65 years since the bombing of Hiroshima

[Love As Arson]

At 8:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945, the US Air Force exploded an atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima, instantly killing 80,000 civilians. Most of the city was leveled by the bomb’s shock wave or incinerated in the subsequent firestorm. Three days later, before it was understood what had happened in Hiroshima, the US exploded a second atomic bomb above Nagasaki, immediately killing 40,000.
Within weeks the toll had likely climbed to 250,000 killed through burns and radiation poisoning. Those who survived the blasts described scenes of nearly unspeakable horror—civilians, mainly women and children, burnt so badly there could be no treatment; “walking dead” staggering through the streets in their last hours, their skin hanging like rags from their bodies; atomic shadows seared into the pavement where humans had stood. Tens of thousands more continued to die and suffer in the years and decades after the attacks.
The US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand among the most savage acts of violence against a civilian population ever committed. Sixty-five years later, they remain shrouded in lies and obfuscation emanating from the modern-day defenders of American militarism.

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/hiro-a07.shtml

[sjb2k1]

i remember reading hiroshima in high school, and it was fucking sickening. the decision to drop the bomb(s) will probably be debated forever.

[Manicapathy]

i remember reading hiroshima in high school, and it was fucking sickening. the decision to drop the bomb(s) will probably be debated forever.

Agreed. I will say, though, and it still kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth saying it, but I really think that it was the only way to end the war short of a full on invasion of Japan. Not saying it was right, but that it was, in the interest of our country, the best option.

[sjb2k1]

Agreed. I will say, though, and it still kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth saying it, but I really think that it was the only way to end the war short of a full on invasion of Japan. Not saying it was right, but that it was, in the interest of our country, the best option.
same here. but i'd reeeeally like to think/pretend that truman and the rest didn't fully understand what an atomic bomb would do. (not that that makes it right either)

[Healthy Scratch]

an invasion of japan would have killed more civilians than these bombs. dropping these bombs might have been the better option for both countries.

[SincerelyMe]

an invasion of japan would have killed more civilians than these bombs. dropping these bombs might have been the better option for both countries.

I did a project on this in my Human Rights class and basically came to the same conclusion. But a lot of it had to do with the United States wanting to show off our power.

[jwicklun]

I hate when people glorify this event in history.

[Nick Hull]

as devastating as it was, it needed to happen.

[pennie]

an invasion of japan would have killed more civilians than these bombs. dropping these bombs might have been the better option for both countries.

Don't forget the effect these bombs had on generations of people,not just the people who where killed when the bombs where dropped. That being said,I really don't want to debate this at all.Just giving my 2 cents. Lets just pray an event like this never happens again.

[bridgeofeldin]

Japan was going to surrender before the bombings, and American intelligence knew it because we broke the code early in the war. This tragedy should have been avoided.

[DejaGuy89]

Japan would have never surrendered unless we scared them shitless

[J.C.]

as devastating as it was, it needed to happen.

That kind of mentality is what leads to those violent atrocities in the first place, and will continue to lead to more violent atrocities for as long as it is perpetuated.

[joeag1985]

I remember reading about those bombings as a child and just being sickened to my core. I don't care what anybody says, those bombings didn't have to happen. When you do things like that in a war it stops being that. It's murder, plain and simple.

[jwicklun]

I really don't follow the "ends justify the means" mentality.

[yayitsjoe]

i really wish it didn't happen. but it did. i like to think we didn't know what was going to happen. but who knows.

[J.C.]

i really wish it didn't happen. but it did. i like to think we didn't know what was going to happen. but who knows.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/jrc6248/facepalm.gif

[yayitsjoe]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/jrc6248/facepalm.gif

well, what do you suggest for me to feel? what did i say there that was worth of a facepalm?

[Nick Hull]

That kind of mentality is what leads to those violent atrocities in the first place, and will continue to lead to more violent atrocities for as long as it is perpetuated.
nobody wanted it to happen. literally nobody. it was the most terrible and disgusting thing to do. but just think of how much different the world would be today if it never happened.

[PHI Flyers10]

Crazy. I was just thinking about this today when I was driving. It really is horrible what happened to innocent civilians. I think it was probably needed but as someone said, I do remember hearing that Japan was on the brink of surrender just a few weeks away.

[BornUnderPunches]

Thank God it's never been used since then.

[J.C.]

what did i say there that was worth of a facepalm?

That you think we dropped a nuclear bomb and 'didn't really know what was going to happen'.

nobody wanted it to happen. literally nobody. it was the most terrible and disgusting thing to do. but just think of how much different the world would be today if it never happened.

You're missing the point. The mindset that rationalizes dropping a nuclear bomb that kills tens of thousands of innocent people as 'necessary' is the kind of mentality that will only ever beget more violence. Until we shake that train of thought, broad-scale inhumane acts will continue to occur.

[CalesCorn]

now all we gotta do is nuke the middle east

[Scrandon]

That you think we dropped a nuclear bomb and 'didn't really know what was going to happen'.


A.) They didn't.
B.) You're wrong.

[Nick Hull]

That you think we dropped a nuclear bomb and 'didn't really know what was going to happen'.



You're missing the point. The mindset that rationalizes dropping a nuclear bomb that kills tens of thousands of innocent people as 'necessary' is the kind of mentality that will only ever beget more violence. Until we shake that train of thought, broad-scale inhumane acts will continue to occur.
sometimes violence is necessary. if the bomb hadn't have been dropped, there is a strong chance that the axis powers would have won the war. it's an outright shame that these are the terms that the war was reduced to, but it is war.

[yayitsjoe]

That you think we dropped a nuclear bomb and 'didn't really know what was going to happen'.



You're missing the point. The mindset that rationalizes dropping a nuclear bomb that kills tens of thousands of innocent people as 'necessary' is the kind of mentality that will only ever beget more violence. Until we shake that train of thought, broad-scale inhumane acts will continue to occur.

i didn't say i believe that. i would like for that to be the reason why.

[joeag1985]

sometimes violence is necessary. if the bomb hadn't have been dropped, there is a strong chance that the axis powers would have won the war. it's an outright shame that these are the terms that the war was reduced to, but it is war.

No, it's murder.

[Nick Hull]

No, it's murder.
I believe that, as a final extent, the killing of thousands to protect the lives of millions is justifiable. I am not saying that what happened was humane, and I hope nothing even remotely similar occurs during my lifetime, but I honestly think that the decision made was for the better of our nation in the end. It is a disgusting thing to happen, but it was america's last resort.

[troubledbyinsects]

now all we gotta do is nuke the middle east
...

[Scrandon]

...

But why even acknowledge it, especially when you have nothing to say. ugh

[J.C.]

A.) They didn't.
B.) You're wrong.

I couldn't begin to know what it is you're arguing. That they didn't know the after effects of the bomb? That had nothing to do with the point I was making and is certainly not a viable excuse for using the weapon in the first place.

sometimes violence is necessary. if the bomb hadn't have been dropped, there is a strong chance that the axis powers would have won the war. it's an outright shame that these are the terms that the war was reduced to, but it is war.

Again, that logic is perpetual. There will never not be war(large scale violence, for the sake of giving a more specfic definition) as long as people look at taking innocent lives as necessary to achieving what it is they want. If nobody believed the mindset that you're saying is inherent(that war is necessary), there would be no war. You're letting the fact that some people believe it is necessary shape your own view on it, which is why the logic is perpetual.

[zion the lion]

I never learned about this in school.

[sjb2k1]

I never learned about this in school.
seriously? what crap ass school(s) did you attend? lol

[Scrandon]

I couldn't begin to know what it is you're arguing. That they didn't know the after effects of the bomb? That had nothing to do with the point I was making and is certainly not a viable excuse for using the weapon in the first place.


There's that, as well as the fact that at the time, atomic weaponry was simply the next development in weaponry. Nobody knew it would be something that should not be used on the battlefield.

It's fair to say that these weapons have no place in today's battlefield, but it's also important to not be so damn judgmental in looking at the past with your now 20/20 vision.

[troubledbyinsects]

But why even acknowledge it, especially when you have nothing to say. ugh
...

[troubledbyinsects]

I never learned about this in school.
lies.

[myplanforescape]

sometimes violence is necessary. if the bomb hadn't have been dropped, there is a strong chance that the axis powers would have won the war. it's an outright shame that these are the terms that the war was reduced to, but it is war.

Umm just to point it out, but Germany unconditionally surrendered May 7, 1945. In fact May 8 is known as V-E day or Victory in Europe Day. The atomic bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945.

[zion the lion]

seriously? what crap ass school(s) did you attend? lol

I could actually name the schools but in the 9 years I went to public school, we never got past the civil war. And then the half a semester I went to jesus school we went didnt make it to even jesus so...I what I know is stuff I learned on my own.

lies.

Truth.

[sjb2k1]

I could actually name the schools but in the 9 years I went to public school, we never got past the civil war. And then the half a semester I went to jesus school we went didnt make it to even jesus so...I what I know is stuff I learned on my own.



Truth.
i don't even know what to say to this.

[troubledbyinsects]

Umm just to point it out, but Germany unconditionally surrendered May 7, 1945. In fact May 8 is known as V-E day or Victory in Europe Day. The atomic bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945.
And? V-J Day was August 15th and the only reason it happened so early was because of the bombs.

[sjb2k1]

even if the US hadn't dropped the bombs, there was no way japan was going to hail mary the axis powers to victory.

[J.C.]

There's that, as well as the fact that at the time, atomic weaponry was simply the next development in weaponry. Nobody knew it would be something that should not be used on the battlefield.

I wasn't talking about the long term impact of the bomb, I was talking about the simple intent behind dropping it in the first place.

It's fair to say that these weapons have no place in today's battlefield, but it's also important to not be so damn judgmental in looking at the past with your now 20/20 vision.

It has nothing to do with hindsight because what I'm about to say has always been true: there are very few things more irresponsible than deploying a weapon when you're ignorant of its capability.

[zion the lion]

i don't even know what to say to this.

If I have kids, they arent going to school here.

[Scrandon]

I wasn't talking about the long term impact of the bomb, I was talking about the simple intent behind dropping it in the first place.

It has nothing to do with hindsight because what I'm about to say has always been true: there are very few things more irresponsible than deploying a weapon when you're ignorant of its capability.

I could name one: invading the home island of Japan.

[joeag1985]

There's that, as well as the fact that at the time, atomic weaponry was simply the next development in weaponry. Nobody knew it would be something that should not be used on the battlefield.

It's fair to say that these weapons have no place in today's battlefield, but it's also important to not be so damn judgmental in looking at the past with your now 20/20 vision.

They don't belong on the battlefields of today or in conflicts past. As for not being judgemental... we should just go along with the notion that nothing could have been done? The war could have finished with better diplomacy. It stopped being a war in more ways than one after those bombs dropped.

[sjb2k1]

If I have kids, they arent going to school here.
i just...this was a defining moment in a defining global conflict. it's a freakin benchmark in history.

were your teachers just the slowest teachers ever? our country isn't even 250 years old.

[joeag1985]

i just...this was a defining moment in a defining global conflict. it's a freakin benchmark in history.

were your teachers just the slowest teachers ever? our country isn't even 250 years old.

More money for education. That's all I'll say.

[sjb2k1]

More money for education. That's all I'll say.
i have never been this disappointed in our educational system.

[zion the lion]

i just...this was a defining moment in a defining global conflict. it's a freakin benchmark in history.

were your teachers just the slowest teachers ever? our country isn't even 250 years old.

They were just bad, some were good, but they had to go over what the past teacher screwed up.

[sjb2k1]

They were just bad, some were good, but they had to go over what the past teacher screwed up.
this really does not compute for me. probably because american history was and still is one of my favorite topics.

[joeag1985]

They were just bad, some were good, but they had to go over what the past teacher screwed up.

Watch this.

DQ5R5Gpn-a8

[Scrandon]

They don't belong on the battlefields of today or in conflicts past. As for not being judgemental... we should just go along with the notion that nothing could have been done? The war could have finished with better diplomacy. It stopped being a war in more ways than one after those bombs dropped.

The bolded is laughable at best.

Do you not know that the city of Tokyo was firebombed and 100,000 civilians were killed in one night? This happened multiple times to Tokyo and dozens of other cities. Had the atomic bomb not been dropped, this strategy would have undoubtedly continued. Using the atomic bomb was the quickest and best way to end the war. It could be debated that the targets that were chosen could have been more humanely decided (i.e. non-civilian targets), but please stop being so melodramatic.

[zion the lion]

this really does not compute for me. probably because american history was and still is one of my favorite topics.

I never really was until I watched that miniseries on the history channel a couple of months ago.

Watch this.

DQ5R5Gpn-a8

Thanks, I cant watch it now, but I'm really interested in this subject so I'll watch it as soon as I can.

[myplanforescape]

And? V-J Day was August 15th and the only reason it happened so early was because of the bombs.

One of the reasons the guy I quoted gave for dropping the bombs was that the axis powers could have won otherwise. I was just saying there was no way the axis powers would have won at that point because Germany had already surrendered. A long drawn out invasion of Japan? Possibly and probably. But there would be no axis victory.

[joeag1985]

The bolded is laughable at best.

Do you not know that the city of Tokyo was firebombed and 100,000 civilians were killed in one night? This happened multiple times to Tokyo and dozens of other cities. Had the atomic bomb not been dropped, this strategy would have undoubtedly continued. Using the atomic bomb was the quickest and best way to end the war. It could be debated that the targets that were chosen could have been more humanely decided (i.e. non-civilian targets), but please stop being so melodramatic.

They were on the verge of surrender long before Truman decided to make a name for himself... quickest and best way my arse.

...and yeah maybe you're right, it was only a few thousand Japs right?

[sjb2k1]

I never really was until I watched that miniseries on the history channel a couple of months ago. god bless the history channel haha...but seriously it's important to know where you come from, so to speak.
They were on the verge of surrender long before Truman decided to make a name for himself... quickest and best way my arse.

...and yeah maybe you're right, it was only a few thousand Japs right?based on what i've read, i don't think he did it just to get his name in the papers.

[eons]

Mmm, Gifts from Enola <3

[Scrandon]

based on what i've read, i don't think he did it just to get his name in the papers.

As evidenced clearly by the fact that the Manhattan Project was being rushed with the full intention of using the bomb before Truman even assumed office, kid has no idea.

[Scrandon]

They were on the verge of surrender long before Truman decided to make a name for himself... quickest and best way my arse.

...and yeah maybe you're right, it was only a few thousand Japs right?

If you got anything out of my post, I would have hoped that you took away the fact that more Japanese civilians would have been bombed had the atomic bomb not been used.

I guess you can't seem to get past the fact that it is one bomb being used as compared with many in a firebombing campaign, but the end result very similar.

[joeag1985]

As evidenced clearly by the fact that the Manhattan Project was being rushed with the full intention of using the bomb before Truman even assumed office, kid has no idea.

It was evidenced clearly? I suppose he didn't have the authority to call it off either? Kids today...

[joeag1985]

If you got anything out of my post, I would have hoped that you took away the fact that more Japanese civilians would have been bombed had the atomic bomb not been used.

I guess you can't seem to get past the fact that it is one bomb being used as compared with many in a firebombing campaign, but the end result very similar.

I was hanging on every word.. maybe you missed my thinly veiled point that better diplomacy would have done more than any bomb.

[Scrandon]

It was evidenced clearly? I suppose he didn't have the authority to call it off either? Kids today...

It shows he wasn't "going rogue" and trying to make a name for himself. Are you that dense?

