What ordinary men can do: The bombing of Hiroshima

[Stapel]

That's the thing. It's mentioned over there, in threads that talk about that sort of thing specifically. Dresden is not as much of an issue in here--or in other mainstream media. I certainly can't remember the last time anybody on television said the word "Dresden".

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on the other hand, are mainstream media issues, and get mentioned a lot more in the mainstream media.

Last february (60 years after "Dresden") it got massive attention. Far more than the Hiroshima this week. Also due to political uproar in Germany. but there's political uproar about Japan too these days (denying war crimes in history books).
Maybe a difference between American and European media?

 

[Hitro]

Earlier in this thread it was mentioned that the total number of nuke victims (includign fall-out victims) is 400.000, whereras 600.000 Germans have died by RAF/USAF bombings.

Err, but not due to two attacks...

Oh well, whatever....
Killing innocent civilians = killing innocent civilians.

Correct.

Oh wait, of course "our" civilians are worth more than "theirs", right?

 

[Stapel]

Err, but not due to two attacks...

Correct.

Oh wait, of course "our" civilians are worth more than "theirs", right?

The ethical dilemma of trading human lifes.........

I could give you (decent) reasons why a German civilians' life in early 1945 is worth less than, say, a Canadian's civilians' life.

 

[Hitro]

I could give you (decent) reasons why a German civilians' life in early 1945 is worth less than, say, a Canadian's civilians' life.

I'd really like to hear your ethical justification for why the life of six year old Katharina from Nuremberg was worth less than that of six year old Katherine from Ottawa.

But maybe not in this thread.

 

[Stapel]

I'd really like to hear your ethical justification for why the life of six year old Katharina from Nuremberg was worth less than that of six year old Katherine from Ottawa.

But maybe not in this thread.

Indeed not.

Let me say this:
Reasons are not the same as justification.

It's simliar with evidence and proof. Having some pieces of evidence is not yet proof.

 

[EzInKy]

I'd really like to hear your ethical justification for why the life of six year old Katharina from Nuremberg was worth less than that of six year old Katherine from Ottawa.

Because her parents made it so by not rebelling and trying to overthrow Hitler's regime when he invaded Poland. The same goes for the Japanese. Where were all the protests and riots against the Emperor when Japan set out to conquer all of Asia?

 

[BasketCase]

Last february (60 years after "Dresden") it got massive attention. Far more than the Hiroshima this week. Also due to political uproar in Germany. but there's political uproar about Japan too these days (denying war crimes in history books).
Maybe a difference between American and European media?

Very likely. However, it appears to me that on the Internet (right here in CFC for example) Hiroshima gets mentioned more than Dresden does.

But we're arguing minor points. The only difference I see between Hiroshima and Dresden was that one was a lot faster than the other. I don't have a problem with the use of nuclear weapons for the same reason I don't have a problem with the Dresden bombing. Both were nasty but necessary.

 

[King Alexander]

Imagine the cost of life that would have occured had America Invaded Japan. I believe that while the horror of the Nuclear Weapons was awful, it is so much better than having millions upon millions die, so that Japan will not attack any more. The loss of life on those two days is certainly much better than any invasion that would have occured.

Maybe this should have been the solution for Iraq.

This is what I had in mind, for the arguement of "saving lives and ending the war sooner": so, why just not nuke Iraq rather than having loses every day? Why not use nukes in Vietnam or elsewhere?

I'm trying to understand the logic behind it --- with nukes, every war finishes sooner and almost without any loss.

 

[Speedo]

About the kids being raised to attack with bamboo sticks, that has existed in many other conflicts, and it's clear that the purpose of this has always been about propaganda, to show how motivate we are. However, it has always been proven as inefficient militarily speaking. The same can be said about Nazi Germany which hired the kids of the city during the final attack on Berlin.

Without bothering to argue any points (since it's pointless), I just wish to point out:

The fact that something happens to be militarily inefficient often does little to discourage the practice, especially in authoritarian countries/cultures. You still end up with a slaughter. Look no further than the Soviets in WW2.

 

[EzInKy]

This is what I had in mind, for the arguement of "saving lives and ending the war sooner": so, why just not nuke Iraq rather than having loses every day? Why not use nukes in Vietnam or elsewhere?

I'm trying to understand the logic behind it --- with nukes, every war finishes sooner and almost without any loss.

Because there were large groups of Iraqis, Shia's and Kurds, actively fighting Saddam's regime. Japanese and German civillians did nothing to depose their leaders.

 

[King Alexander]

Because there were large groups of Iraqis, Shia's and Kurds, actively fighting Saddam's regime. Japanese and German civillians did nothing to depose their leaders.

Even if the Iraqis, Germans or Japanese wanