64 Years ago, Yesterday... (Warning some graphic material)

S&F
Line 2
PEACE!!! (Line 3)

reply to post by enigmalone

your conciense and your countryman can be free of guilt but many here will not be.

???

Why would you or your countrymen feel guilty, if you believe the massacring 250 or more thousand people and succeeding in cracking the earth crust wasn’t the right thing to do?

Sleep well tonight my friend, you’ve earned it.

peace

reply to post by silo13


Thank you for bringing this to our attention Silo

Star and flg for your thread!!!

Just on small thing concirning the pictures you posted in the OP....

Now don't get me wrong, i'm from Holland and censorship regarding nudity is something we are not custom to, but what the h*ll is wrong when you can show a picture of a charred body without problem but a woman's nipple has to be hidden behind a black dot???

Seems to me the other way around would be more appropriate..

It's a strange world indeed

Peace

reply to post by operation mindcrime

Now don't get me wrong, i'm from Holland and censorship regarding nudity is something we are not custom to, but what the h*ll is wrong when you can show a picture of a charred body without problem but a woman's nipple has to be hidden behind a black dot???

You know what? I thought quite a bit before doing that - yes, it’s my doing, and I suppose I should make a note if it in the thread.

I wanted to take NO CHANCE the thread would be closed over someone making a stink over a mothers nipple. And believe me, there are those who would.

I agree, it should be shown, the atrocities of the devastation caused by the bomb should be shown in all it’s uncensored truth, but again, it would have been worse to see the thread closed.

I think that is one or the problems also - it’s all so censored.

We don’t see what really happened.
We don’t, in all truth, know the truth completely.
We just do the best we can with what we have.

peace


[edit on 7-8-2009 by silo13]

reply to post by muddyhoop

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Atomic Bombing of. In the only uses of nuclear weapons in war, and on the order of President Harry S. Truman, the American bomber Enola Gay attacked Hiroshima, Japan, on 6 August 1945 and the Bock's Car struck Nagasaki on 9 August. Blast, heat, and radiation from these attacks took over 200,000 lives, mostly civilians. In concert with Soviet entry into the Pacific war, and compounding years of destruction to Japan, the bomb's use forced Japan's capitulation and ended World War II.

www.encyclopedia.com...

American code breakers had been deciphering Japanese military and diplomatic messages since just before the Battle of Midway. By the summer of 1945, "Magic" was deciphering millions of messages. From these messages President Truman and U.S. military leaders concluded that Japan would not agree to an unconditional surrender. The revisionists insist otherwise. They point out that in the summer of 1945 the Japanese were seeking a compromised peace to end the war through their envoy to Russia. But based on intercepted Japanese communications, what Japan was trying to do was make a deal to keep the Soviet Union out of the war. What the Japanese military rulers really wanted was a deal that would allow their brutal military regime that started the war to stay in power, something the U.S. and the Allies would never have accepted. Yet the revisionists persist that the primary obstacle that kept Japan from agreeing to an unconditional surrender was the perception that Emperor Hirohito would not be allowed to continue as emperor. According to the revisionists, the Japanese were so loyal to the Emperor that they would have fought to the death to protect him. While that may have been true for the majority of the Japanese, some of the top military leaders did not hold the Emperor in such high esteem. In fact, when Emperor Hirohito announced his decision to surrender, a group of hard-line Japanese military leaders attempted a coup to overthrow him. The coup failed. Finally, according to the revisionists, the use of the A-bombs were unnecessary because Japan's military was so devastated that the war would have ended in a matter of weeks anyway. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith even asserted that the use of the A-bombs only shortened the war by two or three weeks at most. But Galbraith and other revisionists couldn't have been more wrong. The Japanese had been sheltering their resources in anticipation of an American landing. At the time of the bombings, Japan had over 12,000 aircraft for use against U.S. forces. In terms of land forces, some post war estimates indicate that the Japanese defense forces on Kyushu, the first island targeted for invasion, may have outnumbered U.S. forces by a ratio of 3:2. Typically, an invasion force must outnumber defenders by a ratio of 3:1 to be successful. In addition, the Japanese had been training civilians, including children, for attacks against U.S. troops.

