Hiroshina and Nagasaki -- Speak Out

[allan]

Rmsharpe (from the original post of the thread): "It was morally wrong and barbaric to release a world of hell by using the atomic bomb on Japanese civilians."

I sure wouldn't want to be the one to have to make the decision there, at that time. Thank God it wasn't my decision to make....

"As well, I have extreme anger and fury towards President Franklin D. Roosevelt for locking up the Japanese citizens in America (many of them being born in America themselves.) That was as sad of a chapter as the people that were forced into slavery by European settlers and many African warlords."

I agree about the internment camps. If another besides FDR had been president, would it still have happened though? Probably. Racial attitudes were what they were then. And some would argue (quite well, I might add) that the internment may have protected a rather conspicuous (in appearance) group of people from retaliatory "vigilante"-type violence of many other Americans--but then the internment should have been VOLUNTARY, i.e. anyone who thought he was in such danger from his neighbors could seek internment as a sort of asylum.... The way it was actually done, i.e. forcibly, was wrong IMHO too.

"It may shock everyone as I type this, due to my nationalistic stand of the United States, but there have been great atrocities committed by F.D.R. and Truman, the racial demagauges of World War II."

It is here where I wonder if your post was, at least in part, a way to bash two democratic presidents. In which case I would say, the war was WAY beyond partisan politics--ANY president would have probably done similar things, including dropping the a-bomb, because partisan differences even then were so miniscule compared to the broad, earth-moving implications of WWII itself. The war was driving us at least as much as our leaders were driving the war....

There are certainly MANY things that you can criticize FDR and Truman for, and I'd agree with most of those criticisms probably. But what happened in the sphere of the war itself was no doubt always a challenge for even the greatest of men. I'm just grateful that whoever was in charge didn't lose the war or get us all killed....

"The Japanese are good people, and I am sickened by the barbarism committed by people that had recieved great support of America."

I'm sad that it happened, although it probably had to. I visited both memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I sat up thinking about what I'd seen in the pictures and cried. I was living in Japan and was very close to some Japanese too. But what would the alternative have been for these people? They would probably have died one way or another by our hand, and likely in far larger numbers had we invaded. Yes, women and children too.

It's good that you understand the horror of what took place on those two days though. Understanding of this will better help us to steer ourselves away from situations that would necessitate this kind of thing happening again. Plus it shows that you are a human being.

 

[CurtSibling]

I shudder to think what have may occurred if Germany had not
been prevented from finishing it's own nuclear program.

The heavy water facility in Norway was destroyed by British Commandos.
Also due to the Nazi's racism and scaring off valuable scientists...

Had Hitler built his own bomb, this coupled with long range
Ju290 bombers and V2 technology would have presented a
nasty choice for the allies...
Let London and Moscow be nuked or sue for peace...

But the German nuke program was put on the back burner....Lucky eh?

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by RedWolf
I like how whenever somebody disagrees with you then their opinion must be nonsense. You haven't changed a bit have you?

Neither have you, I see.
Still left leaning nonsense in the guise of historical varasity that never holds water under closer examination.
Your BS never does change, does it?

You can tell me that i am wrong about the japanese being "on the verge of surrender" but there are a great many people that believe this to be true and they are more qualified than either you or I to judge that.

You are dead wrong, as I have already pointed out.
In Japan itself, more tyhen half the military and government favored fighting to the death, finding it preferable to surender, it was only Hirohito's word that changed this, as duty to the emperor was paramount.
This argument by you was ridicuolous then and is ridiculous now.

Dwight Eisenhower
Admiral William Leahy (Chief of Staff to Trumann)
General Douglas MacArthur
John Mcloy (Ass. Secretary of War)
Ralph Bard (Under-secretary of the Navy)
Paul Nitze (Vice Chairman, U.S Strategic Bombing Survey)
Ellis Zacharias (Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Inteligence)

Here are some quotes to read:
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Cute little web site, taking comments out of context to support an argument is an old trick BTW.
Why not list those in favor:

Truman
Roosevelt
King
Nimitz
Marshall
LeMay

Just as impressive a list, isn't it?
Sorry, no web site, you will have to actually read books to find it out.

There are experts that disagree - so the idea IS debatable... but my opinion certainly isn't nonsense.

Name ONE.

For the record - any opinion that casts the American government in a bad light does NOT automatically become nonsense.

Never said it did.
But this childish argument is over 50 years old, and still finds gulible adherants such as yourself willing to subscribe to it.
I also see you neglected to mention the members of the A-bomb team that "opposed" it useage, such as Slizzard.
That would be the same crew that passed atomic secrets to the Soviets, causing the entire planet to live in fear for generations because they thougfht it the right thing to do.

Thats the second post of yours in this thread that has taken the "i'm american and you must be wrong, young, and stupid because you disagree" attitude.