[Scrandon]

I was hanging on every word.. maybe you missed my thinly veiled point that better diplomacy would have done more than any bomb.
Maybe you missed my assumption that you don't know jack shit about WWII. Japanese at the time did not surrender through diplomacy, it was dishonorable, worse than dying on the battlefield. Time to study up chap.

[samsara]

Some people...

[joeag1985]

Maybe you missed my assumption that you don't know jack shit about WWII. Japanese at the time did not surrender through diplomacy, it was dishonorable, worse than dying on the battlefield. Time to study up chap.

Don't be like that young man, that horse is too high for you. Not every Japanese leader wanted to fight until the end. Diplomacy would have worked if it was given a better chance.

[Scrandon]

Don't be like that young man, that horse is too high for you. Not every Japanese leader wanted to fight until the end. Diplomacy would have worked if it was given a better chance.

Okay I guess all we have to go with is what YOU think would have happened in the minds of 20th century diplomats and not what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

[Scrandon]

Don't be like that young man, that horse is too high for you. Not every Japanese leader wanted to fight until the end. Diplomacy would have worked if it was given a better chance.

Why don't you give an instance in which diplomacy needed to be given a better chance. Otherwise, it just seems like you're using buzzwords like 'diplomacy' while actually having a minimal understanding of the situation.

[reckoner]

Don't be like that young man, that horse is too high for you. Not every Japanese leader wanted to fight until the end. Diplomacy would have worked if it was given a better chance.

Considering the Japanese used kamikaze pilots, I really doubt diplomacy would've ever worked. Haven't you ever seen The Last Samurai?????

[kyle is hk]

I feel like whether the first bomb should have been dropped is a debate where both sides have valid points.

However I see no reason a second bomb was needed.

[Machu505]

Don't be like that young man, that horse is too high for you. Not every Japanese leader wanted to fight until the end. Diplomacy would have worked if it was given a better chance.
Like how the Japanese refused surrender even as their people burned?

[joeag1985]

Why don't you give an instance in which diplomacy needed to be given a better chance. Otherwise, it just seems like you're using buzzwords like 'diplomacy' while actually having a minimal understanding of the situation.

In fairness, Japan was on its last legs... they were already blockaded by sea. The Emporer knew they were fucked. They just wanted to save face. Even trying to bargain with the Soviets to act as some form of arbitrator between themselves and the US... it was never going to work. What was stopping them (Allies) giving some assurance that the Empire could survive after they surrendered?

[joeag1985]

Like how the Japanese refused surrender even as their people burned?

Not every Japanese leader refused to surrender.

[kofiadrian]

Threads like these bring out the morons.




sad really.

[Machu505]

I don't oppose the bombings because I think there were better methods of ending the war. I oppose them because their inception begat a half-a-century of cold war and their fires and radiation killed hundreds of thousands.

It's a difficult subject.

[Scrandon]

In fairness, the Empire was on its last legs... they were already blockaded by sea. The Emporer knew they were fucked. They just wanted to save face. Even trying to bargain with the Soviets to act as some kind of arbitrator between themselves and the US... was never going to work. If they'd (Allies) given some form of assurance that the Empire could survive after a ceasefire then why wouldn't they surrender?

Not even sure what this is. Arbitration? What?

As for the surrendering, I have already explained to you that it was not the Japanese minset to surrender, continue to ignore that if you like.

[joeag1985]

Not even sure what this is. Arbitration? What?

As for the surrendering, I have already explained to you that it was not the Japanese minset to surrender, continue to ignore that if you like.

To act as a mediator. better? I haven't ignored anything by the way.. but if you think everyone in the Japanese heirarchy was against surrendering then that's fine.

[Scrandon]

To act as a mediator even. I hope that's better. I haven't ignored anything by the way.. but if you think everyone in the Japanese heirarchy was against surrendering then that's fine.

As someone pointed out earlier, the existence of the kamikaze strategy implies a lack of rational thought, which is crucial to diplomacy.

[joeag1985]

As someone pointed out earlier, the existence of the kamikaze strategy implies a lack of rational thought, which is crucial to diplomacy.

Nevermind.

[Mikey Paine]

The Japanesse would not have surrendered with the use of the bombs, they were willing to fight to the end.
We saved a lot of american lives and the bombs being droped was an inevitability.

[Scrandon]

Good.

[joeag1985]

Yeah, brilliant. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just collateral damage. Had to be done right?

[Scrandon]

Yeah, brilliant. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just collateral damage. Had to be done right?

Apparently we've gotten fucking nowhere with you.

[joeag1985]

Apparently we've gotten fucking nowhere with you.

Apparantely you can justify murdering civilians because it happened during wartime.

[Scrandon]

Apparantely you can justify murdering civilians because it happened during wartime.

Never did, what I did say was that many more would have been killed had the bomb not been used. This is not simply speculation like your "they would have surrendered" bit, this is a generally accepted fact amongst historians. But alas, we seem to be back to square one and you have reverted back to all of your overused talking points. You're terribly boring.

[joeag1985]

Never did, what I did say was that many more would have been killed had the bomb not been used. This is not simply speculation like your "they would have surrendered" bit, this is a generally accepted fact amongst historians. But alas, we seem to be back to square one and you have reverted back to all of your overused talking points. You're terribly boring.

Oh yeah, I'm the terribly boring one... yet you ignore the fact that Japan's defences were already fucked by that summer. This notion that every Japanese leader was willing to fight until the very end is rubbish. They couldn't have held out much longer. Eisenhower and McArthur knew it themselves.

Now just say no A-bomb drops.. the Allies invade Japan. Sure, casualties would have been high militarily... but that's war. The decision to deliberately murder civilians in one foul swoop in order to get an uncondtional surrender however... Is that war?

[cuzimlefthanded]

I don't oppose the bombings because I think there were better methods of ending the war. I oppose them because their inception begat a half-a-century of cold war and their fires and radiation killed hundreds of thousands.

It's a difficult subject.
This. The atomic bombs in Japan, the agent orange and napalm in Vietnam, the depleted uranium and cluster weapons in Iraq, Kosovo, and Afghanistan--all these things used as immediate "remedies" against enemy combatants ultimately result in the deformation of generations to come.

[Broden Terry]

I don't think the bombs needed to be dropped. Sure, it made the Japan surrender occur so much sooner than it probably would've, but Russia had entered the war a few days previously. Japan were certainly on the brink of surrender and defeat.

I'm studying the Cold War and such at the moment. It's all really interesting.

[troubledbyinsects]

One of the reasons the guy I quoted gave for dropping the bombs was that the axis powers could have won otherwise. I was just saying there was no way the axis powers would have won at that point because Germany had already surrendered. A long drawn out invasion of Japan? Possibly and probably. But there would be no axis victory.
Japan was still a big threat, and if we had invaded tons of Japanese and American lives would have been lost. We would have probably still won the war, but it would've been bad..

[Healthy Scratch]

Now just say no A-bomb drops.. the Allies invade Japan. Sure, casualties would have been high militarily... but that's war. The decision to deliberately murder civilians in one foul swoop in order to get an uncondtional surrender however... Is that war?
here's something to think about, read slowly, let it sink in:
okinawa only had a population of about 600,000 people when the U.S. invaded. close to 150,000 civilians were killed.
in 1945, japan had a population of about 72,000,000 people. what do you think would have happened had we invaded there?
let me do some math for you. if the civilian casualty rate was just 5% what it was at okinawa, there would have been 900,000 civilians killed.
if the casualty rate were the same, and there's no indication it'd be much different, 18,000,000 civilians would have died.

but keep telling us how ending the war quickly was a crime against humanity. it would have been a bigger crime against humanity had we invaded.

[whiterussian]

A touchy subject, and fortunately no one has to be pro or against it - it's history, sad but fact.

I for one would have preferred that the US held out a bit more before dropping the second one. It might have not been "needed".

People who see this purely as a crime against humanity come off as ignorant. War is committing atrocities, and always will be. You can't speak with such confidence when it'll never be a call you have to make.

