Hiroshima: no apology needed

[Gan]

For the first time ever, an official US delegation -- dispatched by President Obama -- will be in Hiroshima today to note the anniversary of the atomic bomb attack that brought an end to the bloodiest war in human history.

Ambassador John Roos will join Japanese officials and survivors at the Peace Memorial Park near the original ground zero, where he will lay a wreath to "express respect for all the victims of World War II," the State Department said.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon -- a Korean -- will be there, too; he's expected to call on the US president personally to visit the city.

The State Department insists, of course, that none of this represents an apology for the 1945 bombing -- and for the one at Nagasaki, three days later, which effectively ended World War II.

But it's hard to see the gesture as anything other than an implicit concession of US misconduct, given Obama's past eagerness to apologize for US actions -- none of which merited an apology of any sort.

The notion that Japan is due such consideration borders on the bizarre.
Tokyo waged horrifically aggressive war throughout Asia from 1937 until America finally put an end to it with the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombing. (And anyone who doubts that need only Google "Rape of Nanking" for a taste.)
Why Ban Ki-Moon, a Korean, is participating is itself a mystery -- given Japan's brutal five-decade occupation of the Korean peninsula. (Google "Korean comfort women" for further details.)

But all that happened long ago, right?
It's time for reconciliation, right?
Well, sure.

Except that Japan can't seem to bring it self to concede guilt for the unimaginable suffering it caused -- not in any meaningful sense, anyway.

And just three years ago, recall, Japan's foreign minister was forced to resign after speaking the truth: that the atomic bombings "ended the war and . . . couldn't be helped."

State Department spokesman Noel Clay says the wreath-laying is meant to help "ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again."

Just how that works isn't clear.
But it also entirely misses the point.

America effectively concluded the bloodiest conflict in history 65 years ago this week with two swift, decisive blows.

End of war.
End of story.
No need to say sorry.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/hiroshima_no_apology_needed_itQqLSkdlZE5MCJbpcFyAL
(cross posted from RCP)
_____________________________________________

My take on the delegation is participating in paying respects for all the victims of WWII, even if this is the first tim efor them to attend.

Do you think that its an unofficial apology for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you agree with the article?

Discuss.

[Kerranger]

I dont see it as an apology. I believe theyre paying respects to the dead, like you said. At least I HOPE thats the case. I think the idea of apologizing for shit in the past is fucking stupid, period. Not just this, but any of the other dozen things our government has apologized for, or tried to apologize for, as of late.

[TheEschaton]

We dropped atomic weapons on civilian populations. Not military ones. It was a war crime, at best. An apology is more than acceptable as a reaction.


But it's hard to see the gesture as anything other than an implicit concession of US misconduct, given Obama's past eagerness to apologize for US actions -- none of which merited an apology of any sort.

Who is the author, that he can determine what warrants an apology? Should the Germans be sorry for their concentration camps, but we not be sorry for our internment camps? Fine journalism, as usual, from the NY Post, which, as usual, isn't fit to wipe my ass with.

[Rinualdo]

I wonder if the residents of both towns have a No American buildings thing going on in a similar vein to the no mosque near ground zero.

[Gan]

We dropped atomic weapons on civilian populations. Not military ones. It was a war crime, at best. An apology is more than acceptable as a reaction.



Who is the author, that he can determine what warrants an apology? Should the Germans be sorry for their concentration camps, but we not be sorry for our internment camps? Fine journalism, as usual, from the NY Post, which, as usual, isn't fit to wipe my ass with.

Did you just compare concentration camps with internment camps?

Really?

[Gan]

I wonder if the residents of both towns have a No American buildings thing going on in a similar vein to the no mosque near ground zero.

BINGO!

[TheEschaton]

I compared one war crime to a lesser war crime, and asked where the line is drawn.

[Celephais]

We dropped atomic weapons on civilian populations. Not military ones. It was a war crime, at best. An apology is more than acceptable as a reaction.



Who is the author, that he can determine what warrants an apology? Should the Germans be sorry for their concentration camps, but we not be sorry for our internment camps? Fine journalism, as usual, from the NY Post, which, as usual, isn't fit to wipe my ass with.

Um.. just because the war hadn't reached mainland Japan doesn't mean they hadn't been hiding in civilian populations all the way through the pacific. This time it was their civilians. You're naivety about these kinds of topics continues to surprise me (no idea how I keep letting that happen). Civilians die in war, it's terrible to think how many more would have if the US had to fight into mainland Japan. I don't think it was a good thing, it would have been nice if it could have been avoided. It ended the war, it saved lives. If we bombed these cities to take out manufacturing plants and military commands using conventional methods we still would have killed many innocent civilians.

I also think it's stupid for people not involved in something to issue apologies for it. Should I apologize for Chernobyl? Hey sorry about that whole thing I didn't do.

[sst]

We dropped atomic weapons on civilian populations. Not military ones. It was a war crime, at best. An apology is more than acceptable as a reaction.

"Reprehensible actions may be justified by their effects, and when the effect is good... it always justifies the action." -Machiavelli

[ClydeR]

When the government holds memorial ceremonies for Confederate soldiers, including wreath laying, is that an apology to the Confederacy?

[Celephais]

Maybe Japan should have just announced their presence, and explained to the US that conventional war isn't as bad as nuclear war, seeing as how the US was adverse to such advice, they should have just left.

[Leloo]

Of course an apology is necessary! What happened was horrific. Had it been military targets, maybe it wouldn't be as bad, but we dropped the worst creation ever on civilians. Which is worse looking back, 9/11 or Pearl Harbor? Probably 9/11 because it was an attack on civilians. A line should be drawn, there should be rules in which we don't attack each others civilians. What happened to those people is horrific and not just the ones that died, but the ones who lived with the after effects. It's probably the worst thing we've ever done as a country.

And yes, maybe it did save more lives than it cost. But does it still make it right that we sacrificed innocent lives? Not soldiers, women and children who were just going about their lives. It's truly a sad, disgraceful moment in our history.

[pabstblueribbon]

HARRY S TRUMAN WAS FROM MISSOURI MOTHER FUCKER, MISSOURI

[pabstblueribbon]

Of course an apology is necessary! What happened was horrific. Had it been military targets, maybe it wouldn't be as bad, but we dropped the worst creation ever on civilians. Which is worse looking back, 9/11 or Pearl Harbor? Probably 9/11 because it was an attack on civilians. A line should be drawn, there should be rules in which we don't attack each others civilians. What happened to those people is horrific and not just the ones that died, but the ones who lived with the after effects. It's probably the worst thing we've ever done as a country.

And yes, maybe it did save more lives than it cost. But does it still make it right that we sacrificed innocent lives? Not soldiers, women and children who were just going about their lives. It's truly a sad, disgraceful moment in our history.

I didn't read past your first sentence but you do realize the casualties that the pacific theatre incurred?

I mean.. they did bomb pearl harbor, without provocation.

American AND Japanese lives were saved. Maybe. I dont know.

[Cephalopod]

HARRY S TRUMAN WAS FROM MISSOURI MOTHER FUCKER, MISSOURI

Would he have rejected key provisions of the health care law?

[pabstblueribbon]

Would he have rejected key provisions of the health care law?

I'm not sure. But he had a sweet motherfucking haircut. That's all I'm saying.

[TheEschaton]

Um.. just because the war hadn't reached mainland Japan doesn't mean they hadn't been hiding in civilian populations all the way through the pacific. This time it was their civilians. You're naivety about these kinds of topics continues to surprise me (no idea how I keep letting that happen). Civilians die in war, it's terrible to think how many more would have if the US had to fight into mainland Japan. I don't think it was a good thing, it would have been nice if it could have been avoided. It ended the war, it saved lives. If we bombed these cities to take out manufacturing plants and military commands using conventional methods we still would have killed many innocent civilians.

I also think it's stupid for people not involved in something to issue apologies for it. Should I apologize for Chernobyl? Hey sorry about that whole thing I didn't do.

Of course civilians die in war. When there is a war theatre there. When you go out of your way to bomb two cities of civilians with atomic weapons, a total war, completely indiscriminate weapon, with the main purpose of terrorizing Japan so badly as to just give in for the sake of their citizens, that's a crime. Imagine that the war had spread eastward to a series of (imaginary) islands near the coast of the Western U.S., then Japan dropped nukes on L.A. and San Francisco, claiming California was a staging area for the war. Isn't that a crime?

[TheEschaton]

"Reprehensible actions may be justified by their effects, and when the effect is good... it always justifies the action." -Machiavelli

By the way, quoting MAchievelli is ridiculous. He isn't an authority on moral, or right, behavior.

[Parkbandit]

Of course an apology is necessary! What happened was horrific. Had it been military targets, maybe it wouldn't be as bad, but we dropped the worst creation ever on civilians. Which is worse looking back, 9/11 or Pearl Harbor? Probably 9/11 because it was an attack on civilians. A line should be drawn, there should be rules in which we don't attack each others civilians. What happened to those people is horrific and not just the ones that died, but the ones who lived with the after effects. It's probably the worst thing we've ever done as a country.

And yes, maybe it did save more lives than it cost. But does it still make it right that we sacrificed innocent lives? Not soldiers, women and children who were just going about their lives. It's truly a sad, disgraceful moment in our history.

I don't understand how this is any different than any other bombing. More civilians lost their lives when we carpet bombed Tokyo and Berlin. FAR more civilians died when Germany invaded Russia.

The 2 atomic bombs forced them to surrender and brought the war to a very quick end that would otherwise cost far more loss of life on both sides.

[Cephalopod]

Of course civilians die in war. When there is a war theatre there. When you go out of your way to bomb two cities of civilians with atomic weapons, a total war, completely indiscriminate weapon, with the main purpose of terrorizing Japan so badly as to just give in for the sake of their citizens, that's a crime. Imagine that the war had spread eastward to a series of (imaginary) islands near the coast of the Western U.S., then Japan dropped nukes on L.A. and San Francisco, claiming California was a staging area for the war. Isn't that a crime?

Neither here nor there, but L.A. and San Francisco are bad analogies; Hiroshima was targeted because it was the headquarters for Japan's Second Army. It would be much more akin to bombing the Pentagon and wiping out Arlington / Alexandria / DC.

[Cephalopod]

The 2 atomic bombs forced them to surrender and brought the war to a very quick end that would otherwise cost far more loss of life on both sides.

This.

I may be in the minority of liberals, but I agree with this statement from the article:


America effectively concluded the bloodiest conflict in history 65 years ago this week with two swift, decisive blows.

End of war.
End of story.
No need to say sorry.


However, I also don't view the ambassador's visit as an apology, implicit or explicit. We can send a representative to honor the dead without apologizing for how they died, and I believe that's what we (the US) have done.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

You know, I don't get this whole a civilian life is worth more and more important than a military life and it's much worse if civilians die... I know people say "Well they signed up knowing they could die" about military people, but the truth is, the risk of untimely death is a part of being alive. We all know we could die pretty much at any time. "Knowing you could die" or that your risk is increased is not the same thing as signing up TO die.

Whether you're a Marine or a gardener, chances are when you kick the bucket prematurely you are leaving behind family and friends who loved you and will be terribly hurt and miss you. "What you signed up for" is inconsequential when it comes to the sum of the damage done by your untimely death.

Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki horrifying? Yes. But most things in war are horrifying, and when you stop assigning more importance/value to civilian lives, there's nothing to apologize for. Dropping those bombs ended the war on that front and saved lives on both sides. It was unfortunate, but every side played their part and there's nothing to apologize for.

[DeV]

Asking for apologies is becoming some kind of fashion statement so it's no surprise that some Japanese are demanding one, doesn't mean they're going to ever get one though. Sending a representative, namely the U.S. ambassador to Japan, to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony is not an apology nor is it improper in my opinion. The US won't be offering up any apologies either way.

I can't even find a way to rationalize how sending the Ambassador to Japan to a peace ceremony in any way insinuates that we're apologizing for anything. It's more like showing respect for a former enemy who is now a strong ally, at least that's the way I see it.

On a related note, France and the UK will also send representatives for the very first time. How quickly people forget that Ronald Reagan had to deal with the same bullshit when he paid his respects to the German victims of World War II by laying down a wreath at a German cemetery.

Just because the original pilot's son considers our attendance an "unsaid apology" doesn't actually make it one. We don't owe Japan a damn thing.

[RichardCranium]

Holy shit it's DeV.

I don't think we're apologizing for the bombing. I don't think we should apologize for the bombing. I also don't believe that it's something that could ever be properly apologized for.

[TheLastShamurai]

I also don't believe that it's something that could ever be properly apologized for.

Hey, remember that one time we nuked you? Twice? About that... yeeeaahhhhh, my bad. Would you like a beer?

[Celephais]

How many civilians died in Europe due to cities being bombed? Or as was already mentioned, Russia? If you want to talk about indiscriminate weapons, why not bring up mustard gas or land mines? These are all terrible weapons that kill civilian and military personnel alike. It's unfortunate that it had to happen, but it did happen, and we can't know what would have happened for sure if it hadn't (sorry about that sentence). Apologies change nothing, I don't care if we do or don't apologize, I don't see us going out of our way to bomb civilians anytime in the near future, but put in the same circumstances again, especially knowing what we do now (that it ended the war), we'd likely do it again (maybe not twice.. that might have been a bit much).

