60th Anniversary of the Bombing of Hiroshima

[Nieninque]

Havent seen anything posted about this, so forgive me (and move this post) if it has, but tomorrow is the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. Pretty important day in history.

Was listening to an interview with the writer of a book about Hiroshima which was absolutely fascinating. Didnt catch the name of the author, but googled it and hope it was Steven Walker who seems to have recently released a book called Shockwave: Countdown to Hiroshima.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8787564/#storyContinued

Anything being said in the US about this?

What do people think?

I am going to be ordering this book as the interview with the author was so interesting, it really caught my attention.

150k people were killed with this one bomb.

Powerful stuff.

It's really not celebrated one way or another in the US. We have sporadic memorials, but it's nothing as big as one would expect.

General consesus in America, it seems, is that while it was tragic a full scale invasion would Japan would have cost many more lives.

- Arkans

[StrayRogue]

If it had happened in America or Western Europe I'm sure all our TV channels and newspapers would be full of stuff about it.

[Hulkein]

Probably, and I doubt that Japan would be doing much about it if was reversed.

[Hulkein]

Oh, and I read this (non-credible) story a couple days ago. It says that tomorrow is picked as a day by terrorist to set of an already smuggled suitcase nuke in the US.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45313


Al-Qaida's prime targets for launching nuclear terrorist attacks are the nine U.S. cities with the highest Jewish populations, according to captured leaders and documents.

At least two fully assembled and operational nuclear weapons are believed to be hidden in the United States already, according to G2 Bulletin intelligence sources and an upcoming book, "The al-Qaida Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams.

The cities chosen as optimal targets are New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boston and Washington, D.C. New York and Washington top the preferred target list for al-Qaida leadership.

[ElanthianSiren]

Well, yes, judging from the memorials that happen at Pearl Harbor and recently on 9/11.

This is why reading international news is good imo. American news often skips things that the majority of Americans probably wouldn't find interesting anyway, but doing so leaves holes in the worldview.

-M

[ElanthianSiren]

I was under the impression that AQ often goes for large financial targets as that is what they detest most about our way of life. Hence, why they didn't fly planes into the statue of liberty, though that would be the biggest symbol of American Liberty.

I can't think of any real targets in most of those cities, but I don't work for the FBI, obviously. I think the next attack will most likely be chemical and in the water, but that is very difficult to orchestrate.

-M

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Arkans
It's really not celebrated one way or another in the US. We have sporadic memorials, but it's nothing as big as one would expect.

General consesus in America, it seems, is that while it was tragic a full scale invasion would Japan would have cost many more lives.

- Arkans

I didnt really mean celebrate, more remember...a memorial day so to speak.

[Hulkein]

<< I can't think of any real targets in most of those cities, but I don't work for the FBI, obviously. I think the next attack will most likely be chemical and in the water, but that is very difficult to orchestrate. >>

If you can't think of potential targets in New York, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, then you'd be the fucking worst terrorist of all time.

Don't quit your day job. :)

Yeah, that was my fault. Celebrate was definately the wrong word to choose and I was too damn lazy to go change it. Remember and reflect are more accurate.

- Arkans

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Hulkein
<< I can't think of any real targets in most of those cities, but I don't work for the FBI, obviously. I think the next attack will most likely be chemical and in the water, but that is very difficult to orchestrate. >>

If you can't think of potential targets in New York, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, then you'd be the fucking worst terrorist of all time.

Don't quit your day job. :)

I was more thinking of the western cities: LA and Las Vegas particularly. But I maintain that the WTC was targetted to disrupt our economy. Many people state that it was a strike at our liberty, I just can't see that.

And yes, I'd make a terrible terrorist, which is why I content myself with trading stocks ;)

-M

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Arkans
It's really not celebrated one way or another in the US. We have sporadic memorials, but it's nothing as big as one would expect.

General consesus in America, it seems, is that while it was tragic a full scale invasion would Japan would have cost many more lives.

- Arkans

I didnt really mean celebrate, more remember...a memorial day so to speak.

Its hard for people to face what was done, no matter how necessary it might have been. 60,000 people dead tragic, how many 100,000 lives saved because of it.
I remembered, but more because its one of those things my dad and grandfather talked about when i was younger.

[Skirmisher]

I would venture a guess that the average American knows little about both bombings beyond that they took place.

In fact, i would bet a signifigant number could not tell you where the second took place if in fact they knew it even did.

Not sure how accurate the number is due to the fact that I do not study the Pacific Theater of World War II (I'm a Russian Front man, myself), but it was stated that a good estimate would be 1 million dead if the Allies invaded the Japanese main islands.

- Arkans

[Hulkein]

NAGASAKI

I remember learning that in grade school, so I know they at least teach it.

[Skirmisher]

The estimated number of US casualties in an attemptes invasion if it had been fully opposed ranged anywhere from a high of about one million to a low of about one hundred thousand and has been a major point of contention since the end of the war.

[Souzy]

I watched some special about the memorial. I wasn't really interested, cos I already know what I want to know about the bombing. The pres. (forgot his name) at that time issued the drop of the nuke, Japan retaliated at Pear Harbor, and Einstien gave Japan $$ cos he felt bad the created something that destructive to kill thousands of innocent lives.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Dave

Its hard for people to face what was done, no matter how necessary it might have been. 60,000 people dead tragic, how many 100,000 lives saved because of it.

People need to face what was done.
It should be compulsory education for all children.
150,000 died in Hiroshima and 70,000 at Nagasaki. It was a tragic loss of life.
There are arguments that it wasnt necessary to have bombed them, given the turn ot the way the war was going and the fact that apparently the Soviets had joined in against the Japanese. I'm not in a position to say one way or the other, and would suggest that probably you arent either.
The point was more about whether it was even being discussed.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Souzy
I watched some special about the memorial. I wasn't really interested, cos I already know what I want to know about the bombing. The pres. (forgot his name) at that time issued the drop of the nuke, Japan retaliated at Pear Harbor, and Einstien gave Japan $$ cos he felt bad the created something that destructive to kill thousands of innocent lives.