[Nick Hull]

I couldn't begin to know what it is you're arguing. That they didn't know the after effects of the bomb? That had nothing to do with the point I was making and is certainly not a viable excuse for using the weapon in the first place.



Again, that logic is perpetual. There will never not be war(large scale violence, for the sake of giving a more specfic definition) as long as people look at taking innocent lives as necessary to achieving what it is they want. If nobody believed the mindset that you're saying is inherent(that war is necessary), there would be no war. You're letting the fact that some people believe it is necessary shape your own view on it, which is why the logic is perpetual.
false. I'm being logical. I understand that it is impossible for a people to share a single mindset. I would obviously prefer a world where large-scale violence was nonexistant, but I understand that that is impossible, and accept that, and therefore deem certain events as necessary in regards to the given facts and situations.

[deFobbed14yrs]

i laugh at how people are like "oh the bomb was so bad, so many Japanese died". Do you know how many countries the Japanese fucked up? How horrible and oppressive they were to the Chinese and Koreans?

Dropping the A-bomb ended the war earlier and saved more American lives. It's war, and you want to lessen the damage for your side. So that's what America did and i support the decision. The Japanese mindset is to never surrender. Asians have something called honor and they wouldn't have given up unless they were really defeated.

I hate war, and i believe in diplomacy, but when there is a war with a country who will use their entire population to fight, you do what you must to end the war. It worked for that era in history.

Do i think the bomb should have been dropped on more residential areas of Japan, no, i find it chilling. But that was possibly a strategic place to bomb them because i doubt any military wants to see their civilians die.

[DeviateRogue]

Pearl harbor anyone?

[mattyrocks]

Pearl harbor anyone?

true. but still...

[germypill]

Laugh out loud at everyone here arguing about something that happened 65 years ago. Not laughing out loud at the innocent lives lost.

Of course nobody (that's not mentally deranged) wants to see innocent people die. But the atomic bombs did the job and ended an already gruesome war. I just wish J. Walter Weatherman was there to say, "and that's why you don't fuck with America."

[Scrandon]

here's something to think about, read slowly, let it sink in:
okinawa only had a population of about 600,000 people when the U.S. invaded. close to 150,000 civilians were killed.
in 1945, japan had a population of about 72,000,000 people. what do you think would have happened had we invaded there?
let me do some math for you. if the civilian casualty rate was just 5% what it was at okinawa, there would have been 900,000 civilians killed.
if the casualty rate were the same, and there's no indication it'd be much different, 18,000,000 civilians would have died.

but keep telling us how ending the war quickly was a crime against humanity. it would have been a bigger crime against humanity had we invaded.
Yea, I tried to tell him things like this, but turns out he's pretty good at ignoring facts.

[fightinirish217]

i laugh at how people are like "oh the bomb was so bad, so many Japanese died". Do you know how many countries the Japanese fucked up? How horrible and oppressive they were to the Chinese and Koreans?

Dropping the A-bomb ended the war earlier and saved more American lives. It's war, and you want to lessen the damage for your side. So that's what America did and i support the decision. The Japanese mindset is to never surrender. Asians have something called honor and they wouldn't have given up unless they were really defeated.

I hate war, and i believe in diplomacy, but when there is a war with a country who will use their entire population to fight, you do what you must to end the war. It worked for that era in history.

Do i think the bomb should have been dropped on more residential areas of Japan, no, i find it chilling. But that was possibly a strategic place to bomb them because i doubt any military wants to see their civilians die.

Sums it up well.

[myplanforescape]

Japan was still a big threat, and if we had invaded tons of Japanese and American lives would have been lost. We would have probably still won the war, but it would've been bad..

Oh I know, I wasn't making a judgement call on the dropping of the bombs, just pointing out the reason he gave was flawed.

[troubledbyinsects]

Oh I know, I wasn't making a judgement call on the dropping of the bombs, just pointing out the reason he gave was flawed.
Oh, okay.

[x togepi x]

i laugh at how people are like "oh the bomb was so bad, so many Japanese died". Do you know how many countries the Japanese fucked up? How horrible and oppressive they were to the Chinese and Koreans?

Dropping the A-bomb ended the war earlier and saved more American lives. It's war, and you want to lessen the damage for your side. So that's what America did and i support the decision. The Japanese mindset is to never surrender. Asians have something called honor and they wouldn't have given up unless they were really defeated.

I hate war, and i believe in diplomacy, but when there is a war with a country who will use their entire population to fight, you do what you must to end the war. It worked for that era in history.

Do i think the bomb should have been dropped on more residential areas of Japan, no, i find it chilling. But that was possibly a strategic place to bomb them because i doubt any military wants to see their civilians die.


There's a huge difference between "The Japanese" when we're talking about civilians and "The Japanese" when we're talking about their military. To act like it's the same is ridiculously stupid.

[deFobbed14yrs]

There's a huge difference between "The Japanese" when we're talking about civilians and "The Japanese" when we're talking about their military. To act like it's the same is ridiculously stupid.

Dude did you read my post?

The Japanese have been raised since birth to protect their honor and the honor of their country. If the military was defeated, the civilians would have risen up to protect their honor.

[x togepi x]

Dude did you read my post?

The Japanese have been raised since birth to protect their honor and the honor of their country. If the military was defeated, the civilians would have risen up to protect their honor.

yes, clearly we can assume that everyone in japan thinks exactly the same.

[Scrandon]

yes, clearly we can assume that everyone in japan thinks exactly the same.
All you really know how to do is stigmatize the other person's side of the argument.

In this case, on this issue, in the 1950's, when Japan was still a closed nation, it is safe to say that this was the overwhelmingly majority view.

Now don't make some stigmatized generalization about my post.

[x togepi x]

All you really know how to do is stigmatize the other person's side of the argument.

In this case, on this issue, in the 1950's, when Japan was still a closed nation, it is safe to say that this was the overwhelmingly majority view.

Now don't make some stigmatized generalization about my post.

Countercultural movements exist and could have been bolstered by the oncoming japanese defeat. We don't need to be spewing 40s propaganda about the japanese in 2010. The damage was already done 65 years ago.

You're not even using the word stigmatized right, you fucking idiot.

[Scrandon]

Countercultural movements exist
Cool.

could have been
Because you speculate, so shall it be.

propaganda
Another word for denial. Kamikaze pilots point to the desperation of the Japanese army to succeed at any cost. Now describe how this is not the case without just saying "propaganda".

[x togepi x]

Cool.

Because you speculate, so shall it be.

Another word for denial. Kamikaze pilots point to the desperation of the Japanese army to succeed at any cost. Now describe how this is not the case without just saying "propaganda".

Do i really need to point out to you that kamikaze pilots =/= the average Japanese citizen?

This is the same bullshit anyone says about any country to justify atrocities. It's propaganda. yes, honor is a big part of the pre-Western Japanese culture, but to assume that the average citizen would take it to the extreme that a kamikaze pilot or even the average japanese soldier (who again, probably can't be compared to the japanese kamikaze) is insanely racist.

clearly it's speculation you dumb fuck, we're talking about people who died 65 years ago. it's all unverifiable.

[saysmydoctor]

Has anyone mentioned that the US military leaders were hugely hyperbolic concerning how strong Japanese defenses really were? Or are we going to just ignore that?

[Scrandon]

Do i really need to point out to you that kamikaze pilots =/= the average Japanese citizen?

This is the same bullshit anyone says about any country to justify atrocities. It's propaganda. yes, honor is a big part of the pre-Western Japanese culture, but to assume that the average citizen would take it to the extreme that a kamikaze pilot or even the average japanese soldier (who again, probably can't be compared to the japanese kamikaze) is insanely racist.

clearly it's speculation you dumb fuck, we're talking about people who died 65 years ago. it's all unverifiable.

Japanese leadership is what matters, regardless of what you try to paint that average citizen to be.