[Cephalopod]

How many civilians died in Europe due to cities being bombed? Or as was already mentioned, Russia? If you want to talk about indiscriminate weapons, why not bring up mustard gas or land mines? These are all terrible weapons that kill civilian and military personnel alike. It's unfortunate that it had to happen, but it did happen, and we can't know what would have happened for sure if it hadn't (sorry about that sentence). Apologies change nothing, I don't care if we do or don't apologize, I don't see us going out of our way to bomb civilians anytime in the near future, but put in the same circumstances again, especially knowing what we do now (that it ended the war), we'd likely do it again (maybe not twice.. that might have been a bit much).

Clearly they should have calibrated with Springfield as Nuclear Whipping Boy first. If the US military had done that, rather than coming up with that plan long after the war, we might not have needed to bomb Nagasaki.

[Celephais]

Hey, remember that one time we nuked you? Twice? About that... yeeeaahhhhh, my bad. Would you like a beer?

Next time I meet a Japanese person in a bar I'm going to offer them a beer as way of apology. (I once had a British guy apologize to me and buy me a beer because I'm of Irish descent)

[TheLastShamurai]

(maybe not twice.. that might have been a bit much).

I was listening to this story on NPR not too long ago about the people that survived both bombs. It was pretty interesting, and for the ones that proved they lived through either, they have benefits given to them by the government.

[Atlanteax]

By the way, quoting MAchievelli is ridiculous. He isn't an authority on moral, or right, behavior.

But Machievelli is an inspiration!!

[Ribbons]

"Sorry guy, but you WERE being a dick."

Only apology we ever need to offer.

[CrystalTears]

I also think it's stupid for people not involved in something to issue apologies for it. Should I apologize for Chernobyl? Hey sorry about that whole thing I didn't do.
^This.

[Cephalopod]

I was listening to this story on NPR not too long ago about the people that survived both bombs. It was pretty interesting, and for the ones that proved they lived through both, they have a lot of privileges given to them by the government.

Similarly, we talked about this a few months ago:
Man who survived 2 atom bombs dies (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/06/japan.bomb.victim.dies/index.html)

I believe the general reaction here was: HAHA! FINALLY GOT YOU!

[TheLastShamurai]

Similarly, we talked about this a few months ago:
Man who survived 2 atom bombs dies (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/06/japan.bomb.victim.dies/index.html)

I believe the general reaction here was: HAHA! FINALLY GOT YOU!

Ah yeah, that's it. For some reason I was thinking there was more people that lived through both.

I also meant to say "lived through *either," when it comes to their benefits.

[Kenn]

Next time I meet a Japanese person in a bar I'm going to offer them a beer as way of apology. (I once had a British guy apologize to me and buy me a beer because I'm of Irish descent)

I'm Japanese. Beer me.

[Clove]

Neither here nor there, but L.A. and San Francisco are bad analogies; Hiroshima was targeted because it was the headquarters for Japan's Second Army. It would be much more akin to bombing the Pentagon and wiping out Arlington / Alexandria / DC.This. It should also be noted that the Axis powers did not wage war in any morally superior way. Had Germany or Japan gained the atomic bomb they would not have hesitated to use it on military targets that also consumed civilian ones. It was a war. It was bloody and nasty. The US took decisive action and ended it with one of the most terrible weapons ever invented.


Asking for apologies is becoming some kind of fashion statement so it's no surprise that some Japanese are demanding one, doesn't mean they're going to ever get one though. DeV!!!!!!!!!!!! <3 Where have you BEEN saucey minx?

[Gan]

Of course civilians die in war. When there is a war theatre there. When you go out of your way to bomb two cities of civilians with atomic weapons, a total war, completely indiscriminate weapon, with the main purpose of terrorizing Japan so badly as to just give in for the sake of their citizens, that's a crime. Imagine that the war had spread eastward to a series of (imaginary) islands near the coast of the Western U.S., then Japan dropped nukes on L.A. and San Francisco, claiming California was a staging area for the war. Isn't that a crime?

I would be curious to hear your verson of how the pacific war would have culminated if we had not gone atomic. What would have happened and what would have been the projected casualties as compared to the actual casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Kainen]

"Sorry guy, but you WERE being a dick."

Only apology we ever need to offer.

^^This.

[Gan]

Hey, remember that one time we nuked you? Twice? About that... yeeeaahhhhh, my bad. Would you like a beer?

:lol:

[Latrinsorm]

But it's hard to see the gesture as anything other than an implicit concession of US misconduct, given Obama's past eagerness to apologize for US actions -- none of which merited an apology of any sort. It's actually very easy.

Step 1: don't be a partisan douchebag.

Fin!

And speaking of missing the point, this jackass thinks we shouldn't feel bad about killing hundreds of thousands of non-combatants because something good (the end of the war) resulted from it? Un-fucking-believable. Notice how I bolded feel bad and did not use the word apologize because, again, this is in no way an apology.

[Celephais]

I'm Japanese. Beer me.

Come to Boston and you got it. In-fact we can have Saki Bombs!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Come to Boston and you got it. In-fact we can have Saki Bombs!

If this ever comes to fruition let the record state that I would also like to apologize to Kenn.

[Kerranger]

We dropped atomic weapons on civilian populations. Not military ones. It was a war crime, at best. An apology is more than acceptable as a reaction.

I didnt drop atomic weapons on Japan. My neighbors are shady, but im pretty sure they didnt drop atomic weapons on Japan either, so why fucking ask us to apologize for it? Mllions of men lost their lives in that war, and even more would have if our country hadnt dropped the bombs. Do you think they would want you to apologize for ending it? Its a fuckin joke, thats what it is.

[TheEschaton]

I would be curious to hear your verson of how the pacific war would have culminated if we had not gone atomic. What would have happened and what would have been the projected casualties as compared to the actual casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I'm sorry, but the intentional killing of civilians to send a message is a crime. Hell, nowadays, we call it terrorism. Your (general) analogy that it was the base of the Second Army is like saying it's okay to nuke San Antonio in times of war because there's like 3 bases here. When the majority of casualities will be civilian, and you know that, that is a criminal act. I'm not talking collateral damage, I'm not talking cities in a war theatre, like the siege of Moscow, where the Russian Army is literally pinned behind the walls, I'm talking the intentional nuclear devestation of an entire city regardless of civilian casualty.

And yes, I think carpet bombing is equally horrible.

As to Narc's comment, from time immemorial there has been a distinction between civilians and soldiers. It's in the Geneva Conventions, hell, if you don't make the distinction, what makes 9/11 worse than any other killing of 2,000 soldiers ever? The differentiation isn't between innocent or worthwhile life, versus non-innocent or non-worthwhile life, but between participatory and non-participatory. It's like why we say it's not self defense if the other guy is running away, it's murder (except in stupid states).

As to the comment that "Oh, the Axis weren't fighting morally either!!!!", I mean, come on. It's one of the founding principles of morality that two wrongs don't make a right. Furthermore, for those who say "it's war, war is horrible, horrible things happen," I agree, and that is why I hold the position that there is no thing as a just war post-WWII, (a stance that, in modern times, the Church agrees with), and thus no justification for war. It's not worth doing if you cannot do it in a just way.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

You know, I don't get this whole a civilian life is worth more and more important than a military life and it's much worse if civilians die... I know people say "Well they signed up knowing they could die" about military people, but the truth is, the risk of untimely death is a part of being alive. We all know we could die pretty much at any time. "Knowing you could die" or that your risk is increased is not the same thing as signing up TO die.

Whether you're a Marine or a gardener, chances are when you kick the bucket prematurely you are leaving behind family and friends who loved you and will be terribly hurt and miss you. "What you signed up for" is inconsequential when it comes to the sum of the damage done by your untimely death.

Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki horrifying? Yes. But most things in war are horrifying, and when you stop assigning more importance/value to civilian lives, there's nothing to apologize for. Dropping those bombs ended the war on that front and saved lives on both sides. It was unfortunate, but every side played their part and there's nothing to apologize for.Modern warfare is terrible, but not the worst possible sort of war. Every reasonable person can agree (and has agreed) that indiscriminate warfare is intolerable. An inevitable consequence of this is that civilians must be granted a special status, with special protections. We are not all that far removed, chronologically, from barbarism. The only thing that keeps us from regressing is eternal, unwavering commitment to ideals like these.

In a larger sense, every modern war warrants apologies from all sides. Nothing comes from nowhere, which we have thankfully come to accept by abandoning isolationism, retaliation, wholesale slaughter, wholesale destruction, etc.

[TheEschaton]

I didnt drop atomic weapons on Japan. My neighbors are shady, but im pretty sure they didnt drop atomic weapons on Japan either, so why fucking ask us to apologize for it? Mllions of men lost their lives in that war, and even more would have if our country hadnt dropped the bombs. Do you think they would want you to apologize for ending it? Its a fuckin joke, thats what it is.

I hate this kind of attitude, a total eschewment of responsibility of one's own country's actions. Nationalistic patriotism is so rampant in EVERYTHING, yet when it comes to shitty things we've done as a country that we can't really deny, Americans fall back on the "Well, I myself didn't drop the atomic bomb on anybody, so I'm fucking golden." Jesus, grow up.

[Kerranger]

I hate this kind of attitude, a total eschewment of responsibility of one's own country's actions. Nationalistic patriotism is so rampant in EVERYTHING, yet when it comes to shitty things we've done as a country that we can't really deny, Americans fall back on the "Well, I myself didn't drop the atomic bomb on anybody, so I'm fucking golden." Jesus, grow up.

Jesus Christ, youre a pussy. Keep apologizing.

[CrystalTears]

I hate this kind of attitude, a total eschewment of responsibility of one's own country's actions. Nationalistic patriotism is so rampant in EVERYTHING, yet when it comes to shitty things we've done as a country that we can't really deny, Americans fall back on the "Well, I myself didn't drop the atomic bomb on anybody, so I'm fucking golden." Jesus, grow up.
How long are we, as a nation, supposed to be apologizing for this?

[Thug Life]

I'm sorry, but the intentional killing of civilians to send a message is a crime. Hell, nowadays, we call it terrorism. Your (general) analogy that it was the base of the Second Army is like saying it's okay to nuke San Antonio in times of war because there's like 3 bases here. When the majority of casualities will be civilian, and you know that, that is a criminal act. I'm not talking collateral damage, I'm not talking cities in a war theatre, like the siege of Moscow, where the Russian Army is literally pinned behind the walls, I'm talking the intentional nuclear devestation of an entire city regardless of civilian casualty.

And yes, I think carpet bombing is equally horrible.

As to Narc's comment, from time immemorial there has been a distinction between civilians and soldiers. It's in the Geneva Conventions, hell, if you don't make the distinction, what makes 9/11 worse than any other killing of 2,000 soldiers ever? The differentiation isn't between innocent or worthwhile life, versus non-innocent or non-worthwhile life, but between participatory and non-participatory. It's like why we say it's not self defense if the other guy is running away, it's murder (except in stupid states).

As to the comment that "Oh, the Axis weren't fighting morally either!!!!", I mean, come on. It's one of the founding principles of morality that two wrongs don't make a right. Furthermore, for those who say "it's war, war is horrible, horrible things happen," I agree, and that is why I hold the position that there is no thing as a just war post-WWII, (a stance that, in modern times, the Church agrees with), and thus no justification for war. It's not worth doing if you cannot do it in a just way.

-TheE-

Honestly, you're a crybaby. Fuck your wussy ass morals. Its war. Im glad we bombed those slanty eyed tojos into submission.

America, don't fuck with us.

Go make some curry chicken and stfu k thnx

[Cephalopod]

How long are we, as a nation, supposed to be apologizing for this?

I still apologize to people for the Norman conquest.

[Celephais]

Twice in as many days...

Stanley: How can you justify all this?
Gabriel: You're not looking at the big picture Stan. Here's a scenario. You have the power to cure all the world's diseases but the price for this is that you must kill a single innocent child, could you kill that child Stanley?
Stanley: No.
Gabriel: You disappoint me, it's the greatest good.
Stanley: Well how about 10 innocents?
Gabriel: Now you're gettin' it, how about a hundred - how about a THOUSAND? Not to save the world but to preserve our way of life.
Stanley: No man has the right to make that decision; you're no different from any other terrorist.
Gabriel: No, you're wrong Stanley. Thousands die every day for no reason at all, where's your bleeding heart for them? You give your twenty dollars to Greenpeace every year thinking you're changing the world? What countries will harbor terrorists when they realize the consequences of what I'll do? Did you know that I can buy nuclear warheads in Minsk for forty million each? Hell, I'd buy half a dozen and even get a discount!

[Kenn]

Come to Boston and you got it. In-fact we can have Saki Bombs!