Wasnt Pearl Harbour bombed in 1941?
So you are saying that the US ordered the dropping of the bombs before they even entered the war?
Wow...that's what I call revisionism

[Hulkein]

Japan didn't retaliate with Pearl Harbor because we dropped a nuke...

Is that what you meant to say, Souzy, or did you mess up what you were writing?

[Latrinsorm]

From what I hear, the memorials in Japan have taken on more of a carnival air (which the survivors aren't too terribly happy with, obviously).

[Nieninque]

It kind of proves my point that everyone needs to know about what really happened

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Nieninque

People need to face what was done.
It should be compulsory education for all children.
150,000 died in Hiroshima and 70,000 at Nagasaki. It was a tragic loss of life.
There are arguments that it wasnt necessary to have bombed them, given the turn ot the way the war was going and the fact that apparently the Soviets had joined in against the Japanese. I'm not in a position to say one way or the other, and would suggest that probably you arent either.
The point was more about whether it was even being discussed.

The Soviets did not join in until at the least after the first atom bomb was droped and it is reasonably accepted that they only did so to share in the spoils.

I feel satisified with the decision to use it as I cannot imagine any leader having to go to his country and tell them he made the decision to attack in a conventional invasion knowing full well that at the very least scores of their soldiers would be killed when he had the possibility of ending the war with nearly no more of their own countries casualties.

A small example of the tenacity of the Japanese defenders was on the Atol of Tarawa. A small group of tiny islands, the largest of which is only about 3 miles long and 1/2 mile wide. The battle to take this island alone cost the lives of about 1000 US troops with well over another 2000 wounded.

Yes there is debate as to the actual number of killed and wounded that would have resulted from a landing on the Japanse mainland, but having read a great number of accounts from WWII I cannot see someone asking the US president at that time to do anything else than what he did.

[Parkbandit]

We killed 4x the civilians in the firebombings of Tokoyo, yet it's never mentioned.

Shit happens in war and people die. Even civilians. It's just a fact.

Fact is 70,000 people died instantly in Hiroshima. It sucks, but it's all part of war. I feel no differently towards them than I do the civilians of London or Berlin or Moscow or Tokoyo.

[Nieninque]

But we remember them on the aniversary of battles and stuff.

[Back]

To answer you, Nien, no. Here in America there may be a blurb at the end of the nightly news about it, but its not a day thats observed nationwide.

Here is a little personal info about me and this subject. Jimmy Doolittle, a supremely accomplished pilot, is in my family tree. He is the dude who flew the Enola Gay which dropped the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima. I’ve actually sat in the Enola Gay as a wee lad. My Grandfather was very proud. To me it was cool to just sit in the cockpit of a huge plane, even if it was old and in a museum. That time with my Grandfather I treasure. But thats where it ends.

[Skirmisher]

Well check and see which day of the year the Japanese remember the Nanking massacres.

I doub't very much they do.

More people were killed there than in either Horishima or Nagasaki and not by something as impersonal as aerial bombings. It was instead methodical and individual rape and murder of already captured civilians carried out over a course of some three weeks.

[Latrinsorm]

It's probably different in Europe, but we don't tend to hold remembrances for English or German people who died in the wars either. Generally the only times the war comes up in these parts are Veterans' and Memorial Day, and maybe a little bit on D-Day.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Well check and see which day of the year the Japanese remember the Nanking massacres.

I doub't very much they do.

More people were killed there than in either Horishima or Nagasaki and not by something as impersonal as aerial bombings. It was instead methodical and individual rape and murder of already captured civilians carried out over a course of some three weeks.

So (a) you only care about the death or people who were born in the US?
or (b) You want to be as low as the Japanese that committed war crimes, or (c) both?

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Nieninque


So (a) you only care about the death or people who were born in the US?
or (b) You want to be as low as the Japanese that committed war crimes, or (c) both?

Well, neither are accurate in this case..

I am not dismissing the use of the bombs and never will. I'm sure i have read a good deal more and spent more time discussing this point in hirtory than yourself and quite aware of the impact that the decision to use them has had.

I am simply saying that the US has had in the past and will in the future documentaries, school courses , many news reports and studies done about the use of the atomic bomb in WWII.

I am also equally sure that Japan has to this day a huge problem admitting the attrocities committed by the army not as an abberation here or there, but as an established official policy.

And i posted but one example to remind you of them and point out that the Japanese were not attacked out of the blue by the US but in retaliation. The Japanese were fanatics, a point only reinforced by the discovery of various holdouts found on near deserted islands far more than a decade after the end of hostilities.

My earlier post was not meant to thumb my nose at the lives lost as much to perhaps help shed some light as to why people and strategists felt as they did at the time.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

I am not dismissing the use of the bombs and never will. I'm sure i have read a good deal more and spent more time discussing this point in hirtory than yourself and quite aware of the impact that the decision to use them has had.

Woah, patronising much?
You dont know how much I have read so it would be unwise to be touting yourself as an authority on this point in hirtory until you find out.



I am simply saying that the US has had in the past and will in the future documentaries, school courses , many news reports and studies done about the use of the atomic bomb in WWII.

Right...and it is having such a profound impact that Americans think that Pearl Harbour was in retaliation for the bombs.

Most other people have posted that there is very little being said at the moment.
I find that amazing...it is such an important event in history, whatever your viewpoint on whether it was good or bad.


I am also equally sure that Japan has to this day a huge problem admitting the attrocities committed by the army not as an abberation here or there, but as an established official policy.