Not at all.
Just because you fit a profile has zero to do with me.
The fact is, I remember the attitude of posters over time, it's part of my job here, your part of the "question everything-rebel without a cause" crew.
That's why I find your objectivity questionable at best.

Here is an open letter (by historians) to the Smithsonian questioning their interpretation of the atomic bombings:

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

They question whether Hiroshima was a legitimate target, not whether use of the bomb was needed.
I do see where the other link came from though.

As for the Japanese contacting the Soviets... you can "doubt most strongly" all you want but this appears to be fact. Truman even admitted it in his diaries. Note that in my original post i even quoted the source of the japanese transmission.

If you want fact, Japan's forgien office tried repeatedly to use the Soviets as a third party, this avenue was denied from the Russian side.
A good book to read abvout thios (and this whole topic, really) is The Fall of Japan by William Craig, another from the military aspect of the bombing of Japan culminating in the A-Bomb strikes is Point of no return by W.H Morrison.

As far as racism goes - war is always about racism to some extent. Why do you think our culture creates racial slurs to describe the enemy? "japs", "gooks" etc. If we truly believed that the people we kill are exactly like ourselves then how could we kill them? I'm not saying we kill them BECAUSE of racism - but it makes it easier if we can believe that they are "different" than us or "evil".

You asserted that the US would not use atomic weapons on Germany, not I.
Racism played no part in those decisions.

How else could politicians at the time convince the population that it was morally and legally justified to deprive an entire ethnic group of their rights, freedom and possessions. (Again - I'm not blaming just the U.S. WE interned Japanese Canadians as well and it's one of the darkest moments in my country's history).

Your jumping around from point to point.
This is why I have such trouble with what you say, because your a Crusader, trying to tack this or that reason for events instead of what really happened.

Racism was alive and strong in the 40's I'm afraid. I don't think anyone said "lets drop this bomb so we can kill a whole bunch of japs" but I do think that it's easier for a population to hate another group of people when they're a different ethnic group - more so at that time in our history.

Of course it was, but we are discussing the A-bomb here, not 1940s morality.
It might also be mentioned (since you neglected to) that Japan intered all forigners in it's borders, and keep many whites in internment camps in the domains they took.
It might be also timely to comment on how Japan viewed everyone who wasn't Japanese to be sub-human barbarians "Gaijin", so that most certinly runs both ways, and changes nothing about the a-bombs.

Me thinking that the atomic bombing was wrong is NOT biased and wrong. It is my opinion.

Then say that WITHOUT the moralizing.

It comes down to whether you believe that any country should ever be "justified" in killing 100,000 men, women and children in the blink of an eye (and then doing it AGAIN 3 days later)

Spoken like someone who's life has never been in jeopardy.
I wonder, would your opinion still be the same if you were aboard an attack transport headed to towards the beach at Kyushu because your high command was worried what the opinion of people 50+ years in the future might have a negative effect.
I might also add that many who talked about being against the a-bomb in 45, that it was a terible weapon (like Ike, for example) are working on selective memory, since Ike wasn't shown the Trinty results, nor the film of it till years later, and even Oppenhiemer wasn't sure what would happen, so he can't play the "informed guess" card.
Hind-sight is indeed 20-20

I personally do not accept it. You are entitled to believe whatever you want and so am I.

Sure you are.
But say "I'm oppoded to it for this reason", not what you said "Just that the destruction of civilians on that scale (and the resulting radiation sickness) is sick and unjustified".

Save your moralizing for yourself.

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by RedWolf
I like how whenever somebody disagrees with you then their opinion must be nonsense. You haven't changed a bit have you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither have you, I see.
Still left leaning nonsense in the guise of historical varasity that never holds water under closer examination.
Your BS never does change, does it?

Anyone else see the humour in this? You call redwolfs reply nonsense when he says you would.

It validates redwolfs statement in my book.

For the record I agree with the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki (to a lesser degree) but I feel that while I think rewolfs opinion is wrong I can't call it BS. There are FACTS that back up his opinion. I still don't agree with it but that doesn't make it nonsense either.

It must be nice to be so confident in my opinions that I can dismiss everything else as crap.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Neither have you, I see.
Still left leaning nonsense in the guise of historical varasity that never holds water under closer examination.
Your BS never does change, does it?


I accussed you of dismissing my arguments as "nonsense" simply because you didn't like it - yet you reply to me by dismissing it as "left leaning nonsense". Doesn't that prove my point? You disagree with me so therefore you think I'm stupid.


You are dead wrong, as I have already pointed out.
In Japan itself, more tyhen half the military and government favored fighting to the death, finding it preferable to surender, it was only Hirohito's word that changed this, as duty to the emperor was paramount.
This argument by you was ridicuolous then and is ridiculous now.