I'm the head sushi chef / manager of a restaurant. I get free sake / beer all the time. Buy me a nice stout and we'll call it even. :D

On a side note: this subject is actually really sensitive for me. The Japanese half of my family can actually be traced back to the Hiroshima Prefecture pre-WWII. And post Pearl Harbor, my grandfather and great uncles fought in the 442 and the 100th. I am fiercely proud of my Japanese ancestry. I am appalled by the level of death and destruction that was visited upon the civilian population. Hell, it created an entire social class: the hibakusha.

That being said, I can recognize the importance of ending a war with decisive blows. While I think there should be an apology for the use of such devastating weapons on / near civilian populations, I concede that it was an act of war that saved lives.

In all honesty, if the bombs had been dropped on the Italians or the Germans, I would probably be laughing with everyone else saying, "Yeah, fuck those wops / krauts." I'm just a hypocrite that way.

IMO though, the way Japanese Americans were treated by the government was far worse. The Japanese were war enemies, guilty of a surprise attack against this country and thus deserved retaliation. The Americans interned were not.

[Warriorbird]

I don't view this act as an apology but paying respects.

I don't believe there needs to be an apology (the internment camps are a different matter, though I don't feel they were a 'war crime' either). Japan would've honorably fought to the last man if we had not dropped the bomb.

[Oscar76]

The projected casualties were in excess of 1,000,000 if we sent the marines and army into mainland Japan. The Japanese would have defended to the death, just like they did everywhere else. Shit, they had civilians so brainwashed that they voluntarily jumped off cliffs with children in their arms to all die ... just not to get caught by a U.S. Marine (Saipan or Tarawa, I forget). Go crawl through the caves of Iwo Jima and Peleliu and perhaps you'll realize just why we had to drop the damned bombs. Jesus Christ I can't believe apologists for this. We saves hundreds of thousands of lives on each side by doing what we did.

As far as the ceremony and apology - it wasn't an apology and shouldn't be. Vets from both Japan and the United States visit Iwo Jima every year for a peace ceremony. Do you think those marines apologize for the Japanese soldier they cooked out of one of those fucking holes? No, and they owe no apology.

If the basis of the prayed-for apology is that use of the bombs was a war crime ... well we better not lose wars. Dresden? Yep, if the Germans had done it we would have strung them up. That's the price of losing. Harsh, but it's fucking war. You don't want to lose.

[Paradii]

How long are we, as a nation, supposed to be apologizing for this?

Roughly around the same time we get to stop apologizing for slavery, the conquest of the americas, and Tom Cruise.

[Rinualdo]

How long are we, as a nation, supposed to be apologizing for this?

Pretty sure we haven't apologized yet.

Nor should we.

[Clove]

As to the comment that "Oh, the Axis weren't fighting morally either!!!!", I mean, come on. It's one of the founding principles of morality that two wrongs don't make a right.-TheE-You're correct E. Two wrongs don't make a right. And when Japan formally apologizes for its sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and its invasion of Asia that led to over 17 million deaths in the name of world conquest and racism that resulted in our nuclear response, then I'm sure we'll apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite constant liberal condemnations of "US Imperialism" We did not start a war with Japan, Germany OR Italy- we responded to their unprovoked and unchecked aggression towards the world.

[Rinualdo]

You mean like this from '94?

Fifty-two years and 50 weeks after the event, Japan's government finally apologized today for failing to break off diplomatic negotiations before launching the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor that pulled the United States into World War II.

"There can be no excuse," the Foreign Ministry said, for Japan's delay in delivering a message to Washington on Dec. 7, 1941, that it would negotiate no longer. The official apology was prompted by the routine declassification of a new batch of documents relating to that fateful day.

[Clove]

You mean like this from '94?Did you miss the AND in my statement? That's also quite an apology. They weren't sorry for the actual sneak attack (but they should have broken off diplomatic negotiations first). In similar spirit I suppose we can apologize not for bombing Japan, but bombing those two cities.

[Rinualdo]

Did you miss the AND in my statement?

Sure did. These help?


August 24, 1982. Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki. "I am painfully aware of Japan's responsibility for inflicting serious damages [on Asian nations] during the past war." "We need to recognize that there are criticisms that condemn [Japan's occupation] as invasion"


August 26, 1982. Chief Cabinet Secretary Kiichi Miyazawa. "1. The Japanese Government and the Japanese people are deeply aware of the fact that acts by our country in the past caused tremendous suffering and damage to the peoples of Asian countries, including the Republic of Korea (ROK) and China, and have followed the path of a pacifist state with remorse and determination that such acts must never be repeated. Japan has recognized, in the Japan-ROK Joint Communique, of 1965, that the 'past relations are regrettable, and Japan feels deep remorse,' and in the Japan-China Joint Communique, that Japan is 'keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war and deeply reproaches itself.' These statements confirm Japan's remorse and determination which I stated above and this recognition has not changed at all to this day. 2. This spirit in the Japan-ROK Joint Communique, and the Japan-China Joint Communique, naturally should also be respected in Japan's school education and textbook authorization. Recently, however, the Republic of Korea, China, and others have been criticizing some descriptions in Japanese textbooks. From the perspective of building friendship and goodwill with neighboring countries, Japan will pay due attention to these criticisms and make corrections at the Government's responsibility. 3. To this end, in relation to future authorization of textbooks, the Government will revise the Guideline for Textbook Authorization after discussions in the Textbook Authorization and Research Council and give due consideration to the effect mentioned above. Regarding textbooks that have already been authorized, Government will take steps quickly to the same effect. As measures until then, the Minister of Education, Sports, Science and Culture will express his views and make sure that the idea mentioned in 2. Above is duly reflected in the places of education. 4. Japan intends to continue to make efforts to promote mutual understanding and develop friendly and cooperative relations with neighboring countries and to contribute to the peace and stability of Asia and, in turn, of the world"


June 9, 1995. House of Representatives, National Diet of Japan. "On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, this House offers its sincere condolences to those who fell in action and victims of wars and similar actions all over the world. Solemnly reflecting upon many instances of colonial rule and acts of aggression in the modern history of the world, and recognizing that Japan carried out those acts in the past, inflicting pain and suffering upon the peoples of other countries, especially in Asia, the Members of this House express a sense of deep remorse"

[Leloo]

I don't understand how this is any different than any other bombing. More civilians lost their lives when we carpet bombed Tokyo and Berlin. FAR more civilians died when Germany invaded Russia.

The 2 atomic bombs forced them to surrender and brought the war to a very quick end that would otherwise cost far more loss of life on both sides.

You're entirely right, but most bombs the effect is immediate. You're injured by building collapses or the initial blast itself. But atomic bombs have effects that linger for generations. Atomic bombs release so much radiation and cause leukemia and cancer in the people effected. That's why it's so awful because it's not just an immediate impact and it's over, it's a poison that continues to infect the people exposed to it.

[Warriorbird]

You're entirely right, but most bombs the effect is immediate. You're injured by building collapses or the initial blast itself. But atomic bombs have effects that linger for generations. Atomic bombs release so much radiation and cause leukemia and cancer in the people effected. That's why it's so awful because it's not just an immediate impact and it's over, it's a poison that continues to infect the people exposed to it.

Thank you for our lesson on atomic bombs.

[DeV]

Japan would've honorably fought to the last man if we had not dropped the bomb. Pretty much.



p.s. My darling Clove. I've been a busy little bee, doing my best to make honey and not sting. It's good to see you too love.

[Clove]

Sure did. These help?Good for them, in that case I have no problem apologizing for the devastation the bombings caused; but I will not accept responsibility for them as war crimes. Japan, Germany and Italy commited the crimes; the world stopped them.

[Leloo]

I still apologize to people for the Norman conquest.

Hey now, as a proud Norman, that conquest brought civilization to England! <3 Normans

[sst]

Roughly around the same time we get to stop apologizing for slavery, the conquest of the americas, and Tom Cruise.

We should never ever stop apologizing for Tom Cruise.

[Parkbandit]

You're entirely right, but most bombs the effect is immediate. You're injured by building collapses or the initial blast itself. But atomic bombs have effects that linger for generations. Atomic bombs release so much radiation and cause leukemia and cancer in the people effected. That's why it's so awful because it's not just an immediate impact and it's over, it's a poison that continues to infect the people exposed to it.

I can buy that I guess...

I don't agree that it was the wrong thing to do, given the amount of lives that were ultimately saved... both Japanese and American.

[Paradii]

We should never ever stop apologizing for Tom Cruise.

I'll mark this day on my calendar as the first time we agreed on something.

[Clove]

You're entirely right, but most bombs the effect is immediate. You're injured by building collapses or the initial blast itself. But atomic bombs have effects that linger for generations. Atomic bombs release so much radiation and cause leukemia and cancer in the people effected. That's why it's so awful because it's not just an immediate impact and it's over, it's a poison that continues to infect the people exposed to it.


Thank you for our lesson on atomic bombs.
Good point and of course we were aware of the long-term effects of nuclear weapons when we depolyed them.

[Paradii]

I can buy that I guess...

I don't agree that it was the wrong thing to do, given the amount of lives that were ultimately saved... both Japanese and American.

Would you go as far as to say while it wasn't the wrong action, it was the wrong place? As in, the wrong two targets were erm, targetted?

[sst]

You're entirely right, but most bombs the effect is immediate. You're injured by building collapses or the initial blast itself. But atomic bombs have effects that linger for generations. Atomic bombs release so much radiation and cause leukemia and cancer in the people effected. That's why it's so awful because it's not just an immediate impact and it's over, it's a poison that continues to infect the people exposed to it.

You, my dear, have no idea what its like to get hit by a bomb. Atomic or not the results are lasting and hidden as well as out in the open. There are times when ignorance is a good thing to have, enjoy it.

[Leloo]

PB, it may not have been the wrong thing to do. If we could go back and bomb two cities in Germany and save all the Holocaust victims I'm sure we'd still do it. What we do have to recognize is that no matter what the good consequences there are, there were also bad consequences. Maybe apology isn't the right word to use here, but what we need to do is own up that our actions had long lasting effects on civilians. The real danger for things like this is that by us saying it was ok to attack a civilian city because the ends justifies the means.. then the same logic could be applied to us by another country.

Why can't we go back to the old days of war, not the I rape and pillage your woman days, but where families are off limits and you line up and fight like civilized Europeans!

[Warriorbird]

PB, it may not have been the wrong thing to do. If we could go back and bomb two cities in Germany and save all the Holocaust victims I'm sure we'd still do it. What we do have to recognize is that no matter what the good consequences there are, there were also bad consequences. Maybe apology isn't the right word to use here, but what we need to do is own up that our actions had long lasting effects on civilians. The real danger for things like this is that by us saying it was ok to attack a civilian city because the ends justifies the means.. then the same logic could be applied to us by another country.

Why can't we go back to the old days of war, not the I rape and pillage your woman days, but where families are off limits and you line up and fight like civilized Europeans!

"You gotta control your smiles and cries, because that's all you have and nobody can take that away from you. "

The 'old days' never really existed.

[Clove]

Why can't we go back to the old days of war, not the I rape and pillage your woman days, but where families are off limits and you line up and fight like civilized Europeans!http://footguards.tripod.com/01ABOUT/volley.gif

[sst]

Why can't we go back to the old days of war, not the I rape and pillage your woman days, but where families are off limits and you line up and fight like civilized Europeans!

because America was so bad assed that nobody stood a chance, as demonstrated by this video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezk0e1VL80o)

I mean shit! Washington drove a Challenger... how can the Brits or anyone compete with that?

[Warriorbird]

because America was so bad assed that nobody stood a chance, as demonstrated by this video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezk0e1VL80o)

I mean shit! Washington drove a Challenger... how can the Brits or anyone compete with that?

I love that commercial.

[Celephais]

"You gotta control your smiles and cries, because that's all you have and nobody can take that away from you. "

The 'old days' never really existed.
I didn't know you got wet.

[Clove]

For what it's worth, here's an account of the Hiroshima bombing:

The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10�11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective due to the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen due to its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction due to its being surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson struck Kyoto from the list because of its cultural significance, over the objections of Gen. Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. According to Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier." On July 25 General Carl Spaatz was ordered to bomb one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata or Nagasaki as soon after August 3 as weather permitted, and the remaining cities as additional weapons became available.




At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance. Even some military camps were located nearby, such as the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without POW-camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority.



The center of the city contained a number of reinforced concrete buildings and lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses. A few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were of wooden construction with tile roofs, and many of the industrial buildings also were of wood frame construction. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.



The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 381,000 earlier in the war, but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack the population was approximately 255,000. This figure is based on the registered population used by the Japanese in computing ration quantities, and the estimates of additional workers and troops who were brought into the city may be inaccurate.



Hiroshima was the primary target of the first U.S. nuclear attack mission, on August 6, 1945. The B-29 Enola Gay, piloted and commanded by Colonel Paul Tibbets, was launched from Tinian airbase in the West Pacific, approximately 6 hours' flight time away from Japan. The drop date of the 6th was chosen because there had previously been a cloud formation over the target. At the time of launch, the weather was good, and the crew and equipment functioned properly. Navy Captain William Parsons armed the bomb during the flight, since it had been left unarmed to minimize the risks during takeoff. In every detail, the attack was carried out exactly as planned, and the gravity bomb, a gun-type fission weapon, with 60 kg (130 pounds) of uranium-235, performed precisely as expected.