But, I mean, you're so unjustifiably angry. I'd rather not have to deal with you. All you do is spew hyperbolic insults and push your world view with little-to-no evidence.

[x togepi x]

Japanese leadership is what matters, regardless of what you try to paint that average citizen to be.

Yes, let's ignore the historical data that suggests the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bomb (or after the first one). Let's also look at the fact that you point to the kamikaze pilot (something many historians consider a myth, or at least a group of isolated incidents and not at all representative of the Japanese military) as proof.

This is why i'm telling you that you're spouting propaganda.

But, I mean, you're so unjustifiably angry. I'd rather not have to deal with you. All you do is spew hyperbolic insults and push your world view with little-to-no evidence.

not angry, you're just a fucking moron.

[x togepi x]

Has anyone mentioned that the US military leaders were hugely hyperbolic concerning how strong Japanese defenses really were? Or are we going to just ignore that?

This and the fact that Japan was fucked resources-wise (this is largely a justification for them attacking the United States), so a blockade of some sort could have been pretty successful in getting a surrender. It isn't as if the choice was between bombing them and invading.

[ghostyouare]

Has it been pointed out that the bombings were pretty much just a tool for the States to pretty much force Russia to stay out? I mean, it was really just so we could occupy Japan and not worry about future communist influence. We had already firebombed over 11 major cities in Japan crippling them to their knees so it was of no tactical advantage for us to drop these bombs other to end Russia's detered advance.

Sadly, I'd argue against togepi about the general attitude of the general japanese citizen (not to justify it in any way) but the country was tied up in the heirachy of japanese culture. They were willing to unconditionally surrender before the bombs because they did not want to lose the idea of a emporer which was vastly supported by the population. I don't doubt that if asked to be a kamikazie pilot the average japanese citizen would have obliged during WWII if it was in the name of their country's advancement. I also believe that the culture and past tensions with China would make it fairly easy to argue that most japanese people would participate in the death camps in China. I wouldn't generalize that to any other group of people but there was a deep seeded hatred that goes far back between the two nations that shouldn't be doubted.

[x togepi x]

Has it been pointed out that the bombings were pretty much just a tool for the States to pretty much force Russia to stay out? I mean, it was really just so we could occupy Japan and not worry about future communist influence. We had already firebombed over 11 major cities in Japan crippling them to their knees so it was of no tactical advantage for us to drop these bombs other to end Russia's detered advance.

Sadly, I'd argue against togepi about the general attitude of the general japanese citizen (not to justify it in any way) but the country was tied up in the heirachy of japanese culture. They were willing to unconditionally surrender before the bombs because they did not want to lose the idea of a emporer which was vastly supported by the population. I don't doubt that if asked to be a kamikazie pilot the average japanese citizen would have obliged during WWII if it was in the name of their country's advancement. I also believe that the culture and past tensions with China would make it fairly easy to argue that most japanese people would participate in the death camps in China. I wouldn't generalize that to any other group of people but there was a deep seeded hatred that goes far back between the two nations that shouldn't be doubted.

i doubt these claims mainly because the jaws of defeat do a lot to change one's ideology. i mean it's one thing to be all gung ho about supporting the emperor when you're winning, but when it's obvious that you're losing? i'm not so sure. i think the hierarchical aspect of japanese culture is being a bit overstated here though. from what little i've studied about japanese history, and i could be wrong here, there's always been an undercurrent of dissension in japanese culture to emperor's regime. there's documented evidence of a Japanese communist party as early as 1922. I think it's fairly plausible that a large part of the populace, especially the leadership which knew its limitations especially if the Russians got into the war, could see the writing on the wall and feel like self preservation is more important. This is especially telling when you see how well the Japanese occupation went for the US after the war.

Part of the problem is that the true nature of Japanese culture during WW2 is completely unverifiable. Since General MacArthur refused to allow the OSS to operate in the Pacific theater, American intelligence on the Japanese was severely lacking. We don't know whether anti-war resistors agitated by someone like the communist party or pro-Westerners were at all effective. Interviews with Japanese soldiers tend to have them speaking about how they were defending their homeland. This may just be propaganda from the Japanese or it may reflect an attitude that could have been swayed towards surrender if surrendering was what would save Japan.

the thing about kamikazes were that they were really just special operations pilots who happened to get legendary status because some of them took suicidal lengths to stop the allies from getting to the mainland. there were interviews done with people in the same units who were pretty surprised at their actions. a lot of their mythos is essentially unverifiable tales from american sailors, who may have been merely passing down information other sailors told them.

[aatayyab]

You kill one person. You kill whole humanity. You save one person. You save whole humanity.

[ghostyouare]

You kill one person. You kill whole humanity. You save one person. You save whole humanity.
What if you kill hitler?

[deFobbed14yrs]

Yes, let's ignore the historical data that suggests the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bomb (or after the first one). Let's also look at the fact that you point to the kamikaze pilot (something many historians consider a myth, or at least a group of isolated incidents and not at all representative of the Japanese military) as proof.

This is why i'm telling you that you're spouting propaganda.



not angry, you're just a fucking moron.

kamikazes were real and they were citizens who had barely joined the military. I wrote a 20 page paper about this incident, so don't think I don't know my facts. I did weeks of research and read many books and articles and didn't just pull shit from my ass like you are doing. You are white, you have no idea what the word honor means to countries like Japan and other Asian countries back in those days, or even now.
And obviously the entire Japanese army were not kamikazes or else they would have defeated themselves. No one is saying that. Read the posts correct and educate yourself before you try to talk about something that you have no idea about.

Back 65 years ago, when the world was way more conservative then it is now, this was how things were done.

You don't know shit about Japan, as you have stated yourself. So don't call people idiots when you don't know shit. kthanksbye

[Scrandon]

i doubt these claims mainly because the jaws of defeat do a lot to change one's ideology. i mean it's one thing to be all gung ho about supporting the emperor when you're winning, but when it's obvious that you're losing? i'm not so sure. i think the hierarchical aspect of japanese culture is being a bit overstated here though. from what little i've studied about japanese history, and i could be wrong here, there's always been an undercurrent of dissension in japanese culture to emperor's regime. there's documented evidence of a Japanese communist party as early as 1922. I think it's fairly plausible that a large part of the populace, especially the leadership which knew its limitations especially if the Russians got into the war, could see the writing on the wall and feel like self preservation is more important. This is especially telling when you see how well the Japanese occupation went for the US after the war.

Part of the problem is that the true nature of Japanese culture during WW2 is completely unverifiable. Since General MacArthur refused to allow the OSS to operate in the Pacific theater, American intelligence on the Japanese was severely lacking. We don't know whether anti-war resistors agitated by someone like the communist party or pro-Westerners were at all effective. Interviews with Japanese soldiers tend to have them speaking about how they were defending their homeland. This may just be propaganda from the Japanese or it may reflect an attitude that could have been swayed towards surrender if surrendering was what would save Japan.

the thing about kamikazes were that they were really just special operations pilots who happened to get legendary status because some of them took suicidal lengths to stop the allies from getting to the mainland. there were interviews done with people in the same units who were pretty surprised at their actions. a lot of their mythos is essentially unverifiable tales from american sailors, who may have been merely passing down information other sailors told them.

You went from pompous asshole yelling "insane racism" to reasonable debater within one post. He is arguing the same side of the issue as me. Now I definitely know to ignore you from now on, you're a douche just for the sake of being a douche.

[sjb2k1]

i do believe it was as much of demonstration of power (at least the second bomb) to the soviets as it was to "try to end the war"

[x togepi x]

You went from pompous asshole yelling "insane racism" to reasonable debater within one post. He is arguing the same side of the issue as me. Now I definitely know to ignore you from now on, you're a douche just for the sake of being a douche.

You can barely read. i'm surprised you can even post here. There's a huge difference between him (who wrote an intelligent response that I just happen to disagree with) and you, who's just spouting propaganda.

[Matt Chylak]

i thought hiroshima was a great book, although it made me very sad.

