Atomic Weapons usage in WW2

[Simon Darkshade]

The ground here has been covered well. One would recommend a lovely text from 1965 entitled 'Japan's Longest Day', written from a Japanese perspective and providing the inside information on the Cabinet debates and actions in the 24 hours before the surrender broadcast by Hirohito.
If reading books and walking upright is your bag, of course.

 

[Djarum Kretek]

Originally posted by pawpaw


just like they were not forced to suprise attack china to start the sino-japanese war of1895 or suprise attack russia to start the 1905 russo-japanese war. i smell a trend

I think Japan also surprise attack China after the staged 'Marco Polo Bridge incident' in 1937 to start the Pacific War....:slay:

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Originally posted by Richard III
Don't think we've forgotten you; it's just that when someone is self-destructive enough to post links to quotes from Alperovitz's sloppilu researched book as though it's objective fact, that deserves a really really nasty response, of the sort that it takes time to build up in one's throat, much as one does when horcing up a big ball of mucus in one's throat for that special spit.

Thats just like a western American admirer to deny the facts. The Soviet Union could of used people like you to work on its state run TV. This is the first time i found a site online about atomic bomb useage online. I read books about it before. If you want i can link more sites and more and more.

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by Cactus_Jack



Thats just like a American to deny the facts. The Soviet Union could of used people like you to work on its state run TV.

if you look ,i don't think most of the people argueing with you are americans

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Originally posted by pawpaw
if you look ,i don't think most of the people argueing with you are americans

Ok will edit the post then

 

[Richard III]

Unbelievable, you closed-minded ass; preaching how open minded you are, and yet I've told you very specifically that I'm not an american. As for the substitute "American-admirer" or whatever, I think I've more than proven that I'm quite objective about the US, both in this thread (where I've done a better job of discussing the specifics of US policy in "latin america" than you have!) and in dozens of other threads. Stop trying to label other people to cover for your lack of perspective, and start listening, you might learn something.

There is a word used to describe those people who presume that having a certain opinion means you must be of a certain nationality:

It's called "Bigot."

Are you willing to have an intelligent discussion now, or are you going to continue to resort to bigotry?

R.III

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Originally posted by Richard III
Unbelievable, you closed-minded ass; preaching how open minded you are, and yet I've told you very specifically that I'm not an american. As for the substitute "American-admirer" or whatever, I think I've more than proven that I'm quite objective about the US, both in this thread (where I've done a better job of discussing the specifics of US policy in "latin america" than you have!) and in dozens of other threads. Stop trying to label other people to cover for your lack of perspective, and start listening, you might learn something.

There is a word used to describe those people who presume that having a certain opinion means you must be of a certain nationality:

It's called "Bigot."

Are you willing to have an intelligent discussion now, or are you going to continue to resort to bigotry?

R.III

Heres my world veiw. Every Goverment is evil (some are a lot wrose than others though) the more powerfull the more evil it is. (Like IMHO the two worst goverments is most likely the USA china or perhaps russia.)


Now feel free to correct me if i am wrong, but a lot of people have this veiw. The USA can do no wrong, everything it does it does with noble intentions. Anyone who resists the USA or who is its enemy is evil. I just judge things by actions. Do you deny what happens in Latin Ameirca. Do you deny the millions of innocent people where killed in Veitnam by bombs alone? They say that the country will be lucky to recover in a 100 years. Just wondering what you take its on the USA actions?

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Cactus_Jack
Do you deny what happens in Latin Ameirca. Do you deny the millions of innocent people where killed in Veitnam by bombs alone?

Is there a sigh smiley? An exhausted, frustrated sigh smiley?

Look above you, where I made a post that you obviously didn't bother to read. Where I said...

Originally posted by Richard III
1. You clearly did not read my post; I'm quite aware of "latin america," no matter how many times you repeat it, I'm quite certain I'm more aware of the details than you are.