209.157.64.200...

After the replacement of Tojo Hideki as prime minister in July 1944 by General Koiso Kuniaki, the Japanese continued to adhere to their basic strategy as World War II came to an end. That was to fight so hard and inflict such heavy casualties on the Americans that the latter would be willing to settle for a peace in which Japan could retain some of its gains, would not be occupied or disarmed, and would not have its military or civilian leaders tried as war criminals. The Japanese government made an effort to persuade the Soviet Union to either mediate some sort of compromise or, alternatively, reverse alliances and join Japan in fighting the Western powers. A new prime minister, Admiral Suzuki Kantaro, saw these efforts fail; he did not grasp that this was because Stalin had decided to fight Japan, not his current allies.

history.howstuffworks.com...

The Japanese were not planning on surrender, the bombs forced the issue...

Peace

reply to post by Oatmeal
Thank you for your post of the information.
It’s always good to see both sides and I appreciate your participation in the thread even if we don’t agree.

I’ve got to get to work but I’ve got some info to post to you concerning the info you posted (lol) - I’ll be back later to do so.

In the mean time it was brought to my intention in U2U that people should really take a look at the below article.

Out of respect for the person who posted it to me in U2U, and even though I have it posted a the beginning of this thread, I’ll post it again here.

Hiroshima Day: America Has Been Asleep at the Wheel for 64 Years

peace

reply to post by silo13


Silo

There is plenty of film and photographic evidence of what happened out there. I've seen plenty in a odd and grotesque way the US sent in train loads to the area to help and "Investigate" the sites after the surrender.

They wanted to see the "Effects" while rendering aid.

reply to post by SLAYER69

They wanted to see the "Effects" while rendering aid.

Yes, I was reading about that earlier and was interested to see how quickly peel were put *in there* to study the effects, etc. Though I have to admit the research after the fact is a must.

As for rendering aid, I’m not particularly interested in someone who would chop off my head and then offer me an aspirin and a cup a water. Too passive aggressive for me.

gracie

[edit on 7-8-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by silo13


I thought it was already added to the picture but if you put it there i must say that i understand your precaution regarding these issues...

It would be a shame if a good thread got closed because of something so insignificant.

It just that some parts of the world have a very weird way of looking at the human body and all it's beauty. In some parts of the world women can't even show their face and other parts a woman breastfeeding her child is considered explicit and should be covered up....I might do a thread about that, come to think of it!!!

But before i go to far off topic.....

Peace

reply to post by silo13

‘The resistance shown by Japanese Soldiers...’ - I agree, they would have died rather than give up. But that’s the soldiers. I do not believe mothers and children would have, given the option.

In war, mothers and children are unfortunately, not given any options...

I did read your article, and I must say that it was inevitable that some country or other would eventually manufacture the bomb.

The existence of such a bomb – we each concluded – would be bad news for humanity. Mankind could not handle such a destructive force. It could not control it, safely, appropriately. The power would be “abused”: used dangerously and destructively, with terrible consequences. Many cities would be destroyed entirely, just as the Allies were doing their best to destroy German cities without atomic bombs at that very time, just as the Germans earlier had attempted to do to Rotterdam and London. Civilization, perhaps our species, would be in danger of destruction.

At least it was the USA that made the first one, we used it to End the bloodiest conflict in human history. We have not used it since. As far as mankind being able to handle such a destructive force, only time will tell. But, I do think that the proliferation of such weapons should cease. Also, nations that do not possess such technology should be prevented from doing so. The USA has not used a nuke since WW2. But there are rogue nations, terrorists and generally bad people out there who would not hesitate to make use of a nuclear weapon.