About an hour before the bombing, the Japanese early warning radar net detected the approach of some American aircraft headed for the southern part of Japan. The alert had been given and radio broadcasting stopped in many cities, among them Hiroshima. The planes approached the coast at a very high altitude. At nearly 08:00, the radar operator in Hiroshima determined that the number of planes coming in was very small�probably not more than three�and the air raid alert was lifted. (To save gasoline, the Japanese had decided not to intercept small formations, which were assumed to be weather planes.) The three planes present were the Enola Gay (named after Colonel Tibbets' mother), The Great Artiste (a recording and surveying craft), and a then-nameless plane later called Necessary Evil (the photographing plane). The normal radio broadcast warning was given to the people that it might be advisable to go to air-raid shelters if B-29s were actually sighted, but no raid was expected beyond some sort of reconnaissance. At 08:15, the Enola Gay dropped the nuclear bomb called "Little Boy" over the center of Hiroshima. It exploded about 600 meters (2,000 feet) above the city with a blast equivalent to 13 kilotons of TNT, killing an estimated 70,000�80,000 people. At least 11 U.S. POWs also died. Infrastructure damage was estimated at 90% of Hiroshima's buildings being either damaged or completely destroyed.

[Warriorbird]

I didn't know you got wet.

What's wet?

[Gan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[Rocktar]

We dropped atomic weapons on civilian populations. Not military ones. It was a war crime, at best. An apology is more than acceptable as a reaction.

I think the definition of war crimes generated after the fact and by a limited and myopic view of things is abused. Great harm was done by both sides in that war, it was truly a total war where victory was sought by any means possible. For the Axis, it meant razing cities, executing whole populations, enslaving vast quantities in work camps, sinking hospital ships and bombing the fuck out of civilian and military targets indiscriminately and all sorts of other nasty things. On the Ally side, it meant bombing the fuck out of everything, razing cities, burying defending troops alive and all sorts of other nasty things. Grow up, no apology is necessary nor should one be forthcoming.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Of course civilians die in war. When there is a war theatre there. When you go out of your way to bomb two cities of civilians with atomic weapons, a total war, completely indiscriminate weapon, with the main purpose of terrorizing Japan so badly as to just give in for the sake of their citizens, that's a crime. Imagine that the war had spread eastward to a series of (imaginary) islands near the coast of the Western U.S., then Japan dropped nukes on L.A. and San Francisco, claiming California was a staging area for the war. Isn't that a crime?


I hate this kind of attitude, a total eschewment of responsibility of one's own country's actions. Nationalistic patriotism is so rampant in EVERYTHING, yet when it comes to shitty things we've done as a country that we can't really deny, Americans fall back on the "Well, I myself didn't drop the atomic bomb on anybody, so I'm fucking golden." Jesus, grow up.


World War II Casualties Total dead (http://forum.gsplayers.com/#Total_dead)
World War II casualty statistics vary greatly. Estimates of total dead range from 50 million to over 70 million.36 (http://forum.gsplayers.com/#endnote_White) The sources cited on this page document an estimated death toll in World War II of 62 to 78 million, making it the deadliest war ever. When scholarly sources differ on the number of deaths in a country, a range of war losses is given, in order to inform readers that the death toll is disputed. Civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Battle_casualties_of_World_War_II): from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war.

140,000 people died when Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, plus those that died from radiation and burns after
39,000 people died when Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki, plus those that died from radiation and burns after

I would hope that were we in the same situation again today, someone would nut up and drop those bombs.

TheE, I respect you as a person and think you bring a lot to the table, but people like you scare the shit out of me. I sincerely hope no one like you ever rises to power to make those decisions you seem to be so black and white on.

[Gan]

We're going to read about TheE in the headlines one day as the home owner who got shot while trying to reason with the robber that its wrong to steal and that the life of crime is a dead end profession.

[Gan]

Stanley: How can you justify all this?
Gabriel: You're not looking at the big picture Stan. Here's a scenario. You have the power to cure all the world's diseases but the price for this is that you must kill a single innocent child, could you kill that child Stanley?
Stanley: No.
Gabriel: You disappoint me, it's the greatest good.
Stanley: Well how about 10 innocents?
Gabriel: Now you're gettin' it, how about a hundred - how about a THOUSAND? Not to save the world but to preserve our way of life.
Stanley: No man has the right to make that decision; you're no different from any other terrorist.
Gabriel: No, you're wrong Stanley. Thousands die every day for no reason at all, where's your bleeding heart for them? You give your twenty dollars to Greenpeace every year thinking you're changing the world? What countries will harbor terrorists when they realize the consequences of what I'll do? Did you know that I can buy nuclear warheads in Minsk for forty million each? Hell, I'd buy half a dozen and even get a discount! Twice in as many days...

Deserves repeating.

[Rinualdo]

Deserves repeating.

Playing devil's advocate, the counter argument is how many do you kill to save how many? It can be a slippery slope in the other direction.

[Gan]

Playing devil's advocate, the counter argument is how many do you kill to save how many? It can be a slippery slope in the other direction.

As long as the result is a net gain of saving over killing or doing nothing at all.

It would suck if nothing was done and everyone perished because of it. At least there would not be anyone left to mock us for being completely bereft of reality when our species was snuffed out due to non-action.

[crb]

We dropped atomic weapons on civilian populations. Not military ones. It was a war crime, at best. An apology is more than acceptable as a reaction.



Who is the author, that he can determine what warrants an apology? Should the Germans be sorry for their concentration camps, but we not be sorry for our internment camps? Fine journalism, as usual, from the NY Post, which, as usual, isn't fit to wipe my ass with.

I realize, as a liberal, you love the concept of a "war crime"

I for one find it stupid. In war, you do what it takes to win.

And comparisons to the Jewish Question are pretty off base. Killing jews did not help the nazi war effort. It was not done in furtherances of victory/peace.

We coulda bombed Tokyo, we could have destroyed the entire nation of Japan. Instead we told them we had the weapon. We dropped fliers warning citizens we had the weapons and to leave the cities, we gave them every opportunity to surrender. But Japanese culture at the time did not allow them to do so. These are the people who would crash their planes into us out of a sense of duty and honor. They would continue to fight, and fight, and fight, until proven they had no chance of victory. As many people or more would have died.

Even after the first bomb, Japan did not surrender, though we gave them opportunity, they thought we only had the one and were bluffing and still wanted to fight.

Yes, we killed civilians, we also purposefully targetted them in Germany, and earlier non nuclear bombings in japan. Because to win you didn't just need to kill soldiers, you needed to kill the people supporting the war effort too. WWII was a time where entire nations were mobilized to help the war effort, and a strike on civilian infrastructure, factories, etc, was legitimate.

[Rinualdo]

As long as the result is a net gain of saving over killing or doing nothing at all.

It would suck if nothing was done and everyone perished because of it. At least there would not be anyone left to mock us for being completely bereft of reality when our species was snuffed out due to non-action.

So if I understand, you would be in favor of killing 1 million people to save 999k people?

What about killing one million xxx to save 1.1 million of "us"? 2 million, etc? Do morals fit into the equation of body count for you?

[Celephais]

What's wet?
Really? You're going to talk about smiles and crys and then you're going to ask me what getting wet is?

We're going to read about TheE in the headlines one day as the home owner who got shot while trying to reason with the robber that its wrong to steal and that the life of crime is a dead end profession.

Hey it worked for that women that convinced that man not to rob the bank through the power of Christ.

[Gan]

So if I understand, you would be in favor of killing 1 million people to save 999k people?

What about killing one million xxx to save 1.1 million of "us"? 2 million, etc? Do morals fit into the equation of body count for you?

Is math that hard for you?

[Rinualdo]

The question isn't about math, its about where do you draw the line. Would you have nuked all of Japan had you been President?

[Clove]

The question isn't about math, its about where do you draw the line. Would you have nuked all of Japan had you been President?Who needs sushi?

[Warriorbird]

Really? You're going to talk about smiles and crys and then you're going to ask me what getting wet is?

It's the next line. I'm a big Training Day dork.

[TheLastShamurai]

Hey it worked for that women that convinced that man not to rob the bank through the power of Christ.

Yes, but you can't forget the Christ part, or you'll be appealing to the robbers personal ethics; which they are currently lacking, hence the gun.

[Celephais]

So if I understand, you would be in favor of killing 1 million people to save 999k people?

What about killing one million xxx to save 1.1 million of "us"? 2 million, etc? Do morals fit into the equation of body count for you?

I think you misunderstood him, or ordered your questions backwards.

He would kill 999k to save 1 million. So would I. It's simple. If you don't start weighing lives (a steven hawkins over a lindsey lohan) then it's just math. Net gain, one life.

When you do start to weigh lives, you need to base them on yourself, because clearly you're weighing them, I'd save my parents over 5 faceless people... sorry, but I'd do it, determining how many would be tough but... yeah they are "worth" more to me. Faceless American, worth more to me than a faceless non-American, start factoring in people we're at war with, and it gets even more one sided... determining specifics is tough but, some people have to make that choice.

[Celephais]

It's the next line. I'm a big Training Day dork.

I actually hemmed and hawed over calling you on it or not, (I thought he just said "wet?", not "what's wet") ... I failed.

[Gan]

The question isn't about math, its about where do you draw the line. Would you have nuked all of Japan had you been President?

If it would have prevented Japan from killing all of the US and every country in the Pacific on their way to expanding their empire? Damn skippy. War is war. War is usually fought to the death. People die in wars. You support a leader that is going to war then the consequences are that you'll be involved in some way shape or form. Whether it is working to support the war, fighting in the war or leading the war.

Life is not fair - what stupid idea is it to think war should be? Its not a fucking video game.

[Warriorbird]

I actually hemmed and hawed over calling you on it or not, (I thought he just said "wet?", not "what's wet") ... I failed.

Yeah. I only put it in because of

"Butt-naked. Ill. Sherms. Dust. PCP. Primos. P-Dog. That's what you had. That's what you were smoking, you couldn't taste it?"

[Gelston]

What people fail to realize is that it was a different time back then. We'd been in what's known as "total war" since the end of '41. Every country involved was using it's arsenals to ensure the defeat of it's enemies. Every weapon had was brought to bare. The Japanese even used biological and chemical weapons on the Chinese. The raped, murdered, and burned their way through China. When we halted trade with them, denying them oil and rubber, they launched suprise attacks on us all throughout the Pacific, while we were still attempting diplomacy.

World War II is unlike any other war we'd been involved in since. When people say "fighting for freedom and the American way of life" we were no shit doing that. The civilians of Japan were brainwashed, as their military was, with the code of bushido. The tenets of which were not ancient, they were mostly less then 40 years old.

They were prepared to perform sucide bombings, they had boats packed with explosives waiting for our landing craft, and human driven torpedos for our ships.

In the context of the time, the Atom bomb was not a war crime. It also served to ensure that by the horrors it created that it is a weapon of last resort.

[Celephais]

Something tells me that without the example it set, the weapon would have been used another time in another place, and potentially with far worse results.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Something tells me that without the example it set, the weapon would have been used another time in another place, and potentially with far worse results.

x100000000000

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

What did Andrew Dice Clay used to say... "What the fuck did we do, drop radios on them?!"

[Rinualdo]

If it would have prevented Japan from killing all of the US and every country in the Pacific on their way to expanding their empire? Damn skippy. War is war. War is usually fought to the death. People die in wars. You support a leader that is going to war then the consequences are that you'll be involved in some way shape or form. Whether it is working to support the war, fighting in the war or leading the war.

Life is not fair - what stupid idea is it to think war should be? Its not a fucking video game.

I understand and agree with the sentiment, but it has its limits for me. I would not wipe out the entire Japanese culture to save a single American life, for example

[Paradii]

Something tells me that without the example it set, the weapon would have been used another time in another place, and potentially with far worse results.

Or better results, could have taken out a few of our more annoying posters' parents...

[Celephais]

I understand and agree with the sentiment, but it has its limits for me. I would not wipe out the entire Japanese culture to save a single American life, for example

Absolutely agree, there is a weight of lives though (from your perspective), as there is from anyone's perspective. People might claim that they value all human life evenly, but that's bullshit, unless you're living in some Buddhist temple, you're lying to yourself. (Why stop at making all human lives equal, how about all life?)

Coming up with the line is impossible though, and I don't think the decisions made are ever so clear cut as to actually know all the trade offs.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Absolutely agree, there is a weight of lives though (from your perspective), as there is from anyone's perspective. People might claim that they value all human life evenly, but that's bullshit, unless you're living in some Buddhist temple, you're lying to yourself. (Why stop at making all human lives equal, how about all life?)

Coming up with the line is impossible though, and I don't think the decisions made are ever so clear cut as to actually know all the trade offs.

