The Hiroshima debate, emotionalism vrs history...

Originally posted by chebob
You cannot justify dropping an A-Bomb on a city of civilians. IM oh so Humble O

Its not as if Hiroshima was some sort of commune no really :shk: Home to the 2nd Army Command and a staging area for troops. It also had 150K troops as well. Couple that with its industrial base, it was a legitamete target in a time of war.

I cannot fathom that someone would see the A-Bomb as a justified means to end the war. It's beyond my perception that we could perceive such an act as acceptable.

Someone else on the board posted something along the lines of "No one wants to mess with us, look what we did to the Japs, and the Native Indians". That just illustrates the way that not only do some people accept it, they revell in it. That is what really get's me disgusted. IMO, the world DIDN'T need the atomic bombs to drop to know the affects, we as a civilization should have realized the power it contained and known better than to use it. There were too many parallells to todays war on Teror, strike first think later. I think we could have ended the war without dropping one A-Bomb, never mind 2. We would have had enough international support to stop anything Japan could try, and there was no imminent threat of destruction to us as a society, so in my eyes those TWO A-BOMBS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED.

Originally posted by chebob
We would have had enough international support to stop anything Japan could try...

You're right about that. We would have had support. But...

...and there was no imminent threat of destruction to us as a society

... You're wrong about that. Think of the impact carrying the war on for another 6 months, another year, another 5 years would have had on the world. Think of the impact that the loss of life would have had on the world. Millions more would have died, both Japanese and Allies.

Originally posted by chebob
I cannot fathom that someone would see the A-Bomb as a justified means to end the war. It's beyond my perception that we could perceive such an act as acceptable.

But based on your previous statements, what exactly would you have justified to end the war? Surrender? While we can get into a long ethical / moral discussion on war, it is better served in another thread. In this context the historical fact is this:

The US was in an all out war with Japan.
The US possesed a weapon that forced the Japanese into surrendering.
The US used its avalible resources to achieve victory and then went about rebuilding the country that now is one of our better allies.

Not much more to it than that really.

as posted by chebob
I cannot fathom that someone would see the A-Bomb as a justified means to end the war. It's beyond my perception that we could perceive such an act as acceptable.

Again chebob, as was mentioned before in this topic, the firebombings of Tokyo and Japan killed and maimed more people than the two atomic bombs combined. In war, chebob, there is no sensible "justification." The object was to end the war with the least amount of cost to life, on both sides. The dropping of the atomic bombs, though obviously still being debated today, did just that. It was an action that saved hundreds of thousands, if not over a million plus, of lives on both sides. It was the lesser of the two evils, so to speak.





seekerof

[edit on 7-8-2005 by Seekerof]

For the pro-bomb people: How come we couldn't live with a conditional surrender from a largely decimated Japan? Israel attacked the USS Liberty and recieved no retalition for it. The world did not come to an end as a result.

Originally posted by consprtrkr
For the pro-bomb people: How come we couldn't live with a conditional surrender from a largely decimated Japan?

The Japanese terms were not acceptable to the Allies. The overtaures were aimed at preserving Imperial rule in Japan and the emperor wanted veto power over cahnges in the post war period. Not acceptable then, not acceptable now. What if Saddam or say Mullah omar of the Taliban wanted the same deal? WOuld that be acceptable now?

The Liberty incident is a whole nother can of worms, but was an "incident" not a owrld war. (Im not condoning what happened to the Liberty and have started a few threads about it here)

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by consprtrkr

The Japanese terms were not acceptable to the Allies. The overtaures were aimed at preserving Imperial rule in Japan and the emperor wanted veto power over cahnges in the post war period. Not acceptable then, not acceptable now. What if Saddam or say Mullah omar of the Taliban wanted the same deal? WOuld that be acceptable now?

The Liberty incident is a whole nother can of worms, but was an "incident" not a owrld war. (Im not condoning what happened to the Liberty and have started a few threads about it here)

1. The war in Iraq was a war of choice that should never have been fought. That being said, the purpose was specifically to unseat Hussien, so of course it would make no sense to allow Hussein to remain in power once war commenced. 2. Accepting for the sake of argument that the official account regarding 9-11 is accurate, Omar was part of a conspiracy to attack the mainland of the U.S; the war against Japan was the outcome of a long term Imperial rivalry with the U.S in the Pacific. It is admitted by most mainstream historians that F.D.R took steps to nudge the Japanese towards war. I don't see an attack by one Imperial power upon the military base of another, as being analgous to the destruction of two buildings full of thousands of civilians. 3. My whole point in bringing up the Liberty was to illustrate the arbitrary nature of the entire debate. The Liberty was only an incident because the government decided that it would be hushed up. We can't continue to allow the elite to dictate to us in this way.