For sure, they most definitely do.
They were as guilty as any of war crimes...but lets remember that it wasnt everyone that died that took part in those atrocities. It wiped out an entire city.


And i posted but one example to remind you of them and point out that the Japanese were not attacked out of the blue by the US but in retaliation. The Japanese were fanatics, a point only reinforced by the discovery of various holdouts found on near deserted islands far more than a decade after the end of hostilities.

My earlier post was not meant to thumb my nose at the lives lost as much to perhaps help shed some light as to why people and strategists felt as they did at the time.

I dont doubt that they thought they were doing what was right at the time.
I have mixed feelings about it, myself.
I do however, feel that it was another tragic loss of life though and it saddens me that many people will see it come and go without a passing thought.

[Messiah]

Mass Death Is Against Life. If You Approve Of Mass Death, You Must Suck. Thats Just My Opinion. Do What You Have To Do To Feel Important. I Didn't Do It.

In skirm's defence, she is a uber history buff.
If i remember correctly a degree in it as well.
She is quite informed on things of the past such as this.

[Terminator X]

I was watching this special on the History channel recently (I'm sure it had to do with the 60th aniversary) that talked about the fact that after the Hawaiin navy was so badly incapacitated that a devestating airstrike on the west coast of the mainland United States was more than entirely possible.

I think what ultimately prevented such further action was that the leading militaristic oligarchy in Japan, referred to as the "Big Six," had three, or fifty-percent of its oligarchy composed of die-hard doves.

If i remember correctly it was no surprise that we dropped the bomb. The japanese were warned, and informed of the massive amount of damage that would occur and the lives that will be lost.

They were given the option of surrender, they refused twice, the third offer however they got the clue.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Woah, patronising much?
You dont know how much I have read so it would be unwise to be touting yourself as an authority on this point in hirtory until you find out.

I assure you I did not intend to be patronising and you have my apologies if I came across as such.

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by Arkans
Not sure how accurate the number is due to the fact that I do not study the Pacific Theater of World War II (I'm a Russian Front man, myself), but it was stated that a good estimate would be 1 million dead if the Allies invaded the Japanese main islands.

- Arkans

There are huge debates on all that. The numbers are usually blown way out of proportion in order to support the unspeakable act that we perpetrated on the Japanese people.

What needs to be considered is, Japan tried to surrender before the bomb was ever dropped. The only thing they asked was to keep their emporor. The US said no conditions and bombed the hell out of them. Japan surrendered...and got to keep their emporer.

What also needs to be considered is that many US officials were peeing their pants with anticipation of being able to use the bomb. They wanted to see their toy in action. They also wanted to use it to scare the beegeezus out of Russia.

So I don't really buy into that whole "so many lives saved" thing. There were too many other factors that went into the decision. The saved lives excuse was what was used to sell the tragedy to the American people.

RD

[Edaarin]

You can't compare dropping the bomb to the way the Japanese for several decades have refused to acknowledge their inhumane treatment of the Korean/Chinese.

You just can't. They're completely different things.

Originally posted by Rainy Day

Originally posted by Arkans
Not sure how accurate the number is due to the fact that I do not study the Pacific Theater of World War II (I'm a Russian Front man, myself), but it was stated that a good estimate would be 1 million dead if the Allies invaded the Japanese main islands.

- Arkans

There are huge debates on all that. The numbers are usually blown way out of proportion in order to support the unspeakable act that we perpetrated on the Japanese people.

What needs to be considered is, Japan tried to surrender before the bomb was ever dropped. The only thing they asked was to keep their emporor. The US said no conditions and bombed the hell out of them. Japan surrendered...and got to keep their emporer.

What also needs to be considered is that many US officials were peeing their pants with anticipation of being able to use the bomb. They wanted to see their toy in action. They also wanted to use it to scare the beegeezus out of Russia.

So I don't really buy into that whole "so many lives saved" thing. There were too many other factors that went into the decision. The saved lives excuse was what was used to sell the tragedy to the American people.

RD

Care to show us something to substantiate your claims, First time ive hever heard anything like that.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Dave]

[Shonison]

Having studied all this and gotten a degree in history (strong focus on WWII), I can say that signs point to both Arkans and RD being right...though in actuality, there is no way to know. Yes, the Japanese had sent some messages to neutral powers indicating that they would be willing to come to the peace table. On the other hand, they were fortifying Kyushu with everything they had left. It is likely that the American forces would have had to break through those lines before the Japanese really surrendered. Estimates run at about a few hundred thousand, but not anything approaching one million. There were also plans for a defense of Tokyo, though full of statements that after a loss of all equipment at Kyushu, such a defense would be short and utterly hopeless. Few lives would have been lost.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Rainy Day
Japan tried to surrender before the bomb was ever dropped.That's probably why we had to drop two. Because they were so ready to surrender.

I'm not arguing that war is not an unspeakable act, but the idea that Japan was trying to surrender is absurd.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Rainy Day

There are huge debates on all that. The numbers are usually blown way out of proportion in order to support the unspeakable act that we perpetrated on the Japanese people.

What needs to be considered is, Japan tried to surrender before the bomb was ever dropped. The only thing they asked was to keep their emporor. The US said no conditions and bombed the hell out of them. Japan surrendered...and got to keep their emporer.

What also needs to be considered is that many US officials were peeing their pants with anticipation of being able to use the bomb. They wanted to see their toy in action. They also wanted to use it to scare the beegeezus out of Russia.

So I don't really buy into that whole "so many lives saved" thing. There were too many other factors that went into the decision. The saved lives excuse was what was used to sell the tragedy to the American people.

RD

The million casualty figure was one of the first given after the bombs were dropped and are not taken seriously and have not been for a long time. As with any estimates there are a high end and a low end with the middle being generally the safest bet.

I agree that people in this country should be more aware of the full impact that dropping even what is considered today a very small atomic weapon can have.