Yes and i have admitted this in an earlier post. Japan surrendered only because the emperor gave the word - which means one thing - that in order to force Japan into surrender you didn't have to convince an ENTIRE country of fanatical people to lay down arms - just that one person. One bomb could have been used, even a test explosion and a threat. MAY have worked we'll never know.


Cute little web site, taking comments out of context to support an argument is an old trick BTW.
Why not list those in favor:

Truman
Roosevelt
King
Nimitz
Marshall
LeMay


Why not list those in favour? It's obvious there are those that support the a-bomb. THATS why it happened. I don't have to prove that. MY point is that the idea of it NOT being needed is a valid debatable issue. (not nonsense as you claim) As for it being "out of context"... those quotes clearly demonstrate that those people feel the atomic bombs to be WRONG. They say that quite clearly - I don't think any context would change that.



Name ONE.


I ALREADY DID NAME MORE THAN ONE BUT YOU AREN'T LISTENING AND ARE TWO BUSY HATING ME BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH YOU!!

Dwight Eisenhower
Admiral William Leahy (Chief of Staff to Trumann)
General Douglas MacArthur
John Mcloy (Ass. Secretary of War)
Ralph Bard (Under-secretary of the Navy)
Paul Nitze (Vice Chairman, U.S Strategic Bombing Survey)
Ellis Zacharias (Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Inteligence)

Here are some quotes to read:
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm


team that "opposed" it useage, such as Slizzard.
That would be the same crew that passed atomic secrets to the Soviets, causing the entire planet to live in fear for generations because they thougfht it the right thing to do.Not at all.


Thats irrelevant. Simply because a few people passed secrets to the soviets.. you think that makes all of us traitors? Simply because i ALSO believe that the atomic bombings were not needed.


Just because you fit a profile has zero to do with me.
The fact is, I remember the attitude of posters over time, it's part of my job here, your part of the "question everything-rebel without a cause" crew.
That's why I find your objectivity questionable at best.


There you go again calling me young and stupid. You forgot to mention "compasionatte" though. If disagreeing with the vaporization of innocent men, women and children makes me a "questions everything without a cause rebel" then so be it.
I apologize for thinking for myself - I certainly wouldn't fit in your country.


If you want fact, Japan's forgien office tried repeatedly to use the Soviets as a third party, this avenue was denied from the Russian side.


So whats your point? Mine was that the Japanese were trying to sue for peace. First you tell me that you highly doubt that they contacted the soviets.... now you tell me they did...


Of course it was, but we are discussing the A-bomb here, not 1940s morality.
It might also be mentioned (since you neglected to) that Japan intered all forigners in it's borders, and keep many whites in internment camps in the domains they took.
It might be also timely to comment on how Japan viewed everyone who wasn't Japanese to be sub-human barbarians "Gaijin", so that most certinly runs both ways, and changes nothing about the a-bombs.


Of course I'm discussing 1940's morality. and THATS my point.
People's attitudes about the world influence the decisions they make (even politicians - they're only human after all). I believe that 1940's morality had a LOT to do with dropping bombs on innocent people.

As for Japan's attitude towards foreigners... You're absolutely right. But it doesn't mean that 2 wrongs make a right (although right wingers always seem to believe that it DOES).


Then say that WITHOUT the moralizing. Spoken like someone who's life has never been in jeopardy.
I wonder, would your opinion still be the same if you were aboard an attack transport headed to towards the beach at Kyushu because your high command was worried what the opinion of people 50+ years in the future might have a negative effect.


You're right. My life has never been in jeopardy. And if I was on those landing craft I would probably be thinking "Whew... I'm glad i don't have to wade ashore on those beaches". BUT just because a political decision personally benefited me - THAT doesn't make it right. The U.S. could have dropped a huge nuclear bomb on North Vietnam if they had of wanted to and the problem would have been solved - all of those American kids could have gone home and maybe 58,000 American lives would have been saved - I'm even sure that every one of them would be thinking "wow I'm glad THATS over - I get to live" and thats understandable. BUT by itself the idea of saving some american lives (by destroying civilian lives) does not make the act morally justified in the "big" picture.


Save your moralizing for yourself.


This argument is very much about morality.
There ARE valid arguments for both sides of the coin. I happen to believe in MY side and i believe that it's debatable. You obviously don't.

I don't dislike you because you disagree with me (I have a right wing friend and we argue frequently but are still friends) I dislike you because you disagree with me by calling my argument nonsense - you dislike ME simply because I have left leaning views and because I question "the american way". Well thats fine - maybe one day you'll get to be president - George Dubbya did after all. My country's turning into the same thing - Dare to question what the all-mighty Ameicans do and automatically you become a traitor.

Have a good life.

 

[RedWolf]

I'd just like to offer some words of praise to Allan.

