for comfort to current events.


Your comparison of 911 and Hiroshima/Nagasaki is off base. A better comparison would be 911 and Pearl Harbor. So, what in your mind is "deserving" punishment or retribution for nations who invade their neighbors, mass-murder their citizens, and aneex their sovereign territory? What is an appropriate way to deal with a country that starts an inter-continental war, inflicting millions of casualties amonst their vicitms? Are we supposed to just gently push them away and tell them to be good? Are we supposed to just forget about the dead and the maimed? And the oppressed and imprisoned?

Man, the crazy things people say!



[edit on 9-8-2005 by Pyros]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
This post contains so much unmitigated horse manure I barely know where to begin


Quite an accurate assesment of your own post. Thanks for the prior warning.

I am not sure I want to get into another head-bashing education of a brain-washed drone, as I know from experience that the conditioning goes too deep with some people. No matter what I say they will divert, spew, pervert and twist the meaning of other people's words in order to fit them in with their own views. Fear of being wrong is too strong with some.



nor am I sure that I will be able to adequately address all of the glaring errors and misconceptions it contains......


You won't be able to address them as that would take some actual soul-searching to back up what you write. There are no errors and the misconceptions are purely of your own making.



I will only take issue on the last sentance of this last piece of drivel. Tell that to the French, Danish,blah, blah blah........liberating their countries...blah...Nazis....blah....Nanking...blah....6 million jews...blah blah


Look, save us the rose coloured glasses history view of WWII. Americans never had any invading armies or blitzs to worry about. If it is wrong and drivel prove it wrong. Show me no profiteering was going on and the U.S. left every country they entered alone and never interfered with their affairs since. You won't be able to, but please feel free to post your own dubious drivel.



Although the attack on Pearl harbor provided us with the impetus to enter the war, to imply that the US had morality in this cause is just plain stupid. Stupid


I agree, it is stupid to imply the US had any morality involved in their reasons to enter the war. Not sure why you are contradicting yourself like this though.



Please provide us with some fine examples of your enlightened view of world history that illustrates this claim.


Please read my previous posts. Please pick up a history book instead of the latest WWII flick. Please try and challange me on the facts. You won't, because you know you will lose.



Show me where US Marines invaded Japanese territory


Never said they did. Learn to read.



or any foreign soil in the Pacific during the 1920's and 1930's.


Detailed in earlier posts and history books printed in the rest of the free world.



And BTW, what the heck is "Pro A-Bomb people" supposed to mean? It is a historical fact that cannot be argued with.


"Pro A-Bomb people" in relation to this thread are those who have taken the stance that the bombings were instrumental in ending the war quickly, theoretically saving many lives, thus justifying the use of these horrible weapons.

I am getting the impression that you are just trolling for arguments. In that case, don't bother replying. If you are interested in talking about this subject, please go back and read the thread thoroughly and carefully.

It is a historical fact that no one will argue with. What we are arguing is the whys and wherefors of the situation.



What wonderful praise and insult in the same breath.


I struggled to write that paragraph in such a way as to honour the ideals manufactured so as to dupe those people into fighting to line rich men's pockets. They thought they did the right thing and for that I respect them. It makes me sad to see others disrepecting their memories by succumbing to the same propaganda and brain-washing that got so many decent hard-working men of their generation, from all countries, to enter into a game of war to entertain the higher-ups.



So nice of you to have feelings for the Japanese people who suffered and were killed. How about the other 60 million people all around the globe who died during the war? Or, are their deaths OK because they weren't bombed with nuclear weapons by the US?


All war is madness. All of it was unneccesary. The deaths due to nuclear weapons were not okay as they were nothing more than a show of power. A flexing of might set to show the region who was boss. If you take pride in that, then God help us all.



Bombing the Japanese was never an act of charity. However, it was an act of cold determination made with the utmost deliberation with the objective of stopping the war and reducing the amount of friendly deaths and casualties.


Exactly. The little yellow people were not worth the same as the Mom's apple pie GI Joes. This attitude really sickens me. The war was already over. Those people died for nothing but show.



The Allies won WWII because, fortunatly for us, opinions like your, for the most part, did not exist.


Yes, they were simpler times. Now we are more educated and vocal. If people shared my opinions back in those days, how many wars would we really have had?



Your comparison of 911 and Hiroshima/Nagasaki is off base.


Pray tell why. I thought it was quite an accurate comparison when talking about the outporings of grief between two similar incidents.



A better comparison would be 911 and Pearl Harbor.


Oh yes. How close to the truth you are on that one. They share many many similarities. Although maybe not the ones Fox News told you, or that you so mindlessly swallow.



So, what in your mind is "deserving" punishment or retribution for nations who invade their neighbors, mass-murder their citizens, and aneex their sovereign territory? What is an appropriate way to deal with a country that starts an inter-continental war, inflicting millions of casualties amonst their vicitms?


The fate of the US is in the lap if the Gods, and not for me to speculate on. Although I can tell you, there will be many parties abroad on that day!




Are we supposed to just gently push them away and tell them to be good? Are we supposed to just forget about the dead and the maimed? And the oppressed and imprisoned?


And on those words did your Grandfather's generations puff up their chests with pride and go march into machinegun fire for no good reason. All the while a class above you made a killing while the lower classes were doing the killing.



Man, the crazy things people say!



Yes, indeed.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me if this was already covered.

But I think the decision to drop the atomic bomb on the Empire of Japan was one of the wisest, best decisions in military history. I think it saved far more lives than it took and shortened a horrible war with a foe that basically thought their Emperor was god incarnate and would never stop fighting to the death.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join