[Simulcast]

Yes, let's ignore the historical data that suggests the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bomb (or after the first one). Let's also look at the fact that you point to the kamikaze pilot (something many historians consider a myth, or at least a group of isolated incidents and not at all representative of the Japanese military) as proof.

This is why i'm telling you that you're spouting propaganda.



not angry, you're just a fucking moron.

Is there not a considerable amount of footage showing the actions of kamikaze pilots?

[x togepi x]

kamikazes were real and they were citizens who had barely joined the military. I wrote a 20 page paper about this incident, so don't think I don't know my facts. I did weeks of research and read many books and articles and didn't just pull shit from my ass like you are doing.

I'm not pulling shit out of my ass. I'm talking about interviews i've read with so-called kamikaze themselves. A good portion of those pilots volunteered for those missions not out of the code of honor but because the survival rate of a Japanese fighter pilot was insanely low anyway. The attacks were isolated incidents, thus the idea that they were considered a viable strategy by the Japanese is a myth.

cool, you wrote a 20 page paper about it. People have also written 20 page papers detailing how abortion is wrong or conservative Christianity is the best religion. nice appeal to your own authority lol.

You are white, you have no idea what the word honor means to countries like Japan and other Asian countries back in those days, or even now.

You are not Japanese, so you have no idea what that word means to them either. I get that importance of the concept of honor to the Japanese, I'm telling you that it isn't so important that it turns Japanese people into mindless killing drones, which doesn't justify the nuking of two civilian cities after tons of others had already been firebombed.

And obviously the entire Japanese army were not kamikazes or else they would have defeated themselves. No one is saying that. Read the posts correct and educate yourself before you try to talk about something that you have no idea about.

Learn to read. I never said the entire Japanese army were kamikaze or implied that you said so. What I said was that you can't compare the Japanese populace as a whole or the Japanese army to the actions of the kamikaze because if they existed, they were

kamikazes were real and they were citizens who had barely joined the military. I wrote a 20 page paper about this incident, so don't think I don't know my facts. I did weeks of research and read many books and articles and didn't just pull shit from my ass like you are doing.

I'm not pulling shit out of my ass. I'm talking about interviews i've read with so-called kamikaze themselves. A good portion of those pilots volunteered for those missions not out of the code of honor but because the survival rate of a Japanese fighter pilot was insanely low anyway. The attacks were isolated incidents, thus the idea that they were considered a viable strategy by the Japanese is a myth.


Back 65 years ago, when the world was way more conservative then it is now, this was how things were done.

Cool, you just used an argument that justifies slavery.

It wasn't justifiable. Other posters have pointed out that even if Japan would fight to the end, they couldn't because their military was weaker than previously thought, and they had a lack of resources to continue the war.

kamikazes were real and they were citizens who had barely joined the military. I wrote a 20 page paper about this incident, so don't think I don't know my facts. I did weeks of research and read many books and articles and didn't just pull shit from my ass like you are doing.

I'm not pulling shit out of my ass. I'm talking about interviews i've read with so-called kamikaze themselves. A good portion of those pilots volunteered for those missions not out of the code of honor but because the survival rate of a Japanese fighter pilot was insanely low anyway. The attacks were isolated incidents, thus the idea that they were considered a viable strategy by the Japanese is a myth.


You don't know shit about Japan, as you have stated yourself. So don't call people idiots when you don't know shit. kthanksbye

No, I admitted I didn't have a perfect knowledge of Japanese history you fucking dolt. I do know that Japan has a vibrant history of counterculture (as evidenced by the fact that they had a fucking communist party when that was in vogue in the West). The fact that MacArthur wouldn't allow the OSS to operate in Japan is the key issue here because it really shows how flawed any claim on either side of this discussion has when they're claiming their view is historical fact. The fact is, we didn't have enough knowledge about the state of Japan during the end of the war to say 100% either way.

[x togepi x]

Is there not a considerable amount of footage showing the actions of kamikaze pilots?

Yes, but that footage doesn't show the motivations for their actions.

I know I haven't been completely clear with what I mean when I'm saying the kamikaze was a myth because I'm dealing with idiots like Scrandon but what I mean is that this idea that there were a big portion of Japanese soldiers who were willing to die for the emperor out of an extreme interpretation of the samurai code is a myth. Yes there were pilots who suicide bombed ships, but they were doing so because they felt like being any type of fighter pilot was already a suicide mission. Those bombings were, however, a lot less common than people want to believe.

so basically it wasn't that they never happened, i'm saying that their motivations aren't what we claim they are.

[Simulcast]

Yes, but that footage doesn't show the motivations for their actions.

I know I haven't been completely clear with what I mean when I'm saying the kamikaze was a myth because I'm dealing with idiots like Scrandon but what I mean is that this idea that there were a big portion of Japanese soldiers who were willing to die for the emperor out of an extreme interpretation of the samurai code is a myth. Yes there were pilots who suicide bombed ships, but they were doing so because they felt like being any type of fighter pilot was already a suicide mission. Those bombings were, however, a lot less common than people want to believe.

so basically it wasn't that they never happened, i'm saying that their motivations aren't what we claim they are.

I agree that it wasn't as widespread as is commonly accepted. As far as that bolded section, weren't Japanese planes outfitted with bombs in the nose specifically for kamikaze missions?

As far as motivations for fighting, I can't speak to your claim that their extreme loyalty to a samurai code was a myth. I can speak to the history of the Japanese military up to this point though. If anything, a nothing-to-lose mentality must have definitely existed among the rank and file. Remember that this was the same army that invaded mainland China and the South East Asia, committing unspeakable atrocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atrocities) along the way. I understand your desire to fight the dehumanization of the Japanese Army, but you have to consider the whole picture. Defeat would not only have been humiliating, it would have forced the Japanese to atone for their crimes.

Edit: I apologize for the wiki link. I just can't find a more comprehensive narrative online.

[x togepi x]

I agree that it wasn't as widespread as is commonly accepted. As far as that bolded section, weren't Japanese planes outfitted with bombs in the nose specifically for kamikaze missions?

Yeah, at one point. There were specifically meant to act as manned torpedoes.

As far as motivations for fighting, I can't speak to your claim that their extreme loyalty to a samurai code was a myth. I can speak to the history of the Japanese military up to this point though. If anything, a nothing-to-lose mentality must have definitely existed among the rank and file. Remember that this was the same army that invaded mainland China and the South East Asia, committing unspeakable atrocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atrocities) along the way. I understand your desire to fight the dehumanization of the Japanese Army, but you have to consider the whole picture. Defeat would not only have been humiliating, it would have forced the Japanese to atone for their crimes.

Edit: I apologize for the wiki link. I just can't find a more comprehensive narrative online.

The kamikaze phenomenon happened at the end of the war though. This is why I think the motivations are different. The kamikaze pilot was going on suicide missions to stall the allies from reaching the mainland. This was to protect their families. It wasn't the same as the Japanese who went into Asia and committed war crimes. This is why we see monuments to the kamikaze in other Asian countries but we don't see similar monuments celebrating the soldiers who participated in the atrocities that occurred in china.

I think we can and should draw distinctions between different types of actions by their military instead of lumping them all together.

[Simulcast]

Yeah, at one point. There were specifically meant to act as manned torpedoes.



The kamikaze phenomenon happened at the end of the war though. This is why I think the motivations are different. The kamikaze pilot was going on suicide missions to stall the allies from reaching the mainland. This was to protect their families. It wasn't the same as the Japanese who went into Asia and committed war crimes. This is why we see monuments to the kamikaze in other Asian countries but we don't see similar monuments celebrating the soldiers who participated in the atrocities that occurred in china.

I think we can and should draw distinctions between different types of actions by their military instead of lumping them all together.

I can agree with that.

I'll have to study up on Japanese culture during the war. Interesting stuff.