I'm quite aware, for instance, of the U.S. support for Anastasio Somoza (know him? Can you name his sons? Can you tell me which one took power? Was it Luis, or Anastasio Jr.? Don't look it up, tell me!), or the "exercise and drop" policy to leave weapons behind for the Contras in Honduras in the '80s; I'm aware that the US helped the British and a coalition of central american states expel adventurer William Walker from his rule of Nicaragua, just as I'm aware that US marines hunted Sandinistas in the late 1920s and early 1930s. I'm aware of Teddy Roosevelt's support for the Panamanian rebels that got him his canal through someone unsavory means, and I'm aware of the sordid history of the fall of Allende in Chile, the Junta in Argentina, the coup in Brazil, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

"Genocide" is not, actually, a technically correct term for any American intervention in Latin America, since at no time has the United States ever tried to eliminate or displace a Latin American nation or people. Guatemala certainly did, but in that case, it was more US indifference that was an issue, given that US interest at the time was much more focused on El Salvador and Nicaragua. While US forces, US governments and US troops or representatives have on many occasions been complicit in what could be called "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity," the central question is this: what, if anything, does any of this have to do with a conversation about Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his successor finding it necessary to build and use atomic weapons in 1945? If we were talking about the FMLN using an atom bomb on Miami in 1982, then all of your moral points might actually be of some help to us. They are not.

R.III

As I've asked elsewhere, I know "what happens" in Latin America, my bigger question is do you, or are you just repeating a random slogan?

Your comment about "millions dead" due to bombing in Vietnam is an exaggeration which is totally unecessary to make your point. US bombing of civilian targets did account for tens of thousands of deaths (58,000, by several accounts) but this was by no means the most costly aspect of the war; the large majority of the deaths in the war were due to battle deaths of NVA or RSVN soldiers or VC guerrillas. Note, for instance, that official NVA sources cite 1.1 million dead in the NVA military alone from 1954-1975, which when added to South Vietnamese army losses should right there make up a majority of deaths in the entire theatre for the war.

Originally posted by Cactus_Jack

Now feel free to correct me if i am wrong, but a lot of people have this veiw. The USA can do no wrong, everything it does it does with noble intentions. Anyone who resists the USA or who is its enemy is evil. I just judge things by actions... Just wondering what you take its on the USA actions?

My take on the US's actions is to not be a bigot, much as I try to with other countries. [France is an exception, but I am atoning for that error. ] I am quite critical of how the US fought the cold war, and have been so all of my life, but that doesn't mean I'm going to assume "the US is bad," or "the US loves war;" for large periods of history, the US was actually pretty pacifist by european standards. I spent a large chunk of the winter of 1990-91 demonstrating against the US's First Gulf War, so I don't need you to lecture me about being objective.

Many nations have done many bad things. It might not surprise you that my grandfather witnessed many Japanese doing many bad things in 1942-45 with XIVth Army in Burma - that's the Imperial XIVth, in case you missed it, he was a Londoner like you -but that doesn't mean I'm going to assume that Japan is implicitly a bad nation either; I happen to quite like Japan, and all I'm asking is that you do for the US what I do for Japan, e.g don't prejudge Japan's history today by Japan's history yesterday, and VICE-VERSA. History is important, but it isn't a trap.

I should add that you still haven't responded to intelligent questions from the likes of Private Hudson, who asks "how could the bombing in Vietnam influence what happened 20 years before?"

Just try, for one second, to remove all of the "other stuff" - the good, and bad, about America for the moment, and look at the A-bomb decision without PREJUDGING (e.g. prejudicing) their motives. Given the circumstances then - not in 1996, or 1972, but then, was it a difficult but understandable decision? I'm not asking if it was an easy decision; as I've said before, I'm not even sure I would drop it, and I'm quite sympathetic to those who wouldn't for strictly pacifist reasons.

But what I object to is the assumption that dropping it was an entirely malevolent decision when the circumstances were clearly more complicated than many are willing to accept. And that assumption is usually made for the reasons you throw out: e.g. Americans bad. But it's not that simple; some Americans aren't bad, and even bad Americans are good some of the time.

R.III

 

[Mrogreturns]

I don't like giving out back-pats for posts and I have never done it before- but you leave me no choice RIII.

As for me, I had an uncle who suffered under the Japanese in WWII, but I am also married to a Japanese woman and live in Japan. It is very clear to me that what happened to the people of Hiroshima was a horrible tragedy. But it wasn't as if it came out of the blue. As for whether the U.S had a better choice- I have heard a number of people suggesting that the Japanese had offered a surrender on the same conditions as were eventually accepted. I am not sufficiently familiar with the matter to know and I would be supprised if all the necessary primary sources wer e in the public domain to allow anyone to be sure of this. Until such time as that issue is resolved in my mind my only real response to this question is that I am profoundly grateful that I didn't have to make that decision. I know its a small and selfish response , but it is the best I can do.

 

[Djarum Kretek]

Richard III,

It is so obvious (to me) that whatever you've said were based on many (if not all) historical records made from many sources (some from the US and some from its rivals, even), your reasoning made a lot of sense and your conclusion is very fair.

