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.

 

Hiroshima- Those brutal immoral American during WWII

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Oralloy
 

Hiroshima was Japan's main military port, and held tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.


Can you please post where you get this information?

Hiroshima's civilian population outnumbered the soldiers 6 to 1.

It’s reported over and over again Truman wanted a military target, and instead they bombed an overwhelmingly civilian target.

thanks



The bomber's primary target was the city of Hiroshima, located on the deltas of southwestern Honshu Island facing the Inland Sea. Hiroshima had a civilian population of almost 300,000 and was an important military center, containing about 43,000 soldiers.


www.mbe.doe.gov...



By 1945 Hiroshima had a civilian population of almost 300,000 and was an important military center, containing about 43,000 soldiers.


www.globalsecurity.org...



There were 43,000 soldiers based in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was an industrial city that had turned out the torpedoes used at Pearl Harbor. Its shipyards had built some of Japan's biggest warships.


seattletimes.nwsource.com...



The target was Hiroshima, Japan. The city had a population of about 300,000 and was an important military center with about 43,000 soldiers.


web.archive.org...




Death Toll
About 140,000 +/- 10,000 (including 20,000 soldiers) were dead by the end of December 1945;


web.archive.org...




Out of 140,000 deaths,about 20,000 were considered to be those of the military service men.


web.archive.org...


(Hope I managed to get those links right -- not entirely used to this website yet.)




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
www.nuclearfiles.org...



May 28
Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy argues to Secretary of War Stimson that the term "unconditional surrender" should be dropped: "Unconditional surrender is a phrase which means loss of face and I wonder whether we cannot accomplish everything we want to accomplish in regard to Japan without the use of that term."


...

May 28
In a State Department Memorandum of Conversation, Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew describes a meeting with President Truman that day. Grew writes: "The greatest obstacle to unconditional surrender by the Japanese is their belief that this would entail the destruction or permanent removal of the Emperor and the institution of the Throne. If some indication can now be given the Japanese that they themselves, when once thoroughly defeated and rendered impotent to wage war in the future will be permitted to determine their own future political structure, they will be afforded a method of saving face without which surrender will be highly unlikely."

...


May 31
The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) reports on receiving a Japanese peace feeler through a Japanese diplomat stationed in Portugal. The Japanese diplomat says that the actual terms are unimportant so long as the term "unconditional surrender" is not used.


It seems if we had merely been willing to negotiate, we could have avoided murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.


I'm not sure what there was to negotiate. The Potsdam Proclamation was pretty generous. We certainly weren't about to give Japan even better terms.

The first time the Japanese government started trying to discuss surrender with us was on August 10. Since that was after both A-bombs had been dropped, it is unlikely that there was any missed opportunity to negotiate.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Oralloy
 


They had sued for peace. We would not let Hirohito stay on the throne.

Or, more accurately, we had to bigass bombs that we had spent THAT much money on, damned if we weren't going to use them at least to scare the crap out of Russia.



Japan sued for peace on August 10.

The A-bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9.

We let Hirohito stay on the throne. However, we did not give a guarantee, and retained the power to depose him if we needed to.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
That war was real and not based on a conspiracy and is not even a genuine ATS topic. Japan shares equal blame for everything that happened to them. Honesty hurts.

This one is a lesson for the history books. Not a topic for argument.


I agree.

It took two distinct sides to make WW2, and none of the parties involved were innocent in any terms, and trying to make out that one side was is ignorant to the extreme.

Both sides were as savage as the other.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
As i mentioned before the bombings on Tokyo with the magnesium and condensed fuel bombs made about 10.000 more casualties then the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact is that the a-bombs were much more efficient, that made the Japanese thinking and the fact that USSR declared war on Japan on the 8th August.Interesting thing was that Truman actually bluffed in saying they would destroy more Japanese cities with the nukes while in fact those two or one more were the only ones they had at that moment[maybe also a signal to Stalin to back off]....The a-bombs did in fact made an end to the world wars as we know it[except from the proxies we all live in peace in the free western world]..And it began the arms race because Stalin wanted them aswell and called Lavrenti Beria together on 7th august to begin spying for the nuke technology.But the arms race started just as much as both USA and USSR began "recruiting" German rocket scientists...