[deFobbed14yrs]

I'm not pulling shit out of my ass. I'm talking about interviews i've read with so-called kamikaze themselves. A good portion of those pilots volunteered for those missions not out of the code of honor but because the survival rate of a Japanese fighter pilot was insanely low anyway. The attacks were isolated incidents, thus the idea that they were considered a viable strategy by the Japanese is a myth.

cool, you wrote a 20 page paper about it. People have also written 20 page papers detailing how abortion is wrong or conservative Christianity is the best religion. nice appeal to your own authority lol.



You are not Japanese, so you have no idea what that word means to them either. I get that importance of the concept of honor to the Japanese, I'm telling you that it isn't so important that it turns Japanese people into mindless killing drones, which doesn't justify the nuking of two civilian cities after tons of others had already been firebombed.



Learn to read. I never said the entire Japanese army were kamikaze or implied that you said so. What I said was that you can't compare the Japanese populace as a whole or the Japanese army to the actions of the kamikaze because if they existed, they were



I'm not pulling shit out of my ass. I'm talking about interviews i've read with so-called kamikaze themselves. A good portion of those pilots volunteered for those missions not out of the code of honor but because the survival rate of a Japanese fighter pilot was insanely low anyway. The attacks were isolated incidents, thus the idea that they were considered a viable strategy by the Japanese is a myth.




Cool, you just used an argument that justifies slavery.

It wasn't justifiable. Other posters have pointed out that even if Japan would fight to the end, they couldn't because their military was weaker than previously thought, and they had a lack of resources to continue the war.



I'm not pulling shit out of my ass. I'm talking about interviews i've read with so-called kamikaze themselves. A good portion of those pilots volunteered for those missions not out of the code of honor but because the survival rate of a Japanese fighter pilot was insanely low anyway. The attacks were isolated incidents, thus the idea that they were considered a viable strategy by the Japanese is a myth.




No, I admitted I didn't have a perfect knowledge of Japanese history you fucking dolt. I do know that Japan has a vibrant history of counterculture (as evidenced by the fact that they had a fucking communist party when that was in vogue in the West). The fact that MacArthur wouldn't allow the OSS to operate in Japan is the key issue here because it really shows how flawed any claim on either side of this discussion has when they're claiming their view is historical fact. The fact is, we didn't have enough knowledge about the state of Japan during the end of the war to say 100% either way.


why the fuck did you split up my post and recopy it three times.

Obviously not real kamikazes, as they did not go through with their mission, or else they would be dead, and you an't talk to the dead.

Also I may not be Japanese , but i am Indian which classifies under Asian like i said. And you still have not done any reading to help yo understand that honor was a big fucking thing to those people.

I give up talking to you since you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and have completely derailed from the original argument.

[ghostyouare]

Is there not a considerable amount of footage showing the actions of kamikaze pilots?
Actually, there's not that much footage for the kamikaze pilots, most of the footage that we show today is old recreations of the way that get passed off as the real thing. Atleast that's what discovery channel told me a few weeks ago.

[Simulcast]

Actually, there's not that much footage for the kamikaze pilots, most of the footage that we show today is old recreations of the way that get passed off as the real thing. Atleast that's what discovery channel told me a few weeks ago.

I see.

[Scrandon]

You can barely read. i'm surprised you can even post here. There's a huge difference between him (who wrote an intelligent response that I just happen to disagree with) and you, who's just spouting propaganda.
He said the same thing as the point I was making; the Japanese were unlikely to surrender before use of the bomb.
The attacks were isolated incidents, thus the idea that they were considered a viable strategy by the Japanese is a myth.
Nobody said it was their main war strategy, we pointed to it as an example of the Japanese mindset, and it proves the point quite well. Stop twisting the other side of the argument.

It wasn't justifiable. Other posters have pointed out that even if Japan would fight to the end, they couldn't because their military was weaker than previously thought, and they had a lack of resources to continue the war.
Well how great of you to sit back and read books from historians who have had sixty years to study the war and it's circumstances. Then you have the audacity to vindicate the leaders who had to make life or death decisions during the war. They couldn't have known the Japanese army was weaker than they thought, they acted according to what was happening at the time.
Yes, but that footage doesn't show the motivations for their actions.

I know I haven't been completely clear with what I mean when I'm saying the kamikaze was a myth because I'm dealing with idiots like Scrandon but what I mean is that this idea that there were a big portion of Japanese soldiers who were willing to die for the emperor out of an extreme interpretation of the samurai code is a myth. Yes there were pilots who suicide bombed ships, but they were doing so because they felt like being any type of fighter pilot was already a suicide mission. Those bombings were, however, a lot less common than people want to believe.

so basically it wasn't that they never happened, i'm saying that their motivations aren't what we claim they are.
You twist my argument and then call me an idiot for saying things that I never said. I never said kamikazes were a large portion of their army. The fact that they used the Kamikaze strategy toward the end of the war further points to their reluctance to surrender. And sorry, but countercultural movements don't mean shit when the government is not democratic.

You think I'm so fucking dumb, yet you are unable to construct a convincing counter-argument to my assertions, so fuck your life buddy. I usually try not to get nasty or judgmental with people, but you earned it kid. You win my award for biggest douche in these forums, why don't you celebrate by kicking a straight white guy in the balls for no reason, that should make your day. Try not to cream you pants though, you'll lose your cool kid status. Peace out and kindly go fuck yourself.

[Love As Arson]

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.”)


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20478

[njdevils327]

Japan was going to surrender before the bombings, and American intelligence knew it because we broke the code early in the war. This tragedy should have been avoided.

You are a dolt. Bushido codes made it so japan did not and would not surrender unless shown it was absolutely futile.

The US even gave Japan 3 days to surrender after the first bomb and they refused.

Stop being so frigging dumb

[Simulcast]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html


Isn't Mark Weber an ardent holocaust denier?

[Love As Arson]

Apparently. My apologies for using such a source.

[bridgeofeldin]

You are a dolt. Bushido codes made it so japan did not and would not surrender unless shown it was absolutely futile.

The US even gave Japan 3 days to surrender after the first bomb and they refused.

Stop being so frigging dumb

Apparently. My apologies for using such a source.

My source was from Zinn, People's History of the United States. It's from the chapter "A People's War."

The Japanese code had been broken, and Japan's messages were being intercepted. It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies....

If only the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender - that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place - the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war

[njdevils327]

My source was from Zinn, People's History of the United States. It's from the chapter "A People's War."

Okay, how does this make logical sense?

[Scrandon]

You don't see a problem with allowing the power-hungry dictator who started Japan's expansionary policies to remain in power?

[open mind]

i think that even when you acknowledge the justifications for them that the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki are history's most effective acts of terrorism.

[bridgeofeldin]

We didn't have to kill 100,000 civilians with an atomic bomb to achieve peace. There are always alternative options when we are talking about such a grand scale of violence. I think that's the essential point of this whole thread. By August 1945, The emperor's cause was already lost and the country was in shambles. In all likely hood, Japan wasn't going to keep fighting.

We can debate historical evidence and "what ifs" all day. In the end, my mind can't be changed. Bombings like that should never happen. World War II was vicious. All we can hope for is that nothing like it ever occurs again.

[joeag1985]

We didn't have to kill 100,000 civilians with an atomic bomb to achieve peace. There are always alternative options when we are talking about such a grand scale of violence. I think that's the essential point of this whole thread. By August 1945, The emperor's cause was already lost and the country was in shambles. In all likely hood, Japan wasn't going to keep fighting.

We can debate historical evidence and "what ifs" all day. In the end, my mind can't be changed. Bombings like that should never happen. World War II was vicious. All we can hope for is that nothing like it ever occurs again.

hear, hear.

[InTheatersNow]

Fuck you dolphin, fuck you whale.

[SlappedActor]

I don't know much about WWII beyond the basics, so I'm genuinely curious about this, not trying to push any agenda.