I believe him to be one of the best posters on this forum. I don't always agree with his opinions and he doesn't always agree with mine but he ALWAYS argues fairly and treats people with respect.

He has an ability to see both sides of every issue and never talks down to those he disagrees with. This thread has demonstrated this one again.

He has true class and is a better man than I.

Peace.

 

[Richard III]

I see you're around the corner from me (as in Ontario), working for the man. I'm not sure which man,

I don't think you or rmsharpe are crazy to have your view, and as I said at a more reasonable stage of this conversation, I can understand why you would WANT to beleive the bombing was entirely unnecessary, or racially driven, or whatever. Until I spent some soul-searching time looking into the details, I thought the same way.

This is one of those ugly arguments that is made so ugly by the fact that there is some truth to both sides. Obviously, nuking a city is horrible. Obviously, people should think seventy times before doing it, and thirty after. But I just think you have to be less partisan to your position and look at the facts in the context of what they were dealing with at the time, I think you'll see that the choice wasn't quite as simple as you make out.

Inspired by this debate, just added to my "end of Japan" collection this weekend with "Downfall," which specifically argues in favour of the decision to bomb. (I have other texts for and against; much of what you're saying seems consistent with Gar Alpovitz's "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," for example, and I found "The Last Great Victory" to be a strong if subtle advocate for my current position.)

Since Downfall directly deals with the arguments you've put forward, and the author tries to put Leahy and Eisenhower's remarks in context, and since we are in the same province, I would be happy to try and hunt down another copy to leave at the base of the CN tower or some suitable neutral spot if need be. Because really, there IS another side, and you still haven't shed any light on why the concerns about prisoners, occupied areas and ongoing casualties should have been dismissed.

Let's put it another way: if the bomb had been ready to drop on Germany in late 1944, would it have been worth it then?

R.III

 

[allan]

Thanks for the compliment, RedWolf (blush...).

I personally don't see a problem with questioning the use of the atomic bombs on Japan. Given that these things are so horrible, it is natural for human beings to keep pondering on whether there was another possible solution that would have spared more lives.

Obviously these questions may make us all uncomfortable though, because if there ever could have been something else we could have tried first, it makes our actions look more guilty. But I'd rather have that twinge of guilt sticking in all of us, thereby helping our nation to seek ways to avoid using these weapons again, than have everybody be comfortable and complacent in their historical use, so that history can more easily repeat....

Again, it seems likely to me that they would have had to be used on Japan in that situation--but we can't entirely shut out the possibility that we could have at least tried some other things first. And I'm sure some of the leaders in charge were thinking this same thing after they ordered the bombings, too--and were probably thinking that for the rest of their lives. I'm glad I didn't have to make those horrible decisions.

But healthy questioning of past decisions, especially involving such horrible things as a-bombs, is never a bad thing--it shows our humanity. And it shows our concern that we never, "have to" or not, do these things again.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by RedWolf
I accussed you of dismissing my arguments as "nonsense" simply because you didn't like it - yet you reply to me by dismissing it as "left leaning nonsense". Doesn't that prove my point? You disagree with me so therefore you think I'm stupid.

When, oh when, will you ever grow up?
I have been telling you it's THE WAY youi say things that sets me off, but you never learn.

Yes and i have admitted this in an earlier post. Japan surrendered only because the emperor gave the word - which means one thing - that in order to force Japan into surrender you didn't have to convince an ENTIRE country of fanatical people to lay down arms - just that one person. One bomb could have been used, even a test explosion and a threat. MAY have worked we'll never know.

Read Hirohito's own words, and you would understand.
Everything he saw or heard was filtered through his staff, a "demonstration" would have been dismissed be his military, the same way the fire-bombings that had gutted 90% of Japan's cities had been so airily dismissed.

Why not list those in favour?

Balence in debate?
An ability to recognize that other people disagree?

It's obvious there are those that support the a-bomb. THATS why it happened. I don't have to prove that. MY point is that the idea of it NOT being needed is a valid debatable issue.

Your forcing me to be even more blunt then usual (quite a feat).
Ivory tower fools are the only ones who even give credence to the no A-Bomb camp.

(not nonsense as you claim)

Fraid it is.

As for it being "out of context"... those quotes clearly demonstrate that those people feel the atomic bombs to be WRONG. They say that quite clearly - I don't think any context would change that.

Yet Ike had no problem basing the USA's strategic defense in the 1950s almost solely on airborne A-bombs, but he didn't agree with using them.
Interesting argument.

I ALREADY DID NAME MORE THAN ONE BUT YOU AREN'T LISTENING AND ARE TWO BUSY HATING ME BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH YOU!!

I don't hate you, I pity you, because you waste time and effort foolishly, ala Don Qiuote.
If that's your choice, so be it, don't tell me I'm "Sick" because I know that use of atomic weapons forced Japan to accept that they were indeed defeated.