I do not feel that anything less than complete surrender would have allowed Japan and the US to have been abel to come to the point where we are now as friends and trading partners.

So I guess my personal response as to how I feel when reflecting upon the use of the atomic bombs is that I do not approach it with horrendous feelings of guilt, but with a sense of solemnity.

[Back]

Interesting article (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001001583) on how any media coverage of Hiroshima after the bomb was suppressed. Evidently these films are now circulating and the article says some of it should be on cable tonight.

[Jack]

Originally posted by Backlash
To answer you, Nien, no. Here in America there may be a blurb at the end of the nightly news about it, but its not a day thats observed nationwide.

Here is a little personal info about me and this subject. Jimmy Doolittle, a supremely accomplished pilot, is in my family tree. He is the dude who flew the Enola Gay which dropped the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima. I’ve actually sat in the Enola Gay as a wee lad. My Grandfather was very proud. To me it was cool to just sit in the cockpit of a huge plane, even if it was old and in a museum. That time with my Grandfather I treasure. But thats where it ends.

Jimmy Doolittle did not fly the Enola Gay, and had nothing to do with dropping the first atomic bomb. Jimmy Doolittle led the Doolittle Raid, which consisted of several B-25 Mitchel medium bombers that were flown off of an aircraft carrier, and bombed Tokyo, with conventional bombs. Paul Tibbets flew the Enola Gay over Hiroshima, and commanded the aircraft. At that point in time, Doolittle commanded the Eighth Air Force, in Europe.

[Back]

Well, thank you. A huge weight has been lifted off my shoulders.

Peral harbor, the movie, backlash...

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
I would venture a guess that the average American knows little about both bombings beyond that they took place.

In fact, i would bet a signifigant number could not tell you where the second took place if in fact they knew it even did.
your guess would prolly be wrong since its in every high school american history book in america

[Gridlock]

There are huge debates on all that. The numbers are usually blown way out of proportion in order to support the unspeakable act that we perpetrated on the Japanese people.

What needs to be considered is, Japan tried to surrender before the bomb was ever dropped. The only thing they asked was to keep their emporor. The US said no conditions and bombed the hell out of them. Japan surrendered...and got to keep their emporer.

What also needs to be considered is that many US officials were peeing their pants with anticipation of being able to use the bomb. They wanted to see their toy in action. They also wanted to use it to scare the beegeezus out of Russia.

So I don't really buy into that whole "so many lives saved" thing. There were too many other factors that went into the decision. The saved lives excuse was what was used to sell the tragedy to the American people.

RD
Originally posted by Shonison
Having studied all this and gotten a degree in history (strong focus on WWII), I can say that signs point to both Arkans and RD being right...though in actuality, there is no way to know. Yes, the Japanese had sent some messages to neutral powers indicating that they would be willing to come to the peace table. On the other hand, they were fortifying Kyushu with everything they had left. It is likely that the American forces would have had to break through those lines before the Japanese really surrendered. Estimates run at about a few hundred thousand, but not anything approaching one million. There were also plans for a defense of Tokyo, though full of statements that after a loss of all equipment at Kyushu, such a defense would be short and utterly hopeless. Few lives would have been lost.
they were also telling us they didnt intend to attack america when they bombed peral harbor

[Edited on 8-7-2005 by Gridlock]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Gridlock

your guess would prolly be wrong since its in every high school american history book in america

No, I don't think my guess would be wrong.

The average student is "taught" a heck of alot through the years in High School. How much they actually learn AND retain is a very different story.

I never said it was not in the curriculum.

I said they wouldn't know the name.

[Artha]

I think you're vastly underestimating people with that statement, but whatever.

[Skirmisher]

I wish I were.

[Gridlock]

She is maken statements with no basis in fact what so ever.I know just about every person i know could name those two citys.But even if they couldnt i really dont care if someone can remeber the name of two citys bombed 60 years ago.I care more if they could remeber the place bombed that brung us into the war while there ambassadors sat in Washington telling us how good of friends we where.

[GSLady17]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Gridlock

your guess would prolly be wrong since its in every high school american history book in america

No, I don't think my guess would be wrong.

The average student is "taught" a heck of alot through the years in High School. How much they actually learn AND retain is a very different story.

I never said it was not in the curriculum.

I said they wouldn't know the name.


I have to agree. If my grandparents would not have taught me about it, I wouldn't know any of that.

Yes, we spent a chapter in our history book learning and reading about it. But I doubt more then 20 percent actually paid attention. Yes it sparked interest in my peers that hey, that's a big bomb! Wow it killed all those people?!?!?

And then, they showed up the gruesome video's of how people looked from the radiation after the bomb was dropped.

But facts, really were not taken in for the long term memory to remember.

[GSLady17]

Originally posted by Gridlock
She is maken statements with no basis in fact what so ever.I know just about every person i know could name those two citys.But even if they couldnt i really dont care if someone can remeber the name of two citys bombed 60 years ago.I care more if they could remeber the place bombed that brung us into the war while there ambassadors sat in Washington telling us how good of friends we where.

If you do not remember history and learn from it, it will repeat itself. 60 years ago is just as important. (In my opinion)

[Skirmisher]

Gridlock,

Well now I do not have a survey or study showing it, only my own opinion.

Of course most people here know it, most people who post here tend to be slightly ahead of the curve as far as general information learned and retained from school. Again, exceptions higher and lower exist here as well.

I find it much easier to gauge by speaking to someone in person the extent of their education relative to my own as anyone can google any question posted and find out at least basic information about it.

It is not something I feel the need to debate much further as it is, in the end, simply my opinion and you are of course entitled to disagree.

[Delirium]

I dont see how anyone wouldnt remember. IIRC they taught it here in many grades with different intensity depending on the grade it was being taught in. I have a terrible memory and even i remembered it. If it wasnt said it was the anniversary tho, id be dumbfounded for the date it happened.