A lot of the articles posted in this thread talk about how Japan was essentially on the brink of surrendering before the bomb was ever dropped. If this is true, then shouldn't the bombing of Hiroshima have produced a near immediate surrender on the part of the Japanese? Nagasaki wasn't bombed until three days later; why did the Japanese continue to hold out? You would think that if they were so close to surrendering, that just one bomb of that magnitude would have been more than enough to push them over the edge.

[SoCaliBananna93]

WAR IS HELL.. enough said...

[Simulcast]

I don't know much about WWII beyond the basics, so I'm genuinely curious about this, not trying to push any agenda.

A lot of the articles posted in this thread talk about how Japan was essentially on the brink of surrendering before the bomb was ever dropped. If this is true, then shouldn't the bombing of Hiroshima have produced a near immediate surrender on the part of the Japanese? Nagasaki wasn't bombed until three days later; why did the Japanese continue to hold out? You would think that if they were so close to surrendering, that just one bomb of that magnitude would have been more than enough to push them over the edge.

Good point.

[Kozzy333]

I don't know much about WWII beyond the basics, so I'm genuinely curious about this, not trying to push any agenda.

A lot of the articles posted in this thread talk about how Japan was essentially on the brink of surrendering before the bomb was ever dropped. If this is true, then shouldn't the bombing of Hiroshima have produced a near immediate surrender on the part of the Japanese? Nagasaki wasn't bombed until three days later; why did the Japanese continue to hold out? You would think that if they were so close to surrendering, that just one bomb of that magnitude would have been more than enough to push them over the edge.

From what I understand, Japan wasn't fully aware of what happened at Hiroshima before Nagasaki was bombed as well.

[Jason Tate]

I don't know much about WWII beyond the basics, so I'm genuinely curious about this, not trying to push any agenda.

A lot of the articles posted in this thread talk about how Japan was essentially on the brink of surrendering before the bomb was ever dropped. If this is true, then shouldn't the bombing of Hiroshima have produced a near immediate surrender on the part of the Japanese? Nagasaki wasn't bombed until three days later; why did the Japanese continue to hold out? You would think that if they were so close to surrendering, that just one bomb of that magnitude would have been more than enough to push them over the edge.
Worth starting here (http://libcom.org/history/world-war-ii-peoples-war-howard-zinn).

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war: Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

If only the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender- that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place-the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war.

[Simulcast]

Worth starting here (http://libcom.org/history/world-war-ii-peoples-war-howard-zinn).

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war: Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

If only the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender- that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place-the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war.


Zinn isn't exactly the greatest source for this... or much else unless you are looking for a certain viewpoint. By his own admission he presents a one-sided (distorted) view of American History:

...the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees, of the Civil War as seen by the New York Irish, of the Mexican war as seen by the deserting soldiers of Scott’s army, of the rise of industrialism as seen by the young women in the Lowell textile mills, of the Spanish–American war as seen by the Cubans, the conquest of the Philippines as seen by the black soldiers on Luzon, the Gilded Age as seen by southern farmers, the First World War as seen by socialists, the Second World War as seen by pacifists, the New Deal as seen by blacks in Harlem, the postwar American empire as seen by peons in Latin America.

Not to mention that many of his claims in that book have been debunked.

http://hnn.us/articles/4370.htmlv

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/03/the-peoples-historian

Not a great jumping off point.

[Jason Tate]

Zinn isn't exactly the greatest source for this... or much else unless you are looking for a certain viewpoint. By his own admission he presents a one-sided (distorted) view of American History:



Not to mention that many of his claims in that book have been debunked.

http://hnn.us/articles/4370.htmlv

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/03/the-peoples-historian

Not a great jumping off point.
If you want to discuss the information brought up - I'll be happy to discuss it. However, simply saying he presents a one sided view does not discount the claims made in the aforementioned link, nor do either of your "debunked" articles (I don't even see a reference to WWII in either) .

Your response is simple ad hominem.

The information is that of the The United States Strategic Bombing Survey. Something you can read right here (http://www.ussbs.com/). Your post doesn't even try and say the information provides is incorrect. Which is smart, because it's not -- as has been historically discussed in great length (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm) (Why Japan Surrendered and Japan's Longest Day both remain staples in this topic as well).

Eisenhower (Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe) says it quite well:

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

But the best quote, remains: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." -- Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

In other words, the virtually unanimous and combined judgment of the most informed, senior, officers of the U.S. military is unequivocal: there was no pressing military necessity for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

[Simulcast]

If you want to discuss the information brought up - I'll be happy to discuss it. However, simply saying he presents a one sided view does not discount the claims made in the aforementioned link, nor do either of your "debunked" articles (I don't even see a reference to WWII in either) .

Your response is simple ad hominem.

The information is that of the The United States Strategic Bombing Survey. Something you can read right here (http://www.ussbs.com/). Your post doesn't even try and say the information provides is incorrect. Which is smart, because it's not -- as has been historically discussed in great length (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm) (Why Japan Surrendered and Japan's Longest Day both remain staples in this topic as well).

Eisenhower (Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe) says it quite well:

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

But the best quote, remains: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." -- Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

In other words, the virtually unanimous and combined judgment of the most informed, senior, officers of the U.S. military is unequivocal: there was no pressing military necessity for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.


I am not disputing those facts. I simply take issue with the reliance on Zinn in any historical capacity. His rise as the prominent voice in American history is a tragedy to objective history as far as I'm concerned. I suppose you are correct in calling it an ad hominem.

[Jason Tate]

I am not disputing those facts. I simply take issue with the reliance on Zinn in any historical capacity. His rise as the prominent voice in American history is a tragedy to objective history as far as I'm concerned. I suppose you are correct in calling it an ad hominem.
I don't see how a reasonable case for "the prominent voice" could be made - he's not - or that he ever claimed to be "objective" in the aspects of history he discussed. But that brings one to question how any retelling of history could ever be, truly, considered objective. Regardless, the information on this topic remains extensive - and anyone trying to claim we needed to kill 100k civilians to stop the war - are out of their minds.

[Simulcast]

I don't see how a reasonable case for "the prominent voice" could be made - he's not - or that he ever claimed to be "objective" in the aspects of history he discussed. But that brings one to question how any retelling of history could ever be, truly, considered objective.


Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #89 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#3 in Books > History > Americas
#1 in Books > Nonfiction > Government > Democracy
#3 in Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Political Science > Political Doctrines

That's after more than 30 years since it's publication. It is also being adopted into the curriculum at many colleges and high schools.

As far as history being truly objective, it's clearly not an exact science. It boils down to one's ability to consider all aspects of a particular history and make a judgement based off of them. That Zinn makes no attempt to at all to supplement (or even consider) his views with those of other historians really makes it a poor piece of historical writing in my opinion. His book has a clear agenda, and it being regarded as a staple of American history is ludicrous. I simply don't understand the accolades this book has received.

Regardless, the information on this topic remains extensive - and anyone trying to claim we needed to kill 100k civilians to stop the war - are out of their minds.

You won't find any argument there from me.

[Orpheus42]

We didn't have to kill 100,000 civilians with an atomic bomb to achieve peace. There are always alternative options when we are talking about such a grand scale of violence. I think that's the essential point of this whole thread. By August 1945, The emperor's cause was already lost and the country was in shambles. In all likely hood, Japan wasn't going to keep fighting.

We can debate historical evidence and "what ifs" all day. In the end, my mind can't be changed. Bombings like that should never happen. World War II was vicious. All we can hope for is that nothing like it ever occurs again.

Tell that to the Japanese soldiers that were still holed up on tiny nameless islands and didn't surrender until 1974. While Japan economically couldn't produce or maintain anything to keep fighting, their soldiers were willing to fight till the death, in which cases they did.

[Jason Tate]

Tell that to the Japanese soldiers that were still holed up on tiny nameless islands and didn't surrender until 1974. While Japan economically couldn't produce or maintain anything to keep fighting, their soldiers were willing to fight till the death, in which cases they did.
Minor factions do not speak for "Japan" as a whole.