Well the bombing of Nagasaki was through something like a 15 minute window in cloud cover, and that was after they had changed from two other primary targets. The pilot was considering dumping the bomb in the ocean if they were unable to drop it on Nagasaki that day.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were key supply points for munitions and military HQ.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Absolutely agree, there is a weight of lives though (from your perspective), as there is from anyone's perspective. People might claim that they value all human life evenly, but that's bullshit, unless you're living in some Buddhist temple, you're lying to yourself. (Why stop at making all human lives equal, how about all life?)

Coming up with the line is impossible though, and I don't think the decisions made are ever so clear cut as to actually know all the trade offs.
Annnnnd this is the crux of my issue with the pearl clutching over what happened with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If you try to be objective and not assign value to lives and assume every single death anywhere results in the same summed outcome, then we objectively saved lives.

If you allow subjectivity into the equation, sure you can weight it so that what happened was unacceptable and a warcrime, but someone else's subjective view cancels that out.

I feel like most of the people who think what happened warrants an apology on the USA's part aren't willing to view the situation one way or another but want to mix and match objective with subjective until the 'expected result' is what they want, not what is actually logical.

[Celephais]

Well the bombing of Nagasaki was through something like a 15 minute window in cloud cover, and that was after they had changed from two other primary targets. The pilot was considering dumping the bomb in the ocean if they were unable to drop it on Nagasaki that day.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were key supply points for munitions and military HQ.

... why did you quote me for this?

[ElvenFury]

... why did you quote me for this?
My grandmother was pissed when the Red Sox brought in "one of those Japs" to pitch for them. I lol'd.

[Gan]

I understand and agree with the sentiment, but it has its limits for me. I would not wipe out the entire Japanese culture to save a single American life, for example

Thats not a logical comparison. Why would that even be necessary?

But in the context of its use in WWII - it was more than appropriate.

[Gan]

Well the bombing of Nagasaki was through something like a 15 minute window in cloud cover, and that was after they had changed from two other primary targets. The pilot was considering dumping the bomb in the ocean if they were unable to drop it on Nagasaki that day.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were key supply points for munitions and military HQ.

There were actually plans to drop 3 to 5 more bombs if needed. If the Japanese did not stop their aggression - remember the European theater was already over earlier that year. They would have driven themselves to extinction in a sense.

[Rinualdo]

Thats not a logical comparison. Why would that even be necessary?

But in the context of its use in WWII - it was more than appropriate.

It wasn't historical; it was philosophical. To what extent would you go to save an american life, and how many other lives would you kill to do so?

[Parkbandit]

I understand and agree with the sentiment, but it has its limits for me. I would not wipe out the entire Japanese culture to save a single American life, for example

http://i5.tinypic.com/20j5ve9.jpg

[thefarmer]

It wasn't historical; it was philosophical. To what extent would you go to save an american life, and how many other lives would you kill to do so?

What if it was the last american? What if that last person... was a Japanese-american?

[TheEschaton]

It's a debate argued by Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov. If the salvation of the world rested on the torture and death of an innocent child, is that salvation worth it? Ivan, the character in the book posing the question, is the intellectual, and argues, that rationally, you must sacrifice the girl for the rest of the world's salvation, but from a human point of view, he cannot accept that, and "returns the ticket" to a salvation based on the suffering of innocents. I happen to agree with that sentiment. Later in the book, Ivan is driven mad by these kind of thoughts.

I will almost certainly never be in a position to make any of these decisions, no worries, Clove.

-TheE-

[AnticorRifling]

Dear Japan,

Sorry we broke up your death/rape/slash and burn party.

S/F
America


--------
TheE it's late I can't think of the quote I'll get back to you as a counter to your mad russian post. But Ivan is a douche.

[Gan]

It wasn't historical; it was philosophical. To what extent would you go to save an american life, and how many other lives would you kill to do so?

As many aggressors as it takes to protect said life and or influence the aggressors to cease the aggression. One does not need to be an American to qualify for that position. Only human.

How do you combat violence when diplomacy fails?

[Ribbons]

How do you combat violence when diplomacy fails?

Closing your eyes and repeating "It's not happening" doesn't work?

[Gan]

Someone suggested hugging it out once upon a time here on the PC...

And then there's JESUS.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/420844424_d3b3fee187.jpg

[Kerranger]

Its fuckin easy to dismiss all application of force as being unnecessary and evil when youre sitting comfortably at home in an easy chair, watching shit go down on the news.

My bet is this. All those thousands of soldiers in the jungles on the Solomon Islands, Iwo Jima, anywhere they had to fight for every single step they took, probably prayed every fucking day for something to bring an end to it. And limp-dicked pussies who probably have never served a single day in the armed services have no right to lessen the value of those men's sacrifice by even SEEMING like they want to apologize for it.

[Methais]

I also think it's stupid for people not involved in something to issue apologies for it. Should I apologize for Chernobyl?

You should apologize for slavery because it's your fault.


We dropped atomic weapons on civilian populations. Not military ones. It was a war crime, at best. An apology is more than acceptable as a reaction.

http://kartapelis.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/674.jpg

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

What if it was the last american? What if that last person... was a Japanese-american?

Buy him a saki bomb.

[thefarmer]

Buy him a saki bomb.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/2902748386_772197259b.jpg

(Pic because Fry is cool)

[Rinualdo]

How do you combat violence when diplomacy fails?

With escalatory violence, of course. As I said earlier, I support our actions and would have repeated them.

[Clove]

It's a debate argued by Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov. If the salvation of the world rested on the torture and death of an innocent child, is that salvation worth it? Ivan, the character in the book posing the question, is the intellectual, and argues, that rationally, you must sacrifice the girl for the rest of the world's salvation, but from a human point of view, he cannot accept that, and "returns the ticket" to a salvation based on the suffering of innocents. I happen to agree with that sentiment. Later in the book, Ivan is driven mad by these kind of thoughts.

I will almost certainly never be in a position to make any of these decisions, no worries, Clove.

-TheE-I think there is more to the question than put in the Brothers Karamazov. As unlikely as it may be consider the following scenario: A person is about to kill your family unless you act but the only action you can take will kill the killer AND an innocent bystander. I know that Ivan can't accept salvation based on the suffering of an innocent, but I really don't think that's a human perspective in all contexts. I certainly would kill to protect myself and those closest to me and in some contexts even if that included an innocent. Would I murder an innocent for salvation? No. Would I accept the incidental death of an innocent in the process of removing the guilty if the stakes were high enough? Absolutely.

[Latrinsorm]

As many aggressors as it takes to protect said life and or influence the aggressors to cease the aggression. One does not need to be an American to qualify for that position. Only human.

How do you combat violence when diplomacy fails?How do you reconcile this with the fact that there were 0 acts of resistance, terrorism, etc. from these "aggressors" during the six year occupation? We all hear about how Japanese citizens were brainwashed fanatics willing to fight Marines with sharp sticks to the last man, what happened to all that determination?
Its fuckin easy to dismiss all application of force as being unnecessary and evil when youre sitting comfortably at home in an easy chair, watching shit go down on the news.

My bet is this. All those thousands of soldiers in the jungles on the Solomon Islands, Iwo Jima, anywhere they had to fight for every single step they took, probably prayed every fucking day for something to bring an end to it. And limp-dicked pussies who probably have never served a single day in the armed services have no right to lessen the value of those men's sacrifice by even SEEMING like they want to apologize for it.It's also easy to dismiss 100,000 people killed in an instant when you don't have to look their families in the eye when you say it, especially when "youre (sic) sitting comfortably at home in an easy chair".

[Androidpk]

Imagine that the war had spread eastward to a series of (imaginary) islands near the coast of the Western U.S., then Japan dropped nukes on L.A. and San Francisco, claiming California was a staging area for the war. Isn't that a crime?

No, it's war.

[Parkbandit]

How do you reconcile this with the fact that there were 0 acts of resistance, terrorism, etc. from these "aggressors" during the six year occupation? We all hear about how Japanese citizens were brainwashed fanatics willing to fight Marines with sharp sticks to the last man, what happened to all that determination?

A gigantic mushroom cloud over their heads pretty much used up all the determination they had left. Also, Japan surrendered, making their determination pretty mute at that point.

http://at-communication.com/upload/Image/Kiritimati%20Island%20%20T32BJ%20DX%20News.jpg



It's also easy to dismiss 100,000 people killed in an instant when you don't have to look their families in the eye when you say it, especially when "youre (sic) sitting comfortably at home in an easy chair".

Those 100,000 lives aren't more special than the millions of lives that would have been sacrificed to end the war without the bomb... nor are they more special than the estimated 62 - 80 MILLION casualties of WW2.

All in all, 100K deaths is dwarfed by many other battles in the war.

[Rocktar]

How do you reconcile this with the fact that there were 0 acts of resistance, terrorism, etc. from these "aggressors" during the six year occupation? We all hear about how Japanese citizens were brainwashed fanatics willing to fight Marines with sharp sticks to the last man, what happened to all that determination?

Cite sources.

Evidence would suggest otherwise. http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~roehner/ocj1.pdf

[Clove]

How do you reconcile this with the fact that there were 0 acts of resistance, terrorism, etc. from these "aggressors" during the six year occupation?I expect the amazing show of atomic force had a subduing effect (as it was intended) and if the Japanese leadership had enough influence to convince their population to fanatically fight, wouldn't it follow that they would have had enough influence to convince their population to peacefully surrender? I believe the point of the bomb was to send a message to the people, specifically the leadership and military that it was time to stop committing war; it was over and they lost.


Cite sources.

Evidence would suggest otherwise. http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~roehner/ocj1.pdfLook at Rocktar calling up his big boy sources! Progress. Next you ought to read the whole source to determine how compellingly it supports your point. While technically correct there was resistance, one could hardly describe it as very extreme; which as Latrin points out seems intuitively odd at first (unless you consider the two points I mentioned above). But lets quote Rocktar's source so you can see what I mean:


The incidents reported below mostly belong to the following classes:
• Brawls and fights between soldiers and Japanese men. Many of these disputes were triggered by the fraternization of American servicemen with Japanese girls and women... It is of interest to observe that there were similar reactions against occupation troops in the Australian, German and Icelandic populations.
• Another documented class of retaliation acts was due to Japanese house owners whose homes were requisitioned for the accommodation of Allied officers.
• There are few recognized acts of arson in the list below but one would need to know the conclusions of the fire investigations in order to identify the causes of the numerous fires which occurred in buildings occupied by occupation troops. Unfortunately, these reports do not seem to be accessible so far.
• Acts such as putting military aircraft afire or damaging telecommunication hardware on airports obviously had no other objective than what was commonly called sabotage...
• Attacks on occupation trains were fairly common occurrence. They ranged from stones thrown through windows to shots fired at carriages. Probably a number of derailments were due to sabotage, but here again as with fires one would need to read the reports of investigators before drawing definite conclusions.
• The chronology mentions a few instances of Japanese organizations set up for the purpose of resistance to occupation. Unfortunately the sources do not tell us what kind of acts of resistance these organizations perpetrated before being discovered and dismantled. Nor do we know the sentences inflicted on the people who were arrested.
• Demonstrators asking for the resignation of the government supported by the occupation authorities were frequently dispersed by US military police.

So as you can see while this source admits to some resistance it seems fairly common at worst and otherwise tepid from a population believed to be willing to fight with sharp sticks to the last house if necessary. I still believe a combination of the demonstration of our force along with the Japanese leadership was what was responsible for their fairly complete surrender.

[Warriorbird]

Actually surrendering also has always had tremendous cultural shame attached to it in Japan... and they all knew it had very definitely happened.

[Rocktar]

blah blah blah

And again Clove discounts anything and everything that disagrees with anything he agrees with. Typical.

[Clove]

And again Clove discounts anything and everything that disagrees with anything he agrees with. Typical.I criticized how well your source refuted Latrin's point. Can you address the criticisms? No? I'm sorry, then you're not very good at supporting your argument. Blame yourself.

[Latrinsorm]

A gigantic mushroom cloud over their heads pretty much used up all the determination they had left. Also, Japan surrendered, making their determination pretty mute at that point.As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread (including by you if I'm not mistaken), the bombings of Tokyo killed way more, and Tokyo had a lot more symbolic significance than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. If Japan surrendering is the key ingredient, there were always other ways to get a surrender... for instance the negotiations being pursued by Ambassador Sato in Moscow weeks before the atomic bombs were dropped.
Those 100,000 lives aren't more special than the millions of lives that would have been sacrificed to end the war without the bomb... nor are they more special than the estimated 62 - 80 MILLION casualties of WW2.

All in all, 100K deaths is dwarfed by many other battles in the war.I didn't say they were special, more special, or less special. I said that it's easy to rationalize them away when a person has no attachment to them, and your post proves my point.
Cite sources.

Evidence would suggest otherwise.To clarify, I meant violent resistance, the kind that makes people say "millions of lives would have been sacrificed to end the war without the bomb". I don't know of any person who has been killed by a bunch of people chanting slogans at them.