I think its very easy to believe people are stupid in general though as a large minority of them are. Saying most wouldnt remember the second place sounds true, tho i dont believe it is. Im sure there are studies saying 76% didnt know but i swear they do those studies with the people Jay Leno interviews in his Jaywalking thing.

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Gridlock,

Well now I do not have a survey or study showing it, only my own opinion.

Of course most people here know it, most people who post here tend to be slightly ahead of the curve as far as general information learned and retained from school. Again, exceptions higher and lower exist here as well.

I find it much easier to gauge by speaking to someone in person the extent of their education relative to my own as anyone can google any question posted and find out at least basic information about it.

It is not something I feel the need to debate much further as it is, in the end, simply my opinion and you are of course entitled to disagree.
Now if you would have said most people in this country under the age of 21 didnt know id have to agree with you but you just said people. Im still fairly sure the vast majority of people know what citys where bombed to win WW2.
I dont know where GSlady17 went to highschool but where i went WW2 wasnt one chapter is was a full 6 weeks and if you didnt pay attention you failed. I guess maybe that explain how you got honors.

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by GSLady17

Originally posted by Gridlock
She is maken statements with no basis in fact what so ever.I know just about every person i know could name those two citys.But even if they couldnt i really dont care if someone can remeber the name of two citys bombed 60 years ago.I care more if they could remeber the place bombed that brung us into the war while there ambassadors sat in Washington telling us how good of friends we where.

If you do not remember history and learn from it, it will repeat itself. 60 years ago is just as important. (In my opinion)

We did learn thats why we bombed them after they said they wanted peace talks Till they accepted unconditional surrender

Heck, I kinda gotta go with skirm on this one. I was recently dating a girl who didn't even know where Chicago... Or Illinois was on a map...

[GSLady17]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Gridlock,

Well now I do not have a survey or study showing it, only my own opinion.

Of course most people here know it, most people who post here tend to be slightly ahead of the curve as far as general information learned and retained from school. Again, exceptions higher and lower exist here as well.

I find it much easier to gauge by speaking to someone in person the extent of their education relative to my own as anyone can google any question posted and find out at least basic information about it.

It is not something I feel the need to debate much further as it is, in the end, simply my opinion and you are of course entitled to disagree.


And I'm young, I just graduated--Only freshly 18 for 5 days now. My observations are current and up to date.

And like I'd be proud that my generation is just as dumb as past.


:::hopes she doesn't get slapped:::

[GSLady17]

Originally posted by Gridlock

Originally posted by GSLady17

Originally posted by Gridlock
She is maken statements with no basis in fact what so ever.I know just about every person i know could name those two citys.But even if they couldnt i really dont care if someone can remeber the name of two citys bombed 60 years ago.I care more if they could remeber the place bombed that brung us into the war while there ambassadors sat in Washington telling us how good of friends we where.

If you do not remember history and learn from it, it will repeat itself. 60 years ago is just as important. (In my opinion)

We did learn thats why we bombed them after they said they wanted peace talks Till they accepted unconditional surrender


Ok...Sk's point is proven, I have no clue what your talking about.

[GSLady17]

Originally posted by Gridlock

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Gridlock,

Well now I do not have a survey or study showing it, only my own opinion.

Of course most people here know it, most people who post here tend to be slightly ahead of the curve as far as general information learned and retained from school. Again, exceptions higher and lower exist here as well.

I find it much easier to gauge by speaking to someone in person the extent of their education relative to my own as anyone can google any question posted and find out at least basic information about it.

It is not something I feel the need to debate much further as it is, in the end, simply my opinion and you are of course entitled to disagree.
Now if you would have said most people in this country under the age of 21 didnt know id have to agree with you but you just said people. Im still fairly sure the vast majority of people know what citys where bombed to win WW2.
I dont know where GSlady17 went to highschool but where i went WW2 wasnt one chapter is was a full 6 weeks and if you didnt pay attention you failed. I guess maybe that explain how you got honors.


Did I also mention I got honors while attending South puget sound. It's called "Running start" where if you past college tests, you can go into college classes.

I didn't say that I didn't pay attention. Although most slipped my mind. I tend to retain information until I've aced the test---Something I've learned better to change once I started taking college classes.

And yes, WW2 was 6 weeks, but we didn't talk about JUST the end/bombing those 6 weeks. Our books were based on sections, so there was like 9 chapters on WW2.

[Gridlock]

What i mean is that before the war started the Japanese had ambasadors in our country telling us they didnt want war we were friends. Then they launched a sneek attack on pearl harbor.

This was there M.O. they did it alot to other countrys before us to.This is why we didnt end the war and have peace talks with them when they offered the first time we told them we would only accept unconditonal surrender.

Sorry i just have major problems with America bashers. Ill stop with this forum now since its out dated.

[Skirmisher]

I certainly am not an America basher, but I am a realist.

The reasons for dropping the bombs were many, not solely because of Peral Harbor, although that surely made the decision easier.

[Rainy Day]

There are huge debates on all that. The numbers are usually blown way out of proportion in order to support the unspeakable act that we perpetrated on the Japanese people.

What needs to be considered is, Japan tried to surrender before the bomb was ever dropped. The only thing they asked was to keep their emporor. The US said no conditions and bombed the hell out of them. Japan surrendered...and got to keep their emporer.

What also needs to be considered is that many US officials were peeing their pants with anticipation of being able to use the bomb. They wanted to see their toy in action. They also wanted to use it to scare the beegeezus out of Russia.

So I don't really buy into that whole "so many lives saved" thing. There were too many other factors that went into the decision. The saved lives excuse was what was used to sell the tragedy to the American people.