You can U2U me if you like...

Peace

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Oatmeal]

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Oatmeal]

The US was by no means the first country to slaughter civilians. Almost all combatant nations in WW II did this, including Japan. There were no innocent countries. Check out the Rape of Nanking, for example. Japanese soldiers slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians during a six-week period after they took Nanking in 1937. The Japanese also performed biological experiments on the Chinese, infecting them with various diseases such as plague and observing how they died.

The Allies firebombed Dresden, killing tens of thousands of civilians. Germany - need I say it? Slaughtered millions of innocent civilians in the camps, as well as hundreds of thousands in Stalingrad and other cities. This was an ugly war, filled with atrocities committed by all sides. About twice as many civilians as soldiers were killed in this war.

Bombing Japan was a reasonable decision, in light of how the war had gone and what was known about Japan. There is no way Japan would have surrendered without enormous loss of life on both sides, without something as shocking as the atom bomb. When warnings were made about the atom bomb, the Japanese response was "mokusatsu" - ignoring the warning as beneath notice. It is likely the Japanese thought the US was bluffing. The Japanese were geared up for a bitter fight to the death which would have made an invasion a long, bloody fight.

Unfortunately, when you're attacking a country on its own soil, there is no good way to separate military targets from civilians. War factories are in population centers - that's how people can get to work. Beyond that, the Allies weren't interested in treating the Japanese gently. They wanted the war over as quickly as possible, and didn't care much whether they had to kill a pile of civilians, if that's what it took.

Much has been made of the horrors of atomic weapons. Sure they're horrible. But so are conventional weapons. We have seen endless photos of the effects the atom bombs had on people. They're horrific photos capturing the agony of the victims. We haven't seen nearly as many photos of the victims of other weapons. They're also horrific, also reflect the agony of the victims. War is horrible, whatever weapons are used.

The question ultimately boiled down to this: Would the US try to defeat Japan the hard way, endlessly bombing and eventually invading, losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers along the way? Or would they spare those soldiers by using nuclear weapons? It was an easy call. No one in their right mind (at least, no American) would have hesitated to use the bomb on Japan. This one was a no-brainer.

It is popular now to rewrite history to make the US into a monster for using the bombs. Such revisionism overlooks most of the facts of the war. This was an all-out, vicious, nasty, widespread war. There just wasn't going to be a "feel-good" ending to it where the US plays the noble part and sacrifices half a million soldiers to spare Japanese civilians. I can't say I blame them.

[edit on 8/7/2009 by chiron613]

reply to post by chiron613


It is a good thing that the Nazis did not share your sentiments with regards to the use of weapons of Mass Destruction.

The Germans could have used all of the excuses that you just gave to justify the use of Chemical weapons against England to "end the war fast, to save lives".

Imagine is V-1 and V-2 bombs had been equipped with Nerve agents or radiation bombs (dirty bombs)..... Your arguments could be used to justify that. Thankfully the Germans did not use these War-Decisive weapons.

The Germans could have made hundreds of radiation bombs with the amount of Uranium-234 that they had - enough to wipe out England and end the War with the British Empire.

They even sent some to the Japanese:

"The Uranium carried by U-234 was enough to make two atomic bombs, to blow up two American cities -- 1,235 pounds of 77 percent pure uranium oxide -- unusable by the destroyed Nazi hopes, it was destined for the Japanese atomic bomb program. The U-234 executive officer supervised the opening of the containers in Washington, DC, and reports he was told that one of the Americans was Oppenheimer. It is generally believed the the uranium was taken over by the Manhattan project, but its ultimate use, if any, is lost in secrecy. It was most certainly sent to Oak Ridge, but there was probably not enough time for it to have been processed and used in the two WW2 weapons."

-www.ww2pacific.com...

*A u-boat called U-234 which was carrying U-234....