[Latrinsorm]

I expect the amazing show of atomic force had a subduing effect (as it was intended) and if the Japanese leadership had enough influence to convince their population to fanatically fight, wouldn't it follow that they would have had enough influence to convince their population to peacefully surrender? I believe the point of the bomb was to send a message to the people, specifically the leadership and military that it was time to stop committing war; it was over and they lost.Again, though, the bombings of Tokyo killed significantly more people. My point was less one of immediate influence and more one of systematized brainwashing. When a person gets of jail after 20 years and the warden says "you're free, adios", they don't (and literally can't) go right back to civilian life. The allegations in this thread are that the society was brainwashed into fanatical levels of violent and suicidal resistance - in the same way, this isn't the sort of thing the emperor can wash away by saying "just kidding, you can give up now".

[Warriorbird]

If Japan surrendering is the key ingredient, there were always other ways to get a surrender... for instance the negotiations being pursued by Ambassador Sato in Moscow weeks before the atomic bombs were dropped.

If you look at the 'Diplomatic Correspondence of America' for that period it is pretty evident that those were getting nowhere. People love to deny the irrepressible quality of Japan's military leadership of the time.

[Latrinsorm]

I disagree with your interpretation of the correspondence, but I am not a military man, and I am not a politician. As such, I will defer to President Eisenhower, who I think we can agree was a really good example of both:

"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." stated in Newsweek, 1963.

[radamanthys]

The bomb ended the war with Japan. The emperor made the decision to surrender based on the dropping of the two bombs. He had to go on the radio (unheard of) in order to notify the people. The military continued to want to fight, even attempting a coup after the surrender.

Diplomacy in the USSR had failed completely.

If the bomb hadn't been dropped, the war would have continued. Many more lives would have been lost as the Japanese military ideal was "fight until there's nobody left to fight". A victory, no matter how Pyrrhic, was still a victory to the military leadership.

And in reality, they should apologize to us. Emperor Hirohito tried to make a formal apology to MacArthur, but MacArthur spurned him- wouldn't let him in to his office. The real debate is whether MacArthur should have accepted Hirohito's apology or not: not the other way around.

[Warriorbird]

Decent article illustrating the varied perspectives.

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/13737.html

[IorakeWarhammer]

it was just a little extra population control fun that the elite had. it had nothing to do with the war. 2 major cities with a large Christian population btw. they could have easily waited 2 weeks and the war would have been over, coup nonwithstanding. they were also spreading through China. As Mao said, "the Americans are my supplier for military goods." The goal of the elite was to make China finish the job on land, but Japan was ready to waive the white flag. Eisenhower said it best though. :)

[IorakeWarhammer]

Why World War II ended with Mushroom Clouds
65 years ago, August 6 and 9, 1945: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

by Jacques R. Pauwels, author of The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, James Lorimer, Toronto, 2002

Global Research, August 6, 2010

“On Monday, August 6, 1945, at 8:15 AM, the nuclear bomb ‘Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima by an American B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay, directly killing an estimated 80,000 people. By the end of the year, injury and radiation brought total casualties to 90,000-140,000.”[1]



“On August 9, 1945, Nagasaki was the target of the world's second atomic bomb attack at 11:02 a.m., when the north of the city was destroyed and an estimated 40,000 people were killed by the bomb nicknamed ‘Fat Man.’ The death toll from the atomic bombing totalled 73,884, as well as another 74,909 injured, and another several hundred thousand diseased and dying due to fallout and other illness caused by radiation.”[2]


In the European Theatre, World War II ended in early May 1945 with the capitulation of Nazi Germany. The “Big Three” on the side of the victors – Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union – now faced the complex problem of the postwar reorganization of Europe. The United States had entered the war rather late, in December 1941, and had only started to make a truly significant military contribution to the Allied victory over Germany with the landings in Normandy in June 1944, less than one year before the end of the hostilities. When the war against Germany ended, however, Washington sat firmly and confidently at the table of the victors, determined to achieve what might be called its “war aims.”



As the country that had made the biggest contribution and suffered by far the greatest losses in the conflict against the common Nazi enemy, the Soviet Union wanted major reparation payments from Germany and security against potential future aggression, in the form of the installation in Germany, Poland and other Eastern European countries of governments that would not be hostile to the Soviets, as had been the case before the war. Moscow also expected compensation for territorial losses suffered by the Soviet Union at the time of the Revolution and the Civil War, and finally, the Soviets expected that, with the terrible ordeal of the war behind them, they would be able to resume work on the project of constructing a socialist society. The American and British leaders knew these Soviet aims and had explicitly or implicitly recognized their legitimacy, for example at the conferences of the Big Three in Tehran and Yalta. That did not mean that Washington and London were enthusiastic about the fact that the Soviet Union was to reap these rewards for its war efforts; and there undoubtedly lurked a potential conflict with Washington’s own major objective, namely, the creation of an “open door” for US exports and investments in Western Europe, in defeated Germany, and also in Central and Eastern Europe, liberated by the Soviet Union. In any event, American political and industrial leaders - including Harry Truman, who succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt as President in the spring of 1945 - had little understanding, and even less sympathy, for even the most basic expectations of the Soviets. These leaders abhorred the thought that the Soviet Union might receive considerable reparations from Germany, because such a bloodletting would eliminate Germany as a potentially extremely profitable market for US exports and investments. Instead, reparations would enable the Soviets to resume work, possibly successfully, on the project of a communist society, a “counter system” to the international capitalist system of which the USA had become the great champion. America’s political and economic elite was undoubtedly also keenly aware that German reparations to the Soviets implied that the German branch plants of US corporations such as Ford and GM, which had produced all sorts of weapons for the Nazis during the war (and made a lot of money in the process[3]) would have to produce for the benefit of the Soviets instead of continuing to enrich US owners and shareholders.



Negotiations among the Big Three would obviously never result in the withdrawal of the Red Army from Germany and Eastern Europe before the Soviet objectives of reparations and security would be at least partly achieved. However, on April 25, 1945, Truman learned that the US would soon dispose of a powerful new weapon, the atom bomb. Possession of this weapon opened up all sorts of previously unthinkable but extremely favorable perspectives, and it is hardly surprising that the new president and his advisors fell under the spell of what the renowned American historian William Appleman Williams has called a “vision of omnipotence.”[4] It certainly no longer appeared necessary to engage in difficult negotiations with the Soviets: thanks to the atom bomb, it would be possible to force Stalin, in spite of earlier agreements, to withdraw the Red Army from Germany and to deny him a say in the postwar affairs of that country, to install “pro-western” and even anti-Soviet regimes in Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, and perhaps even to open up the Soviet Union itself to American investment capital as well as American political and economic influence, thus returning this communist heretic to the bosom of the universal capitalist church.



At the time of the German surrender in May 1945, the bomb was almost, but not quite, ready. Truman therefore stalled as long as possible before finally agreeing to attend a conference of the Big Three in Potsdam in the summer of 1945, where the fate of postwar Europe would be decided. The president had been informed that the bomb would likely be ready by then - ready, that is, to be used as “a hammer,” as he himself stated on one occasion, that he would wave “over the heads of those boys in the Kremlin.”[5] At the Potsdam Conference, which lasted from July 17 to August 2, 1945, Truman did indeed receive the long-awaited message that the atom bomb had been tested successfully on July 16 in New Mexico. As of then, he no longer bothered to present proposals to Stalin, but instead made all sorts of demands; at the same time he rejected out of hand all proposals made by the Soviets, for example concerning German reparation payments, including reasonable proposals based on earlier inter-Allied agreements. Stalin failed to display the hoped-for willingness to capitulate, however, not even when Truman attempted to intimidate him by whispering ominously into his ear that America had acquired an incredible new weapon. The Soviet sphinx, who had certainly already been informed about the American atom bomb, listened in stony silence. Somewhat puzzled, Truman concluded that only an actual demonstration of the atomic bomb would persuade the Soviets to give way. Consequently, no general agreement could be achieved at Potsdam. In fact, little or nothing of substance was decided there. “The main result of the conference,” writes historian Gar Alperovitz, “was a series of decisions to disagree until the next meeting.”[6]



In the meantime the Japanese battled on in the Far East, even though their situation was totally hopeless. They were in fact prepared to surrender, but they insisted on a condition, namely, that Emperor Hirohito would be guaranteed immunity. This contravened the American demand for an unconditional capitulation. In spite of this it should have been possible to end the war on the basis of the Japanese proposal. In fact, the German surrender at Reims three months earlier had not been entirely unconditional. (The Americans had agreed to a German condition, namely, that the armistice would only go into effect after a delay of 45 hours, a delay that would allow as many German army units as possible to slip away from the eastern front in order to surrender to the Americans or the British; many of these units would actually be kept ready - in uniform, armed, and under the command of their own officers – for possible use against the Red Army, as Churchill was to admit after the war.)[7] In any event, Tokyo’s sole condition was far from essential. Indeed, later - after an unconditional surrender had been wrested from the Japanese - the Americans would never bother Hirohito, and it was thanks to Washington that he was to be able to remain emperor for many more decades.[8]



The Japanese believed that they could still afford the luxury of attaching a condition to their offer to surrender because the main force of their land army remained intact, in China, where it had spent most of the war. Tokyo thought that it could use this army to defend Japan itself and thus make the Americans pay a high price for their admittedly inevitable final victory, but this scheme would only work if the Soviet Union stayed out of the war in the Far East; a Soviet entry into the war, on the other hand, would inevitably pin down the Japanese forces on the Chinese mainland. Soviet neutrality, in other words, permitted Tokyo a small measure of hope; not hope for a victory, of course, but hope for American acceptance of their condition concerning the emperor. To a certain extent the war with Japan dragged on, then, because the Soviet Union was not yet involved in it. Already at the Conference of the Big Three in Tehran in 1943, Stalin had promised to declare war on Japan within three months after the capitulation of Germany, and he had reiterated this commitment as recently as July 17, 1945, in Potsdam. Consequently, Washington counted on a Soviet attack on Japan by the middle of August and thus knew only too well that the situation of the Japanese was hopeless. (“Fini Japs when that comes about,” Truman confided to his diary, referring to the expected Soviet entry into the war in the Far East.)[9] In addition, the American navy assured Washington that it was able to prevent the Japanese from transferring their army from China in order to defend the homeland against an American invasion. Since the US navy was undoubtedly able to force Japan to its knees by means of a blockade, an invasion was not even necessary. Deprived of imported necessities such as food and fuel, Japan could be expected to beg to capitulate unconditionally sooner or later.



In order to finish the war against Japan, Truman thus had a number of very attractive options. He could accept the trivial Japanese condition with regard to immunity for their emperor; he could also wait until the Red Army attacked the Japanese in China, thus forcing Tokyo into accepting an unconditional surrender after all; or he could starve Japan to death by means of a naval blockade that would have forced Tokyo to sue for peace sooner or later. Truman and his advisors, however, chose none of these options; instead, they decided to knock Japan out with the atomic bomb. This fateful decision, which was to cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly women and children, offered the Americans considerable advantages. First, the bomb might force Tokyo to surrender before the Soviets got involved in the war in Asia, thus making it unnecessary to allow Moscow a say in the coming decisions about postwar Japan, about the territories which had been occupied by Japan (such as Korea and Manchuria), and about the Far East and the Pacific region in general. The USA would then enjoy a total hegemony over that part of the world, something which may be said to have been the true (though unspoken) war aim of Washington in the conflict with Japan. It was in light of this consideration that the strategy of simply blockading Japan into surrender was rejected, since the surrender might not have been forthcoming until after – and possibly well after - the Soviet Union’s entry into the war. (After the war, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey stated that “certainly prior to 31 December 1945, Japan would have surrendered, even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.”)[10]



As far as the American leaders were concerned, a Soviet intervention in the war in the Far East threatened to achieve for the Soviets the same advantage which the Yankees’ relatively late intervention in the war in Europe had produced for the United States, namely, a place at the round table of the victors who would force their will on the defeated enemy, carve occupation zones out of his territory, change borders, determine postwar social-economic and political structures, and thereby derive for themselves enormous benefits and prestige. Washington absolutely did not want the Soviet Union to enjoy this kind of input. The Americans were on the brink of victory over Japan, their great rival in that part of the world. They did not relish the idea of being saddled with a new potential rival, one whose detested communist ideology might become dangerously influential in many Asian countries. By dropping the atomic bomb, the Americans hoped to finish Japan off instantly and go to work in the Far East as cavalier seul, that is, without their victory party being spoiled by unwanted Soviet gate-crashers. Use of the atom bomb offered Washington a second important advantage. Truman’s experience in Potsdam had persuaded him that only an actual demonstration of this new weapon would make Stalin sufficiently pliable. Nuking a “Jap” city, preferably a “virgin” city, where the damage would be especially impressive, thus loomed useful as a means to intimidate the Soviets and induce them to make concessions with respect to Germany, Poland, and the rest of Central and Eastern Europe.