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Foppezao]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TrustMeImaSalesman
 





Hiroshima- Those brutal immoral American during WWII

Well im Glad it was the Americans that got the Atom Bomb and used it first Because my friend the alternative does not bear thinking about.

It is also i believe thanks to the efforts of America and her Alies,That this terrible weapon has only been used twice in anger.

Again the alternative does'nt bear thinking about.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Oralloy
 

Hiroshima was Japan's main military port, and held tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.


Can you please post where you get this information?

Hiroshima's civilian population outnumbered the soldiers 6 to 1.

It’s reported over and over again Truman wanted a military target, and instead they bombed an overwhelmingly civilian target.

thanks



I believe that was because it was a clouded day, same thing applied with Nagasaki
bad luck



Originally posted by Oralloy

Originally posted by TruthParadox


America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.

The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized, correctly, that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan.


www.ihr.org...



The speculation that Japan would very likely have surrendered had we given a guarantee for the Emperor is a bit of a stretch. Japan was hoping that Soviet mediation would net them even better terms. It's pretty unlikely they would have abandoned the pursuit of even better terms so long as they had some hope of success on the Soviet front.


What do you mean Soviet mediation? the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on 8th of august


[edit on 8-8-2009 by Foppezao]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by TrustMeImaSalesman
 


Hm, shall we compare the civilian losses at Pearl Harbor to the civilian losses at Hiroshima? And while we are at it we can add all the losses of Nagasaki. And those lost to bombing the main island of Japan. I am not saying the Japanese are blameless in that war but the response was a little overblown as compared to the slight.
You're kidding, right? Should we compare the deaths that resulted from the atomic bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the MILLIONS of deaths that would have resulted had we not dropped those bombs? Do you have any idea how many US servicemen would have given their lives in a ground invasion of Japan? Do you have any clue how many Japanese servicemen would have given their lives in their futile defense of a crumbling empire? Are you even slightly aware of the amount of civilian casualties that would have resulted from a proud Japanese populace fighting an invading army to the death in the name of their beloved emperor?

Furthermore, are you aware that had the war gone any longer, the Soviet Union was prepared to invade Japan and reap the benefits of their imminent death? Have you any idea of the suffering that would have come not only from a Soviet invasion, but from the more-than-likely communist regime that would have been installed in at least part of the nation after the war? Japan would today look like Korea, or even worse. Who knows? A communist regime in part of Japan may have been successful in overtaking a democratic Japan in the years after and we could be looking at an entirely communist Japan. Rather than the peaceful democratic society that they are today, they could be one of our enemies again and could be arming themselves for World War III.

Yes, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible events. I think it's safe to assume that everyone here on ATS, and just about every rational American citizen, wishes that those bombs never had to be dropped. Unfortunately, we had to "burn the village in order to save it." As horrific as the results of these bombings were, in the long run, millions of lives were likely saved. It's so easy for hippies such as yourself to preach about the evils perpetrated by our military 60+ years ago, not even realizing that you may not even exist today had one of your relatives been required to storm the beaches of Japan and been cut in half by machine gun fire or blown up by a Japanese housewife giving her life for the Emperor.

Those bombings were horrific and awful and I hope nothing like it ever happens again. But we made the right decision in dropping them. Any expert will tell you that it saved millions of lives. I thank God every night that we have brave people willing to make tough, yet necessary, choices to defend this country. Had someone like yourself been in Harry Truman's position, this world would be a much more horrible place today than it already is today.

BTW... the attack on Pearl Harbor was not a "slight". Characterizing it as such is beyond ignorant... it's just plain offensive to the memories of the 2,000+ brave men who woke up that morning and never even made it to lunch time. It was a cowardly and evil sneak attack carried out by a horrible regime that was hell-bent on world domination, to say the least.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
You also forgot......

The forced Japanese death marches of prisoners.....

The forced sex slavery of women from all over asia.....

The rape of nan-king........................

The brutal attacks and take over of the Philippines......

Yes, poor , poor innocent Japan.................



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
By this point in the war, there were serious questions if there were truly any 'civilians' left in the Home Islands. The actions of the 'civilian' population of Saipan was horrifying. Once they knew why it happened, the expectation was that an even higher degree of resistance (to the concept of surrender/occupation, as a civilian populace) would be seen. Further, they knew of no effective means to prevent it.