Thats irrelevant. Simply because a few people passed secrets to the soviets.. you think that makes all of us traitors? Simply because i ALSO believe that the atomic bombings were not needed.

Not irrelevant at all, it's an example of those who put their morality above others, much like your trying to do in this thread.
It's called a parable.

There you go again calling me young and stupid. You forgot to mention "compasionatte" though.

I could also add an amazing ability to interpret what I say to fit your tirade.

If disagreeing with the vaporization of innocent men, women and children makes me a "questions everything without a cause rebel" then so be it.

It may be a little late, but who says they are innocent?
When you do nothing and your government is commiting illeagal acts, you have a moral responciblity to do something about it.

I apologize for thinking for myself - I certainly wouldn't fit in your country.

Also, you do so love to generalize.
I love it when people like you squirm, your "logical" arguments go out the window, and it becomes raw emotion. "You are all this, you are all that. "

So whats your point? Mine was that the Japanese were trying to sue for peace.

My point is simple.
The people trying for peace did not have the AUTHORITY to commit to peace.

First you tell me that you highly doubt that they contacted the soviets.... now you tell me they did...

Never said that, go look again, your pulling out of context.
The LEGITIMATE government wasn't trying to for peace, and those that were, were insisting on conditions.
Roosevelt made it clear at Casablanca: NO CONDITIONS.

Of course I'm discussing 1940's morality. and THATS my point.
People's attitudes about the world influence the decisions they make (even politicians - they're only human after all). I believe that 1940's morality had a LOT to do with dropping bombs on innocent people.

And we again see your objectivity disapear, you go from discussing to an accusation of wrong doing again.
See why it's hard to take you seriously?

As for Japan's attitude towards foreigners... You're absolutely right. But it doesn't mean that 2 wrongs make a right (although right wingers always seem to believe that it DOES).

This part is probaly the most fun for me:
I'M NOT A RIGHT WINGER, NEVER HAVE BEEN, NEVER WILL BE.
Your in error here, as in a great many other things.

You're right. My life has never been in jeopardy. And if I was on those landing craft I would probably be thinking "Whew... I'm glad i don't have to wade ashore on those beaches". BUT just because a political decision personally benefited me - THAT doesn't make it right.

Your moralizations don't make it wrong either.

The U.S. could have dropped a huge nuclear bomb on North Vietnam if they had of wanted to and the problem would have been solved - all of those American kids could have gone home and maybe 58,000 American lives would have been saved

[Mixing a little history, aern't we?
We jump from WWII to the Vietnam war, for no ryme or reason.
Was making North Vietnam surrender unconditionally EVER an aim?
Think carefully before you answer.
See, that's the trouble with being a crusader, EVERYTHING becomes about Vietnam after awhile, I'm surprised it took you this long to bring it up.

- I'm even sure that every one of them would be thinking "wow I'm glad THATS over - I get to live" and thats understandable. BUT by itself the idea of saving some american lives (by destroying civilian lives) does not make the act morally justified in the "big" picture.

And again, my favorite word with you: Non-sense.
To people like you, the lives of the men in uniform is meaningless, they are just cannon-fodder for your aims, the victims of imperialistic warmongers.
They never add into your equasion.
You drone on endlessly about the poor innocent Japanese, not one word of sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of service men who lost their lives so people like you could pop off on how their lives don't equal the lives of a country who attacked them.
Your "Morality" sickens me.

This argument is very much about morality.
There ARE valid arguments for both sides of the coin. I happen to believe in MY side and i believe that it's debatable. You obviously don't.

Anyone who looks clearly and evenly sees the falicy of your argument.

I don't dislike you because you disagree with me (I have a right wing friend and we argue frequently but are still friends) I dislike you because you disagree with me by calling my argument nonsense - you dislike ME simply because I have left leaning views and because I question "the american way".

There you go again (To quote a REAL right winger), I don't dislike you at all.
I just find your arguments questionable at best.

Well thats fine - maybe one day you'll get to be president - George Dubbya did after all.

Yet another of your prejudices revealed:
You dislike Bush, but I bet you can't give a single valid reason why, outside of the normal left-wing rhetoric.

My country's turning into the same thing - Dare to question what the all-mighty Ameicans do and automatically you become a traitor.

We love the qustioning here, not the soap box moralizing you like to practise.
You don't say "I feel this was wrong because..." you say "I KNOW THIS IS WRONG, YOUR ALL SICK"! to parapharse you.
And you wonder why I scoff at you?

Have a good life.

If people like you have their way, we will have no lives at all.

Originaly posted by Scrimshaw
Anyone else see the humour in this? You call redwolfs reply nonsense when he says you would.

It validates redwolfs statement in my book.