I love to study World history and all that I've read (before reading more of your insights) led to the conclusion that using nukes in Mr. Truman's case was justified.

PS: I'm not American at all...

 

[steviejay]

using the nukes was justified in my opinion. why?? cause I've seen the casulty numbers for a possible invasion and I KNOW that thats the only way Japan would have surrendered. Would Hitler have given up power and surrendered? no, and neither would the Warlords in charge of Japan at that time

PS: I'm Scotish

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Originally posted by steviejay
using the nukes was justified in my opinion. why?? cause I've seen the casulty numbers for a possible invasion and I KNOW that thats the only way Japan would have surrendered. Would Hitler have given up power and surrendered? no, and neither would the Warlords in charge of Japan at that time

PS: I'm Scotish

Yeah but they didnt need to invade, but they dropped them anyway. Didnt you look at the link?

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Originally posted by Richard III


Is there a sigh smiley? An exhausted, frustrated sigh smiley?

Look above you, where I made a post that you obviously didn't bother to read. Where I said...



As I've asked elsewhere, I know "what happens" in Latin America, my bigger question is do you, or are you just repeating a random slogan?

Your comment about "millions dead" due to bombing in Vietnam is an exaggeration which is totally unecessary to make your point. US bombing of civilian targets did account for tens of thousands of deaths (58,000, by several accounts) but this was by no means the most costly aspect of the war; the large majority of the deaths in the war were due to battle deaths of NVA or RSVN soldiers or VC guerrillas. Note, for instance, that official NVA sources cite 1.1 million dead in the NVA military alone from 1954-1975, which when added to South Vietnamese army losses should right there make up a majority of deaths in the entire theatre for the war.



My take on the US's actions is to not be a bigot, much as I try to with other countries. [France is an exception, but I am atoning for that error. ] I am quite critical of how the US fought the cold war, and have been so all of my life, but that doesn't mean I'm going to assume "the US is bad," or "the US loves war;" for large periods of history, the US was actually pretty pacifist by european standards. I spent a large chunk of the winter of 1990-91 demonstrating against the US's First Gulf War, so I don't need you to lecture me about being objective.

Many nations have done many bad things. It might not surprise you that my grandfather witnessed many Japanese doing many bad things in 1942-45 with XIVth Army in Burma - that's the Imperial XIVth, in case you missed it, he was a Londoner like you -but that doesn't mean I'm going to assume that Japan is implicitly a bad nation either; I happen to quite like Japan, and all I'm asking is that you do for the US what I do for Japan, e.g don't prejudge Japan's history today by Japan's history yesterday, and VICE-VERSA. History is important, but it isn't a trap.

I should add that you still haven't responded to intelligent questions from the likes of Private Hudson, who asks "how could the bombing in Vietnam influence what happened 20 years before?"

Just try, for one second, to remove all of the "other stuff" - the good, and bad, about America for the moment, and look at the A-bomb decision without PREJUDGING (e.g. prejudicing) their motives. Given the circumstances then - not in 1996, or 1972, but then, was it a difficult but understandable decision? I'm not asking if it was an easy decision; as I've said before, I'm not even sure I would drop it, and I'm quite sympathetic to those who wouldn't for strictly pacifist reasons.

But what I object to is the assumption that dropping it was an entirely malevolent decision when the circumstances were clearly more complicated than many are willing to accept. And that assumption is usually made for the reasons you throw out: e.g. Americans bad. But it's not that simple; some Americans aren't bad, and even bad Americans are good some of the time.

R.III

I know the US goverment is evil. I dont brand people the same as the goverment. You should never kill civilians never. Unless you have no choice. For exsample the sactions where punishing and staring the people of Iraq. Saddams crimes did not justifly that. Just like the bomb on Japan was a crime. The other side doing bad things doesnt like you off the hook.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Cactus_Jack

You should never kill civilians never. Unless you have no choice.... Just like the bomb on Japan was a crime.

And right there is our argument in a nice capsule. We argue that the US had no choice. You argue that they did.

Clearly, I AM going to have to waste an evening digging through those sources if you're still clinging to Alperowitz's liferaft.

R.III

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Want me to look for others? I can find them fairly easy. Also the site quotes famous Ameircan figgures. Do you deny they said the things on the site?