RD

Care to show us something to substantiate your claims, First time ive hever heard anything like that.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Dave] [/quote]

Here you go:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/pre-cold-war/hiroshima-nagasaki/decision-drop-bomb-chronology.htm

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/mickeyz06202005/

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

RD

No im talking about news stories. You're new to the boards and posting here. One thing that does not fly on either side are biased sources.
the third source was decent, but you neglected to read it. It basically states that the japanese government refused to surrender.

I did find this little tidbit amusing though in how well it proves we were right.
"July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261)."
and this
"Japan had received what would seem to have been overwhelming shocks. Yet, after two atomic bombings, massive conventional bombings, and the Soviet invasion, the Japanese government still refused to surrender. "

we said unconditional, they said no
BOOM!
no surrender.
BOOM!
no surrender.
Emperor begs cabinet to surrender, they do after previously voting not to.

[Edited on 8-7-2005 by Dave]

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Rainy Day



There are huge debates on all that. The numbers are usually blown way out of proportion in order to support the unspeakable act that we perpetrated on the Japanese people.

What needs to be considered is, Japan tried to surrender before the bomb was ever dropped. The only thing they asked was to keep their emporor. The US said no conditions and bombed the hell out of them. Japan surrendered...and got to keep their emporer.

What also needs to be considered is that many US officials were peeing their pants with anticipation of being able to use the bomb. They wanted to see their toy in action. They also wanted to use it to scare the beegeezus out of Russia.

So I don't really buy into that whole "so many lives saved" thing. There were too many other factors that went into the decision. The saved lives excuse was what was used to sell the tragedy to the American people.

RD

Care to show us something to substantiate your claims, First time ive hever heard anything like that.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Dave]

Here you go:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/pre-cold-war/hiroshima-nagasaki/decision-drop-bomb-chronology.htm

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/mickeyz06202005/

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

RD [/quote]
What needs to be considered is they told us they ment us no ill will then bombed the shit out of us.
What need to be considered is the bataan death march
what needs to be considered is the thousands of americans that died due to poor treatment in japanese prison camps.

The "save lives exscuse" wasnt an exscuse it was a fact.Theres and ours they were arming there weman and children with sharp sticks to fight american soldiers.
There military leaders were preaching fight to the last person kamakazi warfare.

Originally posted by Gridlock

There military leaders were preaching fight to the last person kamakazi warfare.

Yep again from RD's source.
On the 13th, the Supreme Council For the Direction of the War (known as the "Big 6") met to address the Potsdam Proclamation's call for surrender. Three members of the Big 6 favored immediate surrender; but the other three - (War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda - adamantly refused. The meeting adjourned in a deadlock, with no decision to surrender (Butow, pg. 200-202).

Later that day the Japanese Cabinet met. It was only this body - not the Big 6, not even the Emperor - that could rule as to whether Japan would surrender. And a unanimous decision was required (Butow, pg. 176-177, 208(43n)). But again War Minister Anami led the opponents of surrender, resulting in a vote of 12 in favor of surrender, 3 against, and 1 undecided. The key concern for the Japanese military was loss of honor, not Japan's destruction. Having failed to reach a decision to surrender, the Cabinet adjourned (Sigal, pg. 265-267).



[Edited on 8-7-2005 by Dave]

[longshot]

Originally posted by Backlash

Here is a little personal info about me and this subject. Jimmy Doolittle, a supremely accomplished pilot, is in my family tree. He is the dude who flew the Enola Gay which dropped the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima. I’ve actually sat in the Enola Gay as a wee lad. My Grandfather was very proud. To me it was cool to just sit in the cockpit of a huge plane, even if it was old and in a museum. That time with my Grandfather I treasure. But thats where it ends.

Are you kidding me right now? Backlash, for someone as aware as you are, I'm still having trouble beleiving that you wrote that.

[Warriorbird]

The atomic bombs were horrible occurences but an invasion would've been much, much, worse.

The Japanese did not say they were "ready to surrender" beforehand. I've read the diplomatic correspondence. They suggested nothing of the like.

[GSLady17]

Originally posted by Gridlock
What i mean is that before the war started the Japanese had ambasadors in our country telling us they didnt want war we were friends. Then they launched a sneek attack on pearl harbor.

This was there M.O. they did it alot to other countrys before us to.This is why we didnt end the war and have peace talks with them when they offered the first time we told them we would only accept unconditonal surrender.

Sorry i just have major problems with America bashers. Ill stop with this forum now since its out dated.


I love America.

[GSLady17]

Originally posted by Gridlock

Originally posted by Rainy Day



There are huge debates on all that. The numbers are usually blown way out of proportion in order to support the unspeakable act that we perpetrated on the Japanese people.

What needs to be considered is, Japan tried to surrender before the bomb was ever dropped. The only thing they asked was to keep their emporor. The US said no conditions and bombed the hell out of them. Japan surrendered...and got to keep their emporer.

What also needs to be considered is that many US officials were peeing their pants with anticipation of being able to use the bomb. They wanted to see their toy in action. They also wanted to use it to scare the beegeezus out of Russia.

So I don't really buy into that whole "so many lives saved" thing. There were too many other factors that went into the decision. The saved lives excuse was what was used to sell the tragedy to the American people.

RD

Care to show us something to substantiate your claims, First time ive hever heard anything like that.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Dave]

Here you go:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/pre-cold-war/hiroshima-nagasaki/decision-drop-bomb-chronology.htm

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/mickeyz06202005/

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

RD
What needs to be considered is they told us they ment us no ill will then bombed the shit out of us.
What need to be considered is the bataan death march
what needs to be considered is the thousands of americans that died due to poor treatment in japanese prison camps.

The "save lives exscuse" wasnt an exscuse it was a fact.Theres and ours they were arming there weman and children with sharp sticks to fight american soldiers.
There military leaders were preaching fight to the last person kamakazi warfare. [/quote]


I think America was right in dropping the bombs.