Sigh! Here we go again. I can not believe the amount of people who ignore history.

The Japanese would never have surrendered in a manner that was acceptable to the American people.

All you hear about is how badly the Japanese suffered after the bombs were dropped. You never hear about how the pow's or for that matter the Manchurians , suffered at the hands of the Japanese.

I have seen pictures of what the Japanese did in Manchuria and it makes the destruction of the "Bomb" look very tame.

If we had negotiated a more peaceful surrender with Japan, I have no doubt that in 20 years, we would have been back at war. This happened with Germany after WW1.

Learn from history people or we are doomed to repeat it.

Does it really matter how the Japanese treated us? Are we to resort to the tactics and ways of our enemies?

*pondering*

Yes, I think we should. Tit-for-tat, we should act and behave in the same way our enemies do. Let THAT message reach foriegn nations, and then sit back and see how they'll act next.

But regarding the bomb...

Should an OPEC nation drop one on America? Aren't we the aggressor in Iraq? Isn't that the only way we Americans will get a clear message?

Military mentality has changed in the 50 plus years since Hiroshima. It isn't a matter of "the BOMB will stop them" or "we have the BOMB". It isn't even considered a last resort anymore.

Irregardless of intentions, it was used. Twice. It does not matter why it was done, or for what reasons. Thousands upon thousands of lives were snuffed out in a blink of an eye.

I want to see ANYBODY try to justify the use on concentration camps or ovens used by the Germans to control the Jewish menace.

People are people, lives are lives. Just place yourself in THEIR shoes, and imagine what things were like.

And, about the comment regarding Japanese treatment of prisoners... don't forget the "JAP CAMPS" used by the American government, either... or the way America "opened up" trade with Japan.

Originally posted by twitchy

You guys are pretty twisted. At least if we had invaded Japan we would have been killing Japanese Soldiers, hundreds of thousands of civilians died horrificly, and genetic mutations persist to this day. Japan offered a conditional surrender weeks before we dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on CITIES. Cities where Kids, Families, and Old People live, like this kid...

If we invaded, they were prepared to basically strap every civilian with a gun, and tell them to charge straight at the American army, and die for their country. It would not be soldiers dieing, they're armed forces was nearly spent, they're navy crippled, and air force minute. it would be a massacre of Japanese civilians, mothers, housewives, husbands, children, it would be like vietnam. So it wouldn't matter if we dropped the bombs, or if we invaded, people would've died. It just so happened that with the atomic option, alot less, on both sides,would have died.
And as for their reasonable surrender, their demands were some of the following: Keep their emperor, so he cannot be put up for war charges, keep their military, navy, and air force, be able to keep all the land in china they took over. Thats not really a surrender, thats more of a "okay, we'll stop, if you just letus keep all the spoils" well thats not how it works. A reasonable president would not accept that either, because it also sets you up for another attack, in revenge, in only a couple of years.

Seekerof-

True all of what you mentioned is available in academia, however it is still not even distributed freely there. Any basic general collegiate level history course is silent on the evidence of a European presence on American soil before colubus. All collegiate level history courses are silent on all the issues I mentioned above. True it is available, but what is TAUGHT. Even your example of Columbus ignores the FACT that there were people here, it was not new, nor was it discovered in any way shape or form by any europeans!

As for the shoa reference, considering the fact that it was during the same time as our antics in the pacific, I think it is fair to say that it is relevant. I will not derail the thread with how I feel that to be the case. That was not the point of me mentioning it though, I was simply trying to list a few things that do relate that are truly revisionist.

Sticking with the subject at hand, and sticking to my guns, let's look at Japan. True Japan was responsible for many "atrocities" at that time. Silent you are on the fact that most of the Japanese "atrocities" were only the stated justification for western influence to intervene. The fact of the matter is, yes atrocities were created, but Japan was trying to reclaim Asia from western colonialist. FACT! Is that taught? NO! Hell the PM of Japan can not even fulfill a promise without getting publicly scolded about such an insinuation. Did they do it the right way? No. did we intervene because of altruistic motives? No.