Operation Galvanic would have been a horror, even though it would have ultimately been successful. Luckily, the devotion to the Emperor, which led to the civilian horror at Saipan, also was able to defuse the civilian population almost instantly. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the keystone, and those two attacks saved far more Japanese lives than Allied.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
In my opinion the Japanese deserved to get hit by atomic bombs, just like they deserve to get hit by multiple bombs during those days. It took two atomic bombs to make them surrender instead of one, thats how tough the Japanese were.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
America was more involved than Japan in Pearl Harbor, which totally changes the flavor of the sarcastic OP.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by wisdomnotemotion
 


I'm very accustomed here on ATS with people just making crap up to meet their preconceived notions.

But your claim is absolutely ludicrous.

Millions of Iraqi's died from depleted uranium projectiles?

Have we just gone completely off the stupid chart, or what?

Do you even know where and for what weapons depleted uranium is used?

For millions to have been killed by depleted uranium, you'd be there for a thousand years.

The depleted uranium you apparently heard about fourth or fifth-hand, is a sabot anti-tank round.

Now since Iraq didn't have all THAT many tanks, and since the major tank battles in 1991 took place in barren desert - these millions of dead would be one neat trick.

Where in hell did you hear such stupidity?

And why repeat it?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


Forgive the personal attack please, but you're being stupid. Your really are. If you confuse the actions of the military with the civilian population of a country then you have just crossed the line into "I don't know what I'm talking about"

Should we blame an average US citizen for the death of an innocent citizen in Iraq or Afghanistan (Which there's plenty of)?

The japanese military back then? I don't care if you bombed their souls into oblivion. They did terrible things, things that made Hitler and Himmler look like choir boys. But the people who ARE innocent are the Japanese Civilians that were killed by these bombs

Also you might want to ask. if the Japanese were that bad. Why were almost none of them put on trial like the Nazis? The answer is they had information to give, putting the Nazis on trial was a good PR move.

Yeah, we were really after japan for their war crimes.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


All the innocent civilians murdered/raped by Japan means they are not innocent.

It is not unexpected that after that kind of savagery, that they not be treated with "kids gloves" shall we say.

I am sorry if you can not see that actions had to be taken to stop their savage attacks and advances.

They brought it all on themselves.

We all just have to read history, say they we wrong, they were stopped in a powerful way, end of story.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
=p

www.abovetopsecret.com...

America is the least imperialist of all the European nations.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I'm sorry, I believe that I may have misinterpreted your comment.

Are you insinuating that the rape of Nanking was not a reflection of the average citizen in Japan's attitudes towards foreigners?

Are you writing a revisionist history that involves blaming the Americans for not wanting to waste another American life against those who had first aggressed us?

Do you forget that the Russians would have LOVED for Japan to surrender to them, thereby establishing yet another communist bastion in the east?

War sucks my friend, but I would rather the losses be on the other side, just as I relish that the U.S. was the first to use the bomb in defense; That is the true deterant, our willingness to place one American life over the entire of your populous'.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
the wierd thing that i dont understand is :
for some very strange reason their seem to be some poeple that think that wars are some kind of violent disagreement but with moral standards !!!

wars are in no way moral in any way shape or form.
you spit at me, i kick you in the nuts, you try to stab me & i shoot you.
you try to bomb me & i`ll kill your entire family.
you bomb civilians in london & i`ll raise dresdon to the ground.
you attack pearl harbour & i`ll drop atom bombs on your citys.
im sure you get the picture.
has their ever actually been a fair & moral war where no civilians suffered & equall amounts of bullets & bombs where used by both sides ?.
i dont now who will be involved in the next world war or if nuclear weapons or bio weapons will be used, but i can assure you their will be no shortage of civilians getting hurt it will be totally imoral with torure going on, rapes, fire bombs, depleted uranium shells, chemical weapons & their will all the untested military new weapons like microwave crowd control, robotic killing machines, nano spying devices.
moral wars

i reserve the right to be more violent than you in any way i see fit
cause at least then i have whats called a fighting chance.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
You're probably the same person who thought Iraq needed to be nuked.








posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
You're probably the same person who thought Iraq needed to be nuked.


I don't know who your comment is directed at, but any comparison of Iraq and WW2 is,well, idiotic. if you think there is any relationship, you are seriously uninformed. I would suggest you read the history of WW2 before you sprak. Or maybe you think Facist Japan and Nazi germany should rule the world.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join