The atomic bomb was ready just before the Soviets became involved in the Far East. Even so, the nuclear pulverization of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, came too late to prevent the Soviets from entering the war against Japan. Tokyo did not throw in the towel immediately, as the Americans had hoped, and on August 8, 1945 - exactly three months after the German capitulation in Berlin - the Soviets declared war on Japan. The next day, on August 9, the Red Army attacked the Japanese troops stationed in northern China. Washington itself had long asked for Soviet intervention, but when that intervention finally came, Truman and his advisors were far from ecstatic about the fact that Stalin had kept his word. If Japan’s rulers did not respond immediately to the bombing of Hiroshima with an unconditional capitulation, it may have been because they could not ascertain immediately that only one plane and one bomb had done so much damage. (Many conventional bombing raids had produced equally catastrophic results; an attack by thousands of bombers on the Japanese capital on March 9-10, 1945, for example, had actually caused more casualties than the bombing of Hiroshima.) In any event, it took some time before an unconditional capitulation was forthcoming, and on account of this delay the USSR did get involved in the war against Japan after all. This made Washington extremely impatient: the day after the Soviet declaration of war, on August 9, 1945, a second bomb was dropped, this time on the city of Nagasaki. A former American army chaplain later stated: “I am of the opinion that this was one of the reasons why a second bomb was dropped: because there was a rush. They wanted to get the Japanese to capitulate before the Russians showed up.”[11] (The chaplain may or may not have been aware that among the 75,000 human beings who were “instantaneously incinerated, carbonized and evaporated” in Nagasaki were many Japanese Catholics as well an unknown number of inmates of a camp for allied POWs, whose presence had been reported to the air command, to no avail.)[12] It took another five days, that is, until August 14, before the Japanese could bring themselves to capitulate. In the meantime the Red Army was able to make considerable progress, to the great chagrin of Truman and his advisors.



And so the Americans were stuck with a Soviet partner in the Far East after all. Or were they? Truman made sure that they were not, ignoring the precedents set earlier with respect to cooperation among the Big Three in Europe. Already on August 15, 1945, Washington rejected Stalin’s request for a Soviet occupation zone in the defeated land of the rising sun. And when on September 2, 1945, General MacArthur officially accepted the Japanese surrender on the American battleship Missouri in the Bay of Tokyo, representatives of the Soviet Union - and of other allies in the Far East, such as Great Britain, France, Australia, and the Netherlands - were allowed to be present only as insignificant extras, as spectators. Unlike Germany, Japan was not carved up into occupation zones. America’s defeated rival was to be occupied by the Americans only, and as American “viceroy” in Tokyo, General MacArthur would ensure that, regardless of contributions made to the common victory, no other power had a say in the affairs of postwar Japan.



Sixty-five years ago, Truman did not have to use the atomic bomb in order to force Japan to its knees, but he had reasons to want to use the bomb. The atom bomb enabled the Americans to force Tokyo to surrender unconditionally, to keep the Soviets out of the Far East and - last but not least - to force Washington’s will on the Kremlin in Europe also. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated for these reasons, and many American historians realize this only too well; Sean Dennis Cashman, for example, writes:



With the passing of time, many historians have concluded that the bomb was used as much for political reasons...Vannevar Bush [the head of the American center for scientific research] stated that the bomb “was also delivered on time, so that there was no necessity for any concessions to Russia at the end of the war”. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes [Truman’s Secretary of State] never denied a statement attributed to him that the bomb had been used to demonstrate American power to the Soviet Union in order to make it more manageable in Europe.[13]



Truman himself, however, hypocritically declared at the time that the purpose of the two nuclear bombardments had been “to bring the boys home,” that is, to quickly finish the war without any further major loss of life on the American side. This explanation was uncritically broadcast in the American media and it developed into a myth eagerly propagated by the majority of historians and media in the USA and throughout the “Western” world. That myth, which, incidentally, also serves to justify potential future nuclear strikes on targets such as Iran and North Korea, is still very much alive - just check your mainstream newspaper on August 6 and 9!




Jacques R. Pauwels, author of The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, James Lorimer, Toronto, 2002





Notes


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagasaki.

[3] Jacques R. Pauwels, The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, Toronto, 2002, pp. 201-05.

[4] William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, revised edition, New York, 1962, p. 250.

[5] Quoted in Michael Parenti, The Anti-Communist Impulse, New York, 1969, p. 126.

[6] Gar Alperovitz Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam. The Use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation with Soviet Power, new edition, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1985 (original edition 1965), p. 223.

[7] Pauwels, op. cit., p. 143.

[8] Alperovitz, op. cit., pp. 28, 156.

[9] Quoted in Alperovitz, op. cit., p. 24.

[10] Cited in David Horowitz, From Yalta to Vietnam: American Foreign Policy in the Cold War, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1967, p. 53.

[11] Studs Terkel, "The Good War": An Oral History of World War Two, New York, 1984, p. 535.

[12] Gary G. Kohls, “Whitewashing Hiroshima: The Uncritical Glorification of American Militarism,” http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/kohls1.html.
[13] Sean Dennis Cashman, , Roosevelt, and World War II, New York and London, 1989, p. 369.

[Latrinsorm]

Decent article illustrating the varied perspectives.

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/13737.htmlWalker concludes that it “was necessary to end the war at the earliest possible moment and in that way to save American lives, perhaps numbering in the several thousands.”

Which thousands of American lives, specifically, were at risk? No land operations were underway in July/August, air resistance was negligible, the navy was finished when the Yamato was destroyed.

[Warriorbird]

Walker concludes that it “was necessary to end the war at the earliest possible moment and in that way to save American lives, perhaps numbering in the several thousands.”

Which thousands of American lives, specifically, were at risk? No land operations were underway in July/August, air resistance was negligible, the navy was finished when the Yamato was destroyed.

Presumably invasion plans. Walker's ultimate conclusion was that one bomb was potentially necessary, but not two.

[Clove]

Again, though, the bombings of Tokyo killed significantly more people. My point was less one of immediate influence and more one of systematized brainwashing. When a person gets of jail after 20 years and the warden says "you're free, adios", they don't (and literally can't) go right back to civilian life. The allegations in this thread are that the society was brainwashed into fanatical levels of violent and suicidal resistance - in the same way, this isn't the sort of thing the emperor can wash away by saying "just kidding, you can give up now".I don't assert that the Japanese people were brainwashed or institutionalized but I do believe they were prepared to continue fighting the war to a long and bloody end. I can only speculate (like everyone) but I do believe that the nuclear bombings expedited their surrender and probably saved ultimate bloodshed.
Walker concludes that it “was necessary to end the war at the earliest possible moment and in that way to save American lives, perhaps numbering in the several thousands.”

Which thousands of American lives, specifically, were at risk? No land operations were underway in July/August, air resistance was negligible, the navy was finished when the Yamato was destroyed.I'm confused Latrin. You'll take Eisenhower's opinion that the Japanese were ready to surrender, but not Walker's opinion that thousands of American lives were in jeopardy? Why should one opinion be taken on authority, but not another?

Regardless of any operations that may have been in effect at the time if the Japanese would not surrender wouldn't that necessarily involve (at some point) more conflict and death? I don't really follow your logic Latrin. If the Japanese were committed to continuing the war wouldn't the default expectation be that lives (on both sides) would be in jeopardy? So there wasn't a land operation underway... wouldn't there have to be if we assume the Japanese were not prepared to surrender?

[Paradii]

If we didn't drop the atomic bombs, there never would have been any godzilla movies. That would have been the true crime.

[Parkbandit]

As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread (including by you if I'm not mistaken), the bombings of Tokyo killed way more, and Tokyo had a lot more symbolic significance than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. If Japan surrendering is the key ingredient, there were always other ways to get a surrender... for instance the negotiations being pursued by Ambassador Sato in Moscow weeks before the atomic bombs were dropped.


Well.. let's look at history:

Tokyo multiple carpet bombings = no surrender.

2 Atomic bombs = immediate and unconditional surrender.

Seems to me, the atomic bombs did precisely what they were made for.



I didn't say they were special, more special, or less special. I said that it's easy to rationalize them away when a person has no attachment to them, and your post proves my point.

And your post proves mine... why are you separating those 100K people out of the 60+ million of fatalities of WWII?

It's been argued that those 100K deaths brought an immediate end to the war and saved another million+ people from being killed. The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were no different than the people of Moscow, the people of Poland, the people of France, the people of London, etc... yet, you somehow think that their deaths are somehow in a special category of war deaths. They are not.

[Paradii]

Well.. let's look at history:

Tokyo multiple carpet bombings = no surrender.

2 Atomic bombs = immediate and unconditional surrender.

Seems to me, the atomic bombs did precisely what they were made for.



And your post proves mine... why are you separating those 100K people out of the 60+ million of fatalities of WWII?

It's been argued that those 100K deaths brought an immediate end to the war and saved another million+ people from being killed. The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were no different than the people of Moscow, the people of Poland, the people of France, the people of London, etc... yet, you somehow think that their deaths are somehow in a special category of war deaths. They are not.


Part of his argument may be that the atomic bombs continued to effect/kill people long after they were dropped. People that not may or may not have even been alive during the war.

I dunno, let's hear what he says.

[m444w]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taih2zUOmIM

Guns were the atomic bomb of their time!

If it's good enough for Jesus, that's what America does!? AMIRITE?

[Latrinsorm]

I'm confused Latrin. You'll take Eisenhower's opinion that the Japanese were ready to surrender, but not Walker's opinion that thousands of American lives were in jeopardy? Why should one opinion be taken on authority, but not another?I didn't say I disagreed, I merely asked a relevant question about the factual basis of his(/Truman's) opinion.
Regardless of any operations that may have been in effect at the time if the Japanese would not surrender wouldn't that necessarily involve (at some point) more conflict and death? I don't really follow your logic Latrin. If the Japanese were committed to continuing the war wouldn't the default expectation be that lives (on both sides) would be in jeopardy? So there wasn't a land operation underway... wouldn't there have to be if we assume the Japanese were not prepared to surrender?No, because the Japanese were prepared to surrender. Not only were no American lives at risk (apparently), it's not clear any lives were.

[Warriorbird]

No, because the Japanese were prepared to surrender.

The coup and a number of other factors render things not quite that simple.

[Latrinsorm]

Well.. let's look at history:

Tokyo multiple carpet bombings = no surrender.

2 Atomic bombs = immediate and unconditional surrender.

Seems to me, the atomic bombs did precisely what they were made for.You don't feel even a little embarrassed omitting the part of history that completely debunks your position?
And your post proves mine... why are you separating those 100K people out of the 60+ million of fatalities of WWII?

It's been argued that those 100K deaths brought an immediate end to the war and saved another million+ people from being killed. The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were no different than the people of Moscow, the people of Poland, the people of France, the people of London, etc... yet, you somehow think that their deaths are somehow in a special category of war deaths. They are not.I didn't say they were special, more special, or less special, clarified for the second time.

[Latrinsorm]

The coup and a number of other factors render things not quite that simple.The coup attempted by five middle rank officers, which was thwarted by a superior officer saying "hey guys, knock it off"? I hope you'll forgive me if I don't consider it representative of the majority, or of the powerful.

[Warriorbird]

To simplify, the biggest argument against the 'evil Allies with the bomb view' is that Japan didn't respond to the Allies' polite attempt to give them an out at Potsdam. The Allies gave Japan a very late chance to surrender. They didn't take it.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm Japanese. Beer me.

::beer::

And, also, I just wanted to know how you completed your Dragon Belt cert. and managed to get married, you know, during the same century.

[Methais]

I don't really follow your logic Latrin.

Does anybody, ever?

[Gan]

Again, though, the bombings of Tokyo killed significantly more people. My point was less one of immediate influence and more one of systematized brainwashing. When a person gets of jail after 20 years and the warden says "you're free, adios", they don't (and literally can't) go right back to civilian life. The allegations in this thread are that the society was brainwashed into fanatical levels of violent and suicidal resistance - in the same way, this isn't the sort of thing the emperor can wash away by saying "just kidding, you can give up now".

The same group of Japanese diplomats that were in Washington discussing peace while knowing that Pearl Harbor was to be attacked in a few days hence?

Credibility is a bitch when you dont have it.

PS. We returned the peace medals they gave us.

[thefarmer]

::beer::

And, also, I just wanted to know how you completed your Dragon Belt cert. and managed to get married, you know, during the same century.

Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A Select* Start

* Clearly he chose the two-player option

[Kenn]

Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A Select* Start

* Clearly he chose the two-player option

Konami code ftw baby.

[Slider]

The coup attempted by five middle rank officers, which was thwarted by a superior officer saying "hey guys, knock it off"? I hope you'll forgive me if I don't consider it representative of the majority, or of the powerful.

Then you need to check your facts

Objecting to the surrender, die-hard army fanatics attempted a coup d'état by conducting a full military assault and takeover of the Imperial Palace. The coup was quickly crushed on the Emperor's order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito#Last_days_of_the_war

Seems a little more serious to me than "5 guys storming the palace".

I am also curious as to how America is being accused of commiting a "war crime" for dropping the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

First, they where both legitimate military targets. As has been mentioned Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan, as well as a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. Nagasaki, in WWII was a large post city that produced ships, ordnance and other military goods. Nagasaki was also the headquarters of Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works. These targets where not chosen "indiscriminatly", they where chosen because of their importance to Japan's war effort.

It should also be noted that even AFTER the atomic bombs where dropped, the Japanese military refused to surrender, and that conventional bombings where carried out on targets in Japan between June 25th and August 14th, 1945.