Silent you are on the fact that all nations were built upon this very same method, yet in the next breath use it as justification for one of the worlds greates horrors. That sir is revisionism. The fact of the matter is the west has only maintained it's stranglehold on mankind because of their technological superiority. All people in the pacific theatre express the ferociousness of Japanes fighters. We would of been masacred which is why we did what we did. Name one example of western imperialism that has not been possible only through technological superiority. You can't. The U.S.A just coninued a long held tradition of westerners massacring peoples because they were too afraid to fight them. Any attempt of portraying it in another light is revisionism!


As others have stated here before, it was nothing more than a flex of muscle. Two were not needed, and a similar explosion 100 miles off the coast would have half of them commiting Hari-Kari. I find it hilarious that the thread claims "emotionalism" is responsible for the "revisionism" of the hiroshima/nagasaki issue...when in fact it is the emotions of the west that is responsible for the ongoing attempt to whitewash and justify one of their worst atrocities........

That sir is revisionism stirred by emotionalism.
[edited for additional point and to fix some spellling]
[edit on 7-8-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]

[edit on 7-8-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]

Chebob you have the luxury of declaring your "anti war" stance, now that we live in a time when there is no world war like WW2, and because you live in an indolent and self focused society with no conception of the price of war.

But be sure if such views as you espouse were held by the people involved in planning the war back then we would either be speaking Japanese or German

We sure wouldn't be where we are today. Your rant only lives on the backs of those who died to give you the freedom to abuse them.

Originally posted by chebob

Unfortunately, I oppose firebombing equally. Evil does not justify evil. IS it so that, because I oppose war in the first place, I have no right to comment on the blatant vulgaritys that occur in it? Not true, I have every right to express my disgust at what I see as the ultimate accumilation of war, total destruction.

I guess the question one must ask themselves is if the technology had been available to them the Japanese at that time would they have used it? From my studies I think they would have. And if they had what would the world we live in, be like today? Scary thought.

Yes netchicken, I'm so glad we won the war the way we did and the world turned out the way it did. Isn't it great right now, what with the freindly peaceful honourable pair Blair and Bush, we've got a lovely reward for our efforts. Idiots in power, and idiots voting for them. I could live without Free SPeech, I could live without luxury food flown from every corner of the world, I could live in a country where it ISN'T possible for some twat in Ireland to win 77 million pounds on the basis she bought a slip of paper with some numbers on it while millions die of starvation in Africa. I could live with all of it, but I couldn't live with myself if I had agreed to drop an atomic bomb on a city.

Despite NetChicken's calls for conformity and insults against those who will never accept justification for death, it really was the simplest way for the US to end the war. I find it utterly ridiculous that you, NC, can call someone lazy and egotistical for calling attention to the value of human life. I guess you view Jesus in the same light?

Now, such views on humanity as chebob and others have expressed are idealistic and not realistic. But, if we all conformed to your view as you are boisterously proclaiming we should, then I fear there would be no such thing as diplomacy in our world.

On a side note:

I wonder if the US would have bombed Japan if Japan also had a nuclear weapon. Or if Japan would have bombed the US if Japan had one, knowing that the US had a nuke as well.

Netchicken-
Yeah the Japs were really trying to take over the world were'nt they? I love it, the west, and all the powers that make up this phantom entity always throw around the same accusations. I wonder if it has been like this throughout time? I think of and picture roaving bands of pre-historic Europeans trying to escape their harsh climate moving in on tropical lands, that were "stolen" from them that they must "rescue". "Someone" is always coming to get you huh? If it weren't for the brave act of instant annhiliation we would all be speaking Germanese huh?

People mention orwellian double speak, hell it existed long before him, only when it is used on you do you notice.

Then again the best place to hide something has always been in plain sight right? Occidentem sound familiar anyone?
en.wikipedia.org...

Occidental Über Alles

[edit on 7-8-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]

[edit on 7-8-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Yeah the Japs were really trying to take over the world were'nt they? I love it,

The term 'Japs" esp. in this contex is a derogatory one.

In regards to Jamuhn. We do know that a German Uboat was loaded to the gills with what Germany had in regards to its stillborn nuclear program

I do not hesatate to say that if the Japanese had the bomb, they would have used it. Possible strapped to a kamakaze or the like. However, once the US rolled them back at Midway, thier ability to attack the CONUS let alone the Aluthians was severly degraded. Still potent mind you.

Originally posted by FredT

The term 'Japs" esp. in this contex is a derogatory one.

Yeah but it was the mentality that I was alluding to, and I thought that was evident, especially when in contrast to the rest of my post'. Sorry I am not that P.C, I forget how everyone is sensitive now.
Once again my apologies.

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.