Must be an awful small book.
I saw through his bull long ago, and he knows it.
All what you just said validates my opinion that people don't really pay attention and make snap judgements about things they know nothing about (Like RW and myself's history, for example. )

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by RedWolf
BUT by itself the idea of saving some american lives (by destroying civilian lives) does not make the act morally justified in the "big" picture.

And US POWs, and Chinese civilians, and dutch, british, indonesian, malaysian, thai and vietnamese civilians. Oh and don't forget the Russian, British, Australian, Canadian and Chinese soldiers. And Japanese civilians, also, since the net casualties from continuing with the blockade, the air campaign or an invasion would have all exceeded the casualties from the atomic bombings given enough time.

All of these casualties were considered in the equation.

R.III

 

[Hitro]

Obviously alot of you are of the opinion that it was cruel but necessary to save the lives of allied soldiers. Does this just apply to this incident or is that your general principle?
Then what about other wars or other campaigns/battles?
For example, in 1940 Germany invaded the Netherlands (as most of you probably know). The Air Force flew a heavy bombing raid on Rotterdam, destroying big parts of the city, after that the Dutch army surrendered (the whole invasion was accomplished in a short time). Without the extensive bombing (that killed many civilians) the Dutch would very probably have fought longer, therefore causing the death of many German soldiers. So in your view the bombing of Rotterdam has to be justyfied for the Germans, or is that a completely different thing just because the ones to be "saved" aren't Americans and the victims not their enemies?

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

An incorrect conclusion on your part, for to obvious reasons:

First, Germany was an agreessor, the US was not.

Second, Holland never showed an inclanation to fight to the death, even after defeat was assured, Japan did.

It's clear you didn't think that answer through.

 

[Flatlander Fox]

The Dutch army surrendered to the Germans also saved themselves from a certain death too. Asking one sided questions is not very nice...

So actually, it WAS better for it to happen that way.

I will say this though:

I think that America would have had a very hard time rationlizing this IF they would have used the Atom bomb on Berlin or Munich.

I say this with a certain measure of disgust, but I think it was easier dropping it on the Japanese (Due to the demonizing of the Japanese, and their own actions and atrocities) then it ever would have been dropping it on the Germans. (Due to high concentrations of second generation Germanic Americans).

But I STILL am glad that they used it. And it did save lives. And I think it also prevented wars (of the nuclear type) later. But it will remain a horrific event in history, and an example of just how close Man has come to his own self destruction.

 

[Hitro]

The first argument is not validate imo, because everybody can find a reason to attack, may it be "they attacked our great fleet" or "we're the masterrace". Of course the second is morally worse (as long as you don't believe you're the masterrace), but none of them justifies the murder (yes ) of innocent civilians. And there are ALWAYS innocent ones amoung them, at least the children.

The second argument is wrong too. I didn't say they'd fight till "the end", "death" or whatever, just that they had fought LONGER. I'm not talking about the amount of soldiers that would have been killed more, sure Japan's army was more dangerous than the Dutch one. But if you say it's right to kill (the enemy's)civilians to save your own soldiers that is a principle thing, not a question about figures. 1000 or 1000000 where the difference in morality?

And to another argument, yes I would have been extremely glad not to have to fight there. And maybe I had said "Nuke them and let me live", I don't know. But morally that's wrong and from the point of view that a government has it is wrong too. To put it on a far smaller scale: If you had to choice between fighting one man (with the possibility of getting killed) or slaughtering his family (then he'd give up) what would you take?

Flatlander Fox: I agree with you argument about Japan/Germany and you're also right about the Dutch saving themselves. But the Japanese also saved many soldiers that would have been killed in a possible invasion, so where's the difference. Both lost the war to an enemy without any close perspective to get rid of them.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

It makes all the difference.

And I'll tell you this.

If it saved just one american, I would be for it.

They started the war, not the USA.

They started attacking civillians, and they refused to surrender untill forced to.

It's a question of right and wrong your arguing, and your German example doesn't fit.

Also, the bombings of Rotterdam were GREATLY overestimated (a number of 30,000 dead was thrown around at the time, the acual number killed was something closer to 1,500).

Take this into your eqausion:

200,000 Japanese people killed in two a-bomb strikes.

Projected losses for "Operation Olypic", the invasion of Kyushu:
1,000,000 killed or wounded allied soldiers
4-7 million Japanese military and civilian losses on just this southern army.
Want to come again about morality?
Still want to use that argument?

 

[Hitro]

Sure I want to. You obviously don't get my point. It's NOT about comparing figures, cause exactly THAT is what people do that don't care about the people actually involved.

But it is pretty obvious that we have different opinions on this issue and that's okay for me. But it doesn't make much sense to discuss it any further as long as I consider it murder and you would have done it for just one American

 

[Scrimshaw]

Must be an awful small book.

petty insults now? That's pretty sad now and has all the markings of a desperate debater.