However, If someone invaded our country, I would pick up sticks and defend America as best as I could.

Also, not too long ago an American soldier was found to be treating the Iraq prisoners and people in a very cruel manner.

Of course the U.S. was upset and quickly stopped it and made sure she would never treat them like that again.

However, if it hadn't been descovered, would the U.S. have done anything?

How many other U.S. soldiers are treating Iraqies (sp?) in a cruel manner?


My point is, in War, you can't trust either side. All sides want to win. All sides will do whatever it takes to win.

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by Dave
No im talking about news stories. You're new to the boards and posting here. One thing that does not fly on either side are biased sources.
the third source was decent, but you neglected to read it. It basically states that the japanese government refused to surrender.

You said you'd never heard any of what I said in my original post and asked me to substantiate it. I did.

My point in posting those pages wasn't to try and prove a single viewpoint. It was to demonstrate that it was not a clearcut case of an unavoidable invasion being in the works and a million lives saved.

The quotes from people and memos and such show both that Japan was having a difficult time surrenduring because of the emporer issue AND that the US did not pursue a political end to the war and opted for the bomb instead.

That last part is important. Japan was basically defeated at that point already. Military officers said they were out of targets to bomb. Japan had no factories left to replinish their military needs. The blockade was making it difficult for them to keep supplied in oil to keep the country running. The US had broken Japanese codes and knew about the feelers Japan was sending out to try and make peace.

I'll let the US's own post-war review document make my summation for me:

July 1946

United States Strategic Bombing Survey states: "The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister and the navy minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms." The Survey also states: "On 10 July [1945] the Emperor again urged haste in the moves to mediate through Russia, but Potsdam intervened. While the government still awaited a Russian answer, the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on 6 August." The Survey concluded: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

That leaves open the question for speculation then, if the A-bombs were not needed to end the war, why were they used? Discuss.

RD

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Gridlock

There military leaders were preaching fight to the last person kamakazi warfare.

Yep again from RD's source.
On the 13th, the Supreme Council For the Direction of the War (known as the "Big 6") met to address the Potsdam Proclamation's call for surrender. Three members of the Big 6 favored immediate surrender; but the other three - (War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda - adamantly refused. The meeting adjourned in a deadlock, with no decision to surrender (Butow, pg. 200-202).

Later that day the Japanese Cabinet met. It was only this body - not the Big 6, not even the Emperor - that could rule as to whether Japan would surrender. And a unanimous decision was required (Butow, pg. 176-177, 208(43n)). But again War Minister Anami led the opponents of surrender, resulting in a vote of 12 in favor of surrender, 3 against, and 1 undecided. The key concern for the Japanese military was loss of honor, not Japan's destruction. Having failed to reach a decision to surrender, the Cabinet adjourned (Sigal, pg. 265-267).



[Edited on 8-7-2005 by Dave]

[Back]

Originally posted by longshot
Are you kidding me right now? Backlash, for someone as aware as you are, I'm still having trouble beleiving that you wrote that.

Yeah, its a surprise to me also. It could be that I was told that Jimmy flew the Enola Gay and I just assumed it was that bombing mission. I’ve never looked into it in all these years. Not really a subject I’ve been at all interested in.

How I feel about it is that it seems to me you can’t really use “would have” and ”could have” as anything more than a rationalization to justify an action. But then, as is clearly shown, I am no expert on the subject.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Rainy Day
Japan was basically defeated at that point already.Germany was defeated before the Battle of Berlin. Ask the Russians if the Germans surrendered without a fight.

[Warriorbird]

Well, if we utilize actual history rather than Internet-bubbledupnonsense, you can see that Japan was in no way ready to surrender. You can read the diplomatic missives to and from Japan as well as read translations of policy documents FROM Japan in that period. Y'know, I always like controversial topics in history. I looked into this. There is no basis for it in actual primary sources, and any secondary sources that claim it are usually resting on the quicksand of even more dubious secondary sources or war apologists.

The dropping of the bombs was two terrible events, but those terrible events were a choice that had to be weighed, given the horror of an invasion of the home islands, which would've been infinitely worse.

[Gridlock]

For people who dont think we should have bombed japan or wish to know why we did i highly recomend you read Flyboys: A True Story of Courage by james bradley. Bush haters beware this is where his daddy fought and has things about him in it but it isnt about him.
The bombings are just another thing for America haters to point and say look how aweful America is.They dont care what the facts of why are they will twist and turn the story to make America to look as bad as possible. Im not really talking about any certian person besides the ones ive seen on tv the last couple of days.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Germany was defeated before the Battle of Berlin. Ask the Russians if the Germans surrendered without a fight.

One could also ask the Russians if they would have let them.

The Russian troops were at that point whipped into a near frenzy. They had been deluged day after day with stories, too many sadly being true, of German atrocities that had been perpetrated on their mothers, sisters and daughters.

No, the Russians wanted and got payback.

If any think that the same psychology did not come into play regarding the US and Japan they are in my opinion incorrect.

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Germany was defeated before the Battle of Berlin. Ask the Russians if the Germans surrendered without a fight.

One could also ask the Russians if they would have let them.

The Russian troops were at that point whipped into a near frenzy. They had been deluged day after day with stories, too many sadly being true, of German atrocities that had been perpetrated on their mothers, sisters and daughters.

No, the Russians wanted and got payback.

If any think that the same psychology did not come into play regarding the US and Japan they are in my opinion incorrect.
Yeah but as it has been shown your opions are not facts no matter how much you wish they were.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Gridlock

Yeah but as it has been shown your opions are not facts no matter how much you wish they were.

True enough.

Allow me to amend that last part then.

If any think that the same psychology did not come into play regarding the US and Japan they are incorrect.

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Gridlock

Yeah but as it has been shown your opions are not facts no matter how much you wish they were.