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by Cactus_Jack



I know the US goverment is evil. You should never kill civilians never. Unless you have no choice.

yet the british killed thousands in bomber raids on germany and in the boer wars. the french and belgium did the same in their african conquest. nazi germany? the spanish invasions of the new world? everybody has done it one time or another. your fixation with american "crimes" is misleading--your fixation is with america period!

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Well most of these other crimes are in the past. I dont go on about soviet crimes so much for exsample cause i dont live there. Ask the UK is the USA partner in crime what the USA does is inportant. I am concerned about USA infulence on the UK and Europe too. Also what i have read about certian things in Latin America Iraqi etc really disgusts me. I am ashamed of the british empire i know it did evils things. It still does just has less power to do them. Also the British killed millions not thousands please dont shortchange there crimes so to speak.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Originally posted by Cactus_Jack

I know the US goverment is evil. I dont brand people the same as the goverment. You should never kill civilians never.

Well by your definition, that would make every country in the world evil. What government hasn't killed any civilians in their history? Also you seem to enjoy picking on the United States out of any other country. Forget about Robert Mugabe and his dictatorship and forget about human rights in North Korea, let’s focus on the United States as the source of all evil!

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV


Well by your definition, that would make every country in the world evil. What government hasn't killed any civilians in their history? Also you seem to enjoy picking on the United States out of any other country. Forget about Robert Mugabe and his dictatorship and forget about human rights in North Korea, let’s focus on the United States as the source of all evil!

I will say this again We are we in north korea? Also we(the US and UK i mean) dont want to help the people there do you get that concept? The USA and UK dont give a crap ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS ANYWHRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you get that? want me to say that again? Do i have too? do i realy realy realy have too?

Just becuase a country clams to care about human rights doesnt mean it does. Many country have clammed the same thing.( The Soviet Union used to boast proudly about that no one here rightly so didnt take that a face vaule) The USA gushed about helping the people of Vietnam while commiting atrocities there. Answer me this how do you defend Vietnam? Please dont go it was a mutal war. The USA was the invader the aggressor.

The UK is part of The USA empire. So what ever crimes they commit we take part in. They are the heirs to the British empire. In fact our media gushes about your goverment, and forgets to mention certian things about the USA. Also your war criminal of a president is coming to vist our war criminal of a prime minister. when no one wants him here.

Its annoying talking to closed minds. I am convinced if the USA nuked a random country for the hell of it some of you would find some reason to justify it. (using a extreme example but it could happen if the president lost it)


Put it this way if the USA gives a crap about human rights why do they supprt allys like Turkey China indonesia pakistan etc. Also in the past the USA has backed criminals like Pol Pot. A genocide happening, and the US doenst care. The promise of never again has long been broken. Well i supose we dont count Asians do we?(Pol pot killed 2 million of his own people)

The USA overthrew a democratically ellected goverment in Chile. (Please they where socalists not comminusts dont use that feeble excuse.) They backed the Contras, death sqauds in nicaragua that use rape and killing as means to intimidate the local peasnts population cause they are where trying to form unions and put in land reforms.(God how evil they deserved what ever they got.) What about the recent case of venezuela? The US suported a attemped coup of a democratically ellected presidemt. It failed cuase the milltary stopped it, and there was a popular protests about it. What about Saddam they suported him in the 80s to get him to fight Iran they even armed both countrys at the time at the cost of about 1 million lives. . I could on and on and on and on and on and on i can prove each case. I have read about the same cases, from unrelated books internet sites tv progams. So are you telling me me not to give a **** about any of this? I telll me not to mention this? I am not going to pretend it is not happening. Try and reply with points to make dont bash me cuase it doesnt disprove anything

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Cactus_Jack
The USA gushed about helping the people of Vietnam while commiting atrocities there. Answer me this how do you defend Vietnam? Please dont go it was a mutal war. The USA was the invader the aggressor.

If the US was the aggressor, then why did hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese troops die to defend themselves and their communities when desertion was an easy alternative? And if the US was the aggressor, one has to wonder why they weren't more aggressive; I've never seen one person argue that the US did not have the military means to crush North Vietnam if it wanted to, but instead, the US kept its troops (if not its aircraft) on the other side of the border. Funny sort of aggression if you ask me; 500,000 NVA on the south side of the DMZ, and the "aggressors" have nothing north of the DMZ. Odd, huh?

I don't defend HOW the US fought the Vietnam War, but to pretend that the US participation was out of some sort of measurable self-interest is about as silly as those people who argue that Kosovo was all about some run-down mineral mine.

I'm still waiting for your details on when "postwar" is and what "setup" a democracy means in OT, btw.