On August 12, 1945, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. One of his uncles, Prince Asaka, asked whether the war would be continued if the kokutai (national polity) could not be preserved. The Emperor simply replied "of course."

It is also interesting to note that at the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, of all the war crimes committed by Germany during WWII, the only time that Germany is accused of commiting a war crime for bombings, was for their specific targeting of hospitals during the invasion of Poland. Not a single other incident exists of them being accused of commiting war crimes for bombing civilian population centers, up to and including the V-2 rocket attacks on England.

[Parkbandit]

Dear Latrinsorm:

There is a program on the History Channel tonight: X-Day, the Invasion of Japan.

Watch it.

[radamanthys]

Interesting fact:

They made 500,000 purple hearts in preparation for the invasion of Japan. The number awarded since has not totaled this number. Of those, there are still about 100k left. In fact, military units are able to keep a stock on hand for immediate issue.


I would say that the soviet invasion was just as much a catalyst towards the surrender as the bombs. The Japanese would have been honor-bound to defend against the invasion until the situation was untenable: and between a militarized population in Japan (children and old women trained in sapping, etc) and the apparent expendability Stalin had for the common Russian soldier, the toll would have been astronomic. Further, the Russians were seeking an occupation zone, a la occupied post-war Germany, of their own in Japan. Imagine the strategic change in the cold war if that had happened. And who knows how MacArthur would have handled the Soviets. Hell, The treaty with Germany gave the Germans an extra 45 days to disarm, in order to defend against potential soviet aggression. It could have been disastrous.

If you want my opinion, the dropping of the two bombs was not only NOT a war crime, but it probably saved more Russian, Japanese and American lives than it took Japanese.

That said, it would take a massive global war of the same magnitude in order for us to have to use them again. Anything else would, in fact, be a crime.

[Methais]

Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A Select* Start

* Clearly he chose the two-player option

One day people will remember that it's just B, A and not B, A, B, A.

[Valthissa]

My father was in the 158th RCT. After Luzon, they were scheduled to land on the Japanese home islands in the first attack. Owing my existence to the surrender of the Japanese, I'm not rational about the use of the A-bomb to end the war.

I will say that posting critiques of Truman's decision to drop the bomb is nothing more than a fanciful mental exercise. I got physically sick just laying off 1/3 of our work force in 2004, I have no point of reference what it would be like to be responsible for the safety of a nation.

C/Valth

[Clove]

No, because the Japanese were prepared to surrender. Not only were no American lives at risk (apparently), it's not clear any lives were.I'm sorry, but you keep mentioning that the Japanese were ready to surrender as if it were fact when it continues to be debatable. While both sides have solid points, neither can conclusively prove what the Japanese "were ready to do". You know this.

Walker recounts that, “drawing on American sources and important Japanese material opened after the death of Emperor Hirohito in 1989,” historian Richard B. Frank, author of Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (1999), “showed beyond reasonable doubt that the Japanese government had not decided to surrender before Hiroshima.” Sadao Asada, of Doshisha University in Kyoto, also drawing heavily on Japanese wartime sources, reached the same conclusion. “In the end,” he wrote in 1998, “it was the Hiroshima bomb that compelled them to face the reality of defeat.”At the end of the day neither those who support the decision to drop nor those that reject it have any proof of what "might have happened" had we not. I personally believe it was the right decision and there was enough evidence that the Japanese were prepared to draw the war out and cause more devastation.

[Latrinsorm]

To simplify, the biggest argument against the 'evil Allies with the bomb view' is that Japan didn't respond to the Allies' polite attempt to give them an out at Potsdam. The Allies gave Japan a very late chance to surrender. They didn't take it.This is an over-simplification, because Japan did take it, just not exactly the way the Allies wanted them to. (Also it wasn't really polite, but that's less important.)
The same group of Japanese diplomats that were in Washington discussing peace while knowing that Pearl Harbor was to be attacked in a few days hence?

Credibility is a bitch when you dont have it.

PS. We returned the peace medals they gave us.I'm not sure what post of mine you're referring to (the quote was unclear), but the Japanese ambassador to the Soviet Union was never in Washington - he was the ambassador to the Soviet Union.
Then you need to check your facts

Objecting to the surrender, die-hard army fanatics attempted a coup d'état by conducting a full military assault and takeover of the Imperial Palace. The coup was quickly crushed on the Emperor's order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohit...ays_of_the_war

Seems a little more serious to me than "5 guys storming the palace".I think you will find a more extensive and accurate account here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempted_military_coup_d.27.C3 .A9tat_.28August_12.E2.80.9315.29).Obviously the 5 guys I referred to had men under their command, what with their being officers. The fact remains that they were not high-ranking and not supported by any significant portion of the military. Personally, I take the threats of anyone with a machine gun seriously, but this does not make their actions representative of any larger group to which they belong.
I'm sorry, but you keep mentioning that the Japanese were ready to surrender as if it were fact when it continues to be debatable. While both sides have solid points, neither can conclusively prove what the Japanese "were ready to do". You know this.I don't know what you mean by conclusively or prove. I will concede that it is possible the foreign minister was just kidding around when he said "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace" but didn't know how to put a winking smiley face in a telegraph, or that America foolishly failed to call "no takebacks" when he said so. I will not concede that diplomacy had been exhausted, and I have seen no evidence that any American lives were actively at risk at this point in the war. Say it had taken another month to hash out the details to the relative satisfaction of all parties - GIs having to spend a month in some crappy island barracks isn't worth 200,000 lives?

[Gan]

I'm not sure what post of mine you're referring to (the quote was unclear), but the Japanese ambassador to the Soviet Union was never in Washington - he was the ambassador to the Soviet Union.

Did he report to the same person whom the Japanese ambassador for America report to? Given that the Japanese ambassador for Amerrica was suing for peace a few days before Pearl Harbor, why would a reasonable person give credit to any future efforts of the same?

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice - shame on me.

[Latrinsorm]

Because Japan no longer had any capability to mount an offensive. Because they were about to be invaded by the Soviets. Because they had no allies. Because the people were demoralized by years of defeat and death.

Because the situations were completely different, in short.

[Clove]

Because Japan no longer had any capability to mount an offensive. Because they were about to be invaded by the Soviets. Because they had no allies. Because the people were demoralized by years of defeat and death.

Because the situations were completely different, in short.Earlier in this thread you claimed to not be a military or political expert... Now I realize you were just being coy. Even though historians debate to this day whether or not Japan was ready to surrender, and whether or not they still had the capability to fight; you've decided. You ignored my source to the contrary without comment or criticism. Latrin, you are not interested in reasoning or arguing.

[Atlanteax]

People seem to forget or overlook the role that the desire to intimidate/deter the USSR that the use of the A-Bomb had in the debate whether to do it or not.

Everyone was horrified by the destruction and the aftermath of the A-bombs in Japan. Particularly the lingering environmental damage, a high price (versus just simply rebuilding) that Russia with it limited habitable land would not had been able to pay.

I cannot fathom this being discounted as a major factor in how the Cold War never progressed to WW3.


The bomb ended the war with Japan. The emperor made the decision to surrender based on the dropping of the two bombs. He had to go on the radio (unheard of) in order to notify the people. The military continued to want to fight, even attempting a coup after the surrender.
Correct. The use of the radio was to prevent a coup.


No, because the Japanese were prepared to surrender. Not only were no American lives at risk (apparently), it's not clear any lives were.
Wrong.

[Gan]

Because Japan no longer had any capability to mount an offensive. Because they were about to be invaded by the Soviets. Because they had no allies. Because the people were demoralized by years of defeat and death.

Because the situations were completely different, in short.
Interesting synopsis, and albiet a slanted one.

For instance, one account, as sourced from Wiki, shows simliar but not so similar circumstances.



The surrender of Japan brought hostilities in World War II to a close. By the end of July 1945, the Imperial Japanese Navy had effectively no capacity to conduct operations, and an Allied invasion of Japan was imminent. While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders at the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the neutral Soviet Union, to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese. The Soviets, meanwhile, were preparing to attack the Japanese, in fulfillment of their promises to the Americans and the British made at the Tehran and Yalta Conferences.

On August 6, the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Late in the evening of August 8, the Soviet Union, in accordance with Yalta agreements, but in violation of the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, declared war on Japan, and soon after midnight on August 9, invaded the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. Later on August 9, the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki. The combined shock of these events caused Emperor Hirohito to intervene and order the Big Six to accept the terms for ending the war that the Allies had set down in the Potsdam Declaration. After several more days of behind-the-scenes negotiations and a failed coup d'état, Hirohito gave a recorded radio address to the nation on August 15. In the radio address, called the Gyokuon-hōsō (Jewel Voice Broadcast), he read the Imperial Rescript on surrender, announcing to the Japanese populace the surrender of Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan





Faced with the prospect of an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands starting with Kyūshū, and also the prospect of a Soviet invasion of Manchuria, their last source of natural resources, the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded:
We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.[9]
As a last-ditch attempt to stop the Allied advances, the Japanese Imperial High Command planned an all-out defense of Kyushu codenamed Operation Ketsu-Go.[10] This plan was to be a radical departure from the "defense in depth" plans used in the invasions of Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Instead, everything was staked on the beachhead; more than 3,000 kamikazes would be sent to attack the amphibious transports before troops and cargo were disembarked on the beach.[8]

If this did not drive the Allies away, they planned to send another 3,500 kamikazes along with 5,000 Shinyo suicide boats and the remaining destroyers and submarines—"the last of the Navy's operating fleet"—to the beach. If the Allies had fought through this and successfully landed on Kyushu, only 3,000 planes would have been left to defend the remaining islands, although Kyushu would be "defended to the last" regardless.[8] A set of caves were excavated near Nagano. These caves, the Matsushiro Underground Imperial Headquarters, were to be used in the event of invasion by the army to direct the war and to house the Emperor and his family.

[Latrinsorm]

Earlier in this thread you claimed to not be a military or political expert... Now I realize you were just being coy. Even though historians debate to this day whether or not Japan was ready to surrender, and whether or not they still had the capability to fight; you've decided. You ignored my source to the contrary without comment or criticism. Latrin, you are not interested in reasoning or arguing.I am but a speaker, transmitting the beliefs of those better informed and better trained than I (and, it turns out, the esteemed Mr. [or Dr., as the case may be] Walker). I would only point out that I did not claim Japan did not have the capability to fight, as anyone with a fist or an elbow has the capability to fight. It strains reason to question whether Japan had the capability to mount an offensive, which in this case is identical to the capability to put American lives at risk. It would be very easy to demonstrate that I was wrong in this assertion - that it has not been done indicates that I am right.

In a larger sense, I am frankly not concerned with what "historians" debate, in the same way I am not concerned with what "scientists" debate in scientific matters. Sometimes people are just wrong, even if they are generally right, or even if they have impressive credentials. Einstein thought we would never see Einstein arcs - he was monumentally, objectively wrong.
For instance, one account, as sourced from Wiki, shows simliar but not so similar circumstances. ... While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders at the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the neutral Soviet Union, to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese.As your highlighting suggests, it is important to note that the decision-makers in United States were completely aware of the entreaties nominally made in private by Japan. There was no code left unbroken, no communication left secure. It would obviously be completely different if the President and his advisors were only aware of that which was publicly stated, but then again if I had three wheels I'd be a tricycle.

[Clove]

In a larger sense, I am frankly not concerned with what "historians" debate, in the same way I am not concerned with what "scientists" debate in scientific matters. Sometimes people are just wrong, even if they are generally right, or even if they have impressive credentials. Einstein thought we would never see Einstein arcs - he was monumentally, objectively wrong.That the question is under debate amongst experts implies there is no conclusive proof for either opinion; otherwise there would be consensus. It can be argued that Japan was ready to surrender and wasn't a serious threat, even convincingly; but you cannot prove it, yet. It can be argued that Japan would not have surrendered and was still capable of serious harm, convincingly; but it cannot prove it, yet.

[Atlanteax]

The argument is this... was the use of the two A-bombs worth it?

Consensus: Japan had no offensive capacity left ... however, attempting to attack the Japanese mainland would be extremely bloody in lives (both Japanese and Americans) and costly in resources.

As millions of lives were spared by the use of the A-bomb (see above) as it helped bring the war to *an end*, and the fact that no other nation that has developed it used it, nor has the U.S. again ... indicates that the decision to do so was certainly prudent.

[Cephalopod]

I think this FB re-enactment should clear things up.
http://i.imgur.com/XlGQK.jpg

[Gan]

ROFL, That's fucking awesome.

[CrystalTears]

:lol: I love FB reenactments.

[Celephais]

Yeah about the juice...

[pabstblueribbon]

That said, it would take a massive global war of the same magnitude in order for us to have to use them again. Anything else would, in fact, be a crime.

Yep. I wouldn't doubt that the U.S. and its allies nuclear arsenal hasn't prevented another massive global war in the first place. We've got em. We don't want to use them. We will if we have to when it is in the best interest of the world.


*cough*Iran/N.Korea*cough*