True enough.

Allow me to amend that last part then.

If any think that the same psychology did not come into play regarding the US and Japan they are incorrect.
Your saying that like its a proven fact and niether is both of these countrys were evil and full of evil leaders and brain washed people and had to be crushed and over thrown.

The color of war is on all day on the history channel i think you should watch it and stop spewing your opions as facts.

[Sean]

Isn't defining things as evil entirely subjective as well?

[Gridlock]

Nah that was pretty much fact when they started lineing up people and killing them because of what race they were.

[Warriorbird]

"If any think that the same psychology did not come into play regarding the US and Japan they are in my opinion incorrect."

The issue is to not be too relativistic or too ethnocentric. America did a lot of dubious things (looking at the propaganda from the period is horrifying) but you can turn around and seeing mirror images reflected back from Japan. It's how the war was fought, and I think that war was justified.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

The issue is to not be too relativistic or too ethnocentric. America did a lot of dubious things (looking at the propaganda from the period is horrifying) but you can turn around and seeing mirror images reflected back from Japan. It's how the war was fought, and I think that war was justified.

Warriorbird, I do not look at the war ins simplistic terms.

I agree that the war was fought under conditions that people in the US today can barely conceieve of.

The Japanse responsible for things far beyond any the US can be accused of.

This was a complicated decision involving many factors.

Anger and retribution came into play.

The fact that they were Japanese and not European came into play.

The desire to show the Russians our power came into play.

The incredible need/desire to test a new weapon into which staggering amounts of money had been invested came into play.

The inability to stand before the country and tell them that a single battle more than was absolutely necesary was fought came into play.

I in fact have already stated that I agree with the decision to use the bombs in Japan, I just am not willing to paint things in black and white as Gridlock has been doing.

[Gridlock]

I did not paint anything.I just said you where stateing your opions like there proven facts which they arent. My opion is we didnt drop the bombs for revenge at all. To test it maybe but im pretty sure we knew what it would do we had already set one off at some island .You need to read that book i talked about we killed far far more people in japan with fire bombing then nukes.So useing them outa some bloodlust for revenge like you paint it no i dont think thats true at all.

[Edaarin]

Once I take over the forums and supplant Kranar and Harmnone, I'm going to start keeping people to their word when they say "I'M NEVER POSTING HERE AGAIN!!1" or "I'm done with this thread."

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Gridlock
I did not paint anything.I just said you where stateing your opions like there proven facts which they arent. My opion is we didnt drop the bombs for revenge at all. To test it maybe but im pretty sure we knew what it would do we had already set one off at some island .You need to read that book i talked about we killed far far more people in japan with fire bombing then nukes.So useing them outa some bloodlust for revenge like you paint it no i dont think thats true at all.

People today are finding the growing number of wounded coming home from Iraq to be too much and people are angry and there is always the odd hothead wanting to make the middle east a sea of glass or some such. Single battles on the smallest of the islands during WWII sent home as many killed and wounded in Iraq to date.

Like it or not there is NO proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 but we all know who attacked Pearl Harbor.

I never used the term bloodlust, but of course revenge played into it. You are being incredibly naive to believe otherwise.

[Gridlock]

naive no. Im very well educated on the matter my grand father and great grand father both were in WW2 in the pacific theater. if you read the books youd understand what i mean we killed 20x more in fire bombings
then in both nukes together.If you read japanese history youd see they have a long history of lieing to people they fought.We simply bombed them till they gave up. If you think people wanted to kill hundreds of thousands of people for revenge of the couple thousand people killed at pearl harbor id call that insanity not revenge. If they would have surendered to the terms we gave wed have stopped bombing we kept bombing to save our mens lives not for revenge.
Im gona agree to disagree and stop posting here before someone points out how bad my grammer is . Nice to debate with someone though that dont fly off the handle and start telling me im a fucking moron to eat dick or some of the other great comments ive got for disagreeing with people here.

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Well, if we utilize actual history rather than Internet-bubbledupnonsense, you can see that Japan was in no way ready to surrender. You can read the diplomatic missives to and from Japan as well as read translations of policy documents FROM Japan in that period. Y'know, I always like controversial topics in history. I looked into this. There is no basis for it in actual primary sources, and any secondary sources that claim it are usually resting on the quicksand of even more dubious secondary sources or war apologists.

The dropping of the bombs was two terrible events, but those terrible events were a choice that had to be weighed, given the horror of an invasion of the home islands, which would've been infinitely worse.

I'm curious what you consider primary sources to be if not actual documents from the period and statements from the people directly involved.

BTW, I was taught this information in a high school history class before people had ever even heard of an internet and personal computers were a concept found only in SF novels.

There is plenty of primary source documentation out there to give rise to questions. If someone like Skirmisher still believes the bombs were needed, at least she's stating an informed opinion. The problem I have is with the mindless parroting of what Americans were always told, without ever hearing the full story. The governments own review that came out less than a year later raised these very questions.

I'm not a US basher. The US is indeed the greatest country on the planet. That doesn't mean I blindly accept everything I'm told (weapons of mass destruction anyone?), or that I will accept everything this country does.

RD

[Warriorbird]

"The Diplomatic Correspondence of America."

A vast series of volumnes listing our entire diplomatic correspondence made available by the government approximately 20 years after events occurred. It lists the good stuff and the bad stuff. It's actually the primary source for the theory that FDR knew that an attack was coming to Pearl Harbor. It's in the government documents section of most reputable college libraries.

It isn't an issue of "Internet" or anything like that. History in that period is largely crafted out of correspondence.

I don't unfortunately have the citations to hand from the Japanese government end but I can do some digging through my old HD if you are curious.

And certainly, "questions were raised", but there was no conclusion that it was a mistake. The commission you are referring to came to the conclusion that America's actions were justified, not that they weren't.