[edit on 7-8-2009 by Exuberant1]

This is why I am 100% behind a ban against nukes or any weapon of mass destruction. In the wrong hands they are nothing but trouble waiting to happen. We killed innocent people and we cant even send a rep to the memorial service. WOW! Thanks for the post!

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
This is why I am 100% behind a ban against nukes or any weapon of mass destruction.

Unfortunately those weapons are the only thing we have that could stop a killer asteroid, or deflect it from hitting the Earth.

When the first A-Bomb went off, Earth gained a new measure of protection against asteroids. Though we gained the power to end the world, we also gained the power to save it.

As bad as they are - We do need to have some of them.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Exuberant1]

There is one thing I wished happened during the end stages of the Pacific Campaign. During the invasion of Okinawa, the main strategy of the Japanese was to set up strong defensive positions using superior terrain and force the Americans to assault them on their terms. Although the Japanese did attempt some counter-offensive actions during the battle, the main amount of casualties occured when fighting the Japanese along the defensive Shuri Line and later during operations against secondary defensive lines on the Kiyamu Peninsula.

The US had massive amounts of men and material on hand before they started their assaults on the Shiri Line. But they did exactly what the Japanese hoped they would have, attacked them head on causing very heavy attrition on both sides as well as massive civilian casualties.

Why didn´t the US commanders at the time mearly seal off the island south of the Shiri line and let time take it´s toll? The Japanese Army would have had inside a few months died of starvation, disease, and lack of drinking water. There was no hope of resupply or reinforcement. Once the situation became desperate enough, the Japanese would have launched a massive attack with the remaining strength they had, and they would have been cut down by the well prepaired US defences.

By allowing Japanese radio reports to continue to broadcast to Tokyo, their nightmarish fate of slow starvation would have haunted the Japanese Imperial Staff. Had the US then continued with their conventional bombing campaign and actively announced to the Japanese Government it would use mass starvation through containment as it´s weapon of choice...pointing to Okinawa as a prime example of it´s effectiveness, there may have been no need for the atomic attacks, or for the invasion of the Japanese home islands themselves. Continued strategic bombing, and heavy psyops pumping fear of slow death by starvation into the civilian community, may have caused Hirohito to throw in the towel just as the atomic attacks did.

On the other hand, had the Japanese government refused to surrender despite what happened on Okinawa and the starvation threat was truly carried out, untold millions of Japanese civilians could have died.

But, history took another course, and Operation Downfall was planned by the US military and it was going to happen. Starvation was never used as a primary weapon, and had the invasion happened, millions would have died.



[edit on 7-8-2009 by fockewulf190]

reply to post by chiron613

The question ultimately boiled down to this: Would the US try to defeat Japan the hard way, endlessly bombing and eventually invading, losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers along the way? Or would they spare those soldiers by using nuclear weapons? It was an easy call. No one in their right mind (at least, no American) would have hesitated to use the bomb on Japan. This one was a no-brainer.

I do agree with 99.9% of what you are saying. The US had to use the bomb. But, it was not an easy call.

The war against Japan was still going on. I made the decision that the atomic bomb had to be used to end it. I made that decision in the conviction it would save hundreds of thousands of lives--Japanese as well as American. Japan surrendered, and we were faced with the huge problems of bringing the troops home and reconverting the economy from war to peace.

www.trumanlibrary.org...

Of course, by any humanitarian standards, dropping the atomic bomb on two virtually defenseless cities was an atrocity by any humanitarian standards. And the terrible acts have been amplified as historians and revisionists who've agonized over it for the past 65 years. But, if you were Harry Truman, a plain Midwest politician newly thrust into a job he never dreamed he would have, what would you have done in the same circumstance? Use the only weapon you have at hand to end the bloodshed quickly by killing 200,000 of the enemy? Or would you allow the conventional war to go on indefinitely, resulting in the deaths of a million and a half or more?

www.helium.com...