I saw through his bull long ago, and he knows it.
All what you just said validates my opinion that people don't really pay attention and make snap judgements about things they know nothing about (Like RW and myself's history, for example. )

Not quite. It's just I don't think his opinion is bull. It may be wrong at times but surely not bull.

As for yours and Redwolfs History. I do know all about that too. I've been here but not registered at least as long as redwolf has been here. I have to say those were some of the most. . .interesting debates I ever read when he posted regularly. So no snap judgements here and certainly not something I know nothing about. Nice try though.

Anyway onto the topic at hand.

If it saved just one american, I would be for it.

They started the war, not the USA.

That says it all of your opinion. Your own interests first and to hell with the rest of the world, innocent or not. Japenese civilians didn't start the war either for the record. That's why the issue here we're arguing is wether or not it was justified bombing the INNOCENT people of those two japanese cities. Not bombing japan. If they bombed a non civilian target I'm sure this thread wouldn't exist.

But if you say it's right to kill (the enemy's)civilians to save your own soldiers that is a principle thing, not a question about figures. 1000 or 1000000 where the difference in morality?

I couldn't say it any better myself so I won't try

I must admit however that the option of nuking japan was far superior to that of total invasion. If left in the shoes of any of the big decision makers of the time I would have done almost the same thing. Only difference being that I would have not placed the second bomb in a major city. It was only needed as a show of force to prove they had more than one bomb and they had the ability and will to vapourize japan if they had to. Dropping the second bomb virtually anywhere in japan would have had that same effect. that's why a military target would be much more morally acceptable to me if I had been in charge. But I wasn't, so theres not much more I can say or do about it.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
Only difference being that I would have not placed the second bomb in a major city. It was only needed as a show of force to prove they had more than one bomb and they had the ability and will to vapourize japan if they had to. Dropping the second bomb virtually anywhere in japan would have had that same effect. that's why a military target would be much more morally acceptable to me if I had been in charge. But I wasn't, so theres not much more I can say or do about it.

Now THAT's a sound argument! A reasoned debate!

Thanks for raising the level, man!

 

[Padma]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Take this into your eqausion:

200,000 Japanese people killed in two a-bomb strikes.

Projected losses for "Operation Olypic", the invasion of Kyushu:
1,000,000 killed or wounded allied soldiers
4-7 million Japanese military and civilian losses on just this southern army.
Want to come again about morality?
Still want to use that argument?

I've been looking for some sources for these numbers. One source I've found is a study probably not available to all the posters out there: a study done for/by the (US) Marine Corps Command and Staff College - V [Marine] Amphibious Corps Planning for Operation Olympic and the Role of Intelligence in Support of Planning by Major Mark P. Arens, USMCR [MCIA].

In it, he points out that US Intelligence was underestimating Japanese strength on Kyushu by about 36%! To make matters worse, General MacArthur, based on previous operations in the Pacific, believed that US intelligence typically overestimated Japanese strength. In reality, the US attack force ratio, planned at about 3:1, was less than 1:1. The Japanese actually outnumbered the American invasion force by July 1945. (This study was done in the late '90s.) By August 1, 1945 there were 657,000 ground troops on Kyushu. Given the Japanese defender to American casualty ratio found in previous island battles (notably Okinawa and Iwo Jima), the 500,000 casualty figure listed by Truman in his diary to help justify his actions is very easy to reach, and would probably be exceeded. In addition, Japanese casualties, military and civilian, would have reached 2,000,000 or more.

One new point I have learned as I have researched: MacArthur downplayed projected casualty figures because he wanted to lead the largest amphibious operation in history. Gen. Marshall supported him, and passed the unrealistically LOW casualty estimates to Truman. If Operation Olympic had been executed as planned on Nov. 1, 1945, it would have been the largest bloodbath in American history.

---------------------------
"We hated the Japs but nobody had the slightest desire to go there and fight them because the one thing we knew was that we'd all be killed. I mean we really knew it. I never used to think that, I used to say the Japs would never get me. But there was no question about the mainland. How the hell are you going to storm a country where women and children, everybody would be fighting you? Of course we'd have won eventually but I don't think anybody who hasn't actually seen the Japanese fight can have any idea of what it would have cost."

- Austin Aria, veteran of the Okinawa campaign.
---------------------------

Another fun thing, Marshall wanted to use the atomic bomb as a TACTICAL weapon. If more realistic casualty figures had been employed, and the bombs not dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they would have probably been dropped on the beaches of Kyushu. Although probably a successful tactic to defeat the Japanese on Kyushu, historian Edward Drea points out the dreadful results of such a use of the atomic bomb:

"...American GIs and Marines who would have landed on radioactive beaches - another hell, that of radiation poisoning, might well have been in store. In 1945 no one really grasped the implications of radioactive fallout, and the hellish effects would undoubtedly have persisted for decades after the explosions."

(Edward J. Drea, "Previews of Hell," MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History, Spring 1995, Vol. 7, No. 3, 81. )

Grumble... I hate it when the real world gets in the way of posting. I've been trying to get to this for 3 hrs.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

If it saved just one american, I would be for it.

This to me demonstrates exactly WHY I disagree with you and shows your bias for all to see. You believe that the life of one american serviceman is worth the lives of 200,000 Japanese. That's fine. You can believe that if you wish but I simply don't feel that way. YOUR morality sickens ME.

The problem with war is that combatants die - it sucks but it's true. I also believe that both sides have a moral obligation to avoid civilian casualties to the best of their abilities. The common reply to this is always "but they killed innocents too!". This isn't about score keeping - "they killed 1000 of our civilians so we can kill 1000 of theirs". It's about the RIGHT thing to do because innocent people are innocent and shouldn't be caught between feuding nation states if it's at all avoidable. (and yes there WERE innocent people in Japan that had the bomb dropped on them - regardless of what their government decided to do). You can claim that they are guilty simply due to the fact that they were born and raised in japan (the enemy) but I don't believe that to be true either. This argument IS about morality.

I don't believe in many things the American government does throughout the world - but I don't by any means believe that the people in the WTC were guilty by default. Same goes for the Middle East. I hate seeing Israeli bombs raining down on Palistinian cities BUT at the same time I'm sickened by terrorist suicide bombers. (I'm not trying to start a debate about these events - just display my opinion of civilian casualties)

One bomb cost millions, millions of USA citizens would be killed in an invasion.
Would you waste it in the hopes it would make an impression?

This is a quote from your very first post and further shows you callous attitude towards the Japanese people. Would I be willing to waste a bomb in the hopes of making an impression. YES. People's lives are worth more than money - especially 200,000 people.

To people like you, the lives of the men in uniform is meaningless, they are just cannon-fodder for your aims, the victims of imperialistic warmongers.
They never add into your equasion.
You drone on endlessly about the poor innocent Japanese, not one word of sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of service men who lost their lives so people like you could pop off on how their lives don't equal the lives of a country who attacked them.
Your "Morality" sickens me.

You know what? THAT'S bull too. I DO have respect for the servicemen that fought in the second World War. Guess where my father was born? Holland. My grandparents lived under Nazi occupation. I am free ONLY because of the young allied soldiers that bled their way acorss the battlefields of Europe. Every year on November 11th I attend Remembrance Day Ceremonies at my local legion and pay my respects. It might even surprise you to know that I come from somewhat of a military family. My grandfather served in peacetime as well as a few other people on my Mother's side. I don't hate soldiers although i may have given that impression before. I dislike narrow minded, left-hating, war mongering soldiers that believe blindly in their country and that people who disagree are "traitors". Also ones that believe war is the ONLY answer and that people who question this belief are automatically "cowards" or "enemy sympathizers". I saw LOTS of that after September 11th around here.

I don't consider the lives of servicemen meaningless - but i don't believe the mass bombing of women, children and old men to be the answer to war - regardless of the number of military casualties a country risks taking - thats part of the deal - soldiers die in war and it doesn't give you the right to vaporize the innocent. Like i posted earlier - if the Allies had of used the bomb on a military target - instead of a CITY - then i would have supported their use.

Mixing a little history, aern't we?
We jump from WWII to the Vietnam war, for no ryme or reason.
Was making North Vietnam surrender unconditionally EVER an aim?
Think carefully before you answer.
See, that's the trouble with being a crusader, EVERYTHING becomes about Vietnam after awhile, I'm surprised it took you this long to bring it up.

Mixing history is irrelevant in this context. If I was saying "this war is like this one" or comparing the two somehow then you could be free to bash me. I never claimed that the goal was to make North Vietnam surrender. The goal was to force them to the bargaining table and to accept South Vietnam as a seperate nation. However I was discussing the morality of war and about how individual soldiers might feel about having to die in combat - and that THEY on a personal level may accept the killing of civilians if it gave THEM a reprieve (I think we all feel this way - if someone else made the decision to kill 10 innocent people INSTEAD of me... then I'd probably be relieved and to some extet gratefull.. but it wouldn't make it RIGHT in the big scheme of things) There is no particular reason WHY i chose Vietnam - it just happens to be one of the closest major wars to MY life and I know the American casualty figure off of the top of my head - I could have used Korea, Gulf War (low causalties on our side so it wouldn't quite have made sense), World War I... Whatever.

Notice how the majority of people are debating in an orderly fashion on this topic? I've seen you attack at least 3 seperate people due to the fact that you think their opinions are "non-sense". You refuse to admit that any opinion beside your own is even debatable and instead choose to belittle those that hold it.