Truman and the US Military began planning for the invasion of Japan called “Operation Downfall.” The Americans knew casualties would be high – Truman stated after the war they had anticipated anywhere from 250,000 to one million US soldiers, as well as millions of Japanese civilians. The Japanese military also threatened to kill all Allied POWs if the country was invaded. The justification for using the bomb evolved into ending the war quickly, with fewer deaths than an extended diplomacy and invasion would bring. Truman ultimately made the decision to drop the bomb to stop the war by inflicting destruction “sufficient enough to cause Japan to surrender.” Truman also said “we have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans” (from the public papers of Presidents, Harry S. Truman).

fairlane.wordpress.com...

The man was new in his job, what he had to work with was the previous administrations advisers. He knew the terrible destruction it would bring to the Japanese civilians. Did he make the right decision to drop the bombs? Absolutely. Was it an easy decision, knowing the devastation it would cause, and the reactions of the Soviets, I think not. But as he said "The Buck Stops Here." He took sole responsibility for the decision, and never regreted it.

reply to post by Exuberant1

The Germans could have used all of the excuses that you just gave to justify the use of Chemical weapons against England to "end the war fast, to save lives".

Strangely enough Adolph Hitler was completely against the use of chemical weapons. He was severely incapacitated by a chemical attack in WW1. Actually being awarded one of his Iron Crosses because of this attack. The Germans had the chemical weapons stockpiled, as they were afraid that the Americans coming later into the war, had the same and would use them. But, Hitler preferred to fight a conventional war.

France in the 1920s was the first nation to embark on an antipersonnel biological program. Its suspicion was that German rearmament would include airborne germ weapons attacks. In the interwar years, the German military did achieve superior air power but, due to Adolf Hitler’s aversion to biological weapons, it shunned their development. The French program ended with the German invasion in 1940. In 1924, the Soviet military started a fledgling biological program that was abandoned with the 1937 Stalinist purge of physicians, including those in the military. The dominant programs began in the war years, with the UK and Canada starting theirs in 1940 and the United States joining them in 1942. The US program, the largest in its time, involved dozens of universities and medical centers, as well as joint projects with its allies, and it lasted 25 years.

www.fasebj.org...

reply to post by fockewulf190


The only reason I seem to have come up with is that an American force of considerable size would be needed to seal the southern end of the island. These troops, ships and equipment would have comprised about 10% of the invasion force needed for the invasion of mainland Japan.

While continuing the battle may seem pointless to you, The Japanese forces that left the Shuri Line numbered some 45,000 troops(5,000 were left to perform a rear-guard action against the American troops). During the retreat, some 10,000 Japanese troops and 15,000 Okinawa civilians were killed by American bombing and shelling. Still, no final attack would have left some 30,000 combat-effective troops on the island of Okinawa. How many troops would the Americans had to leave on Okinawa to keep the island secure? However many it would be, it would be too many. These troops would most certainly be better used in the upcoming battle on mainland Japan rather than defending Okinawa. IIRC the Americans were planning to use 250,000 troops to invade Japan. Guarding Okinawa on a man to man basis would be roughly 10% of the troops slated to invade Japan.

forum.axishistory.com...

Perhaps because Okinawa was a part of Japan, and being used as a dress rehearsal for invading Japan proper.

Okinawa was a prefecture of Japan, the first part of Japan proper to be invaded. The battle for Okinawa was widely regarded as a dress rehearsal for what could be expected in an invasion of the home islands, where the role of kamikazes was to be paramount. There is no doubt that stubborn Japanese resistance on Okinawa plus the massive American casualty figures played a role in the decision of President Harry S. Truman two months later to employ atomic weapons against Japan.

notorc.blogspot.com...

reply to post by silo13


Tell that to the emporer! If the Soviet's had not declared war at the same time, two nukes would not have been enough. He feared a Soviet invasion more than the desturction of his cities. The emporer is a GOD in Japan even today. Sorry for the Spelling its been a long night.

I abhor the use of nukes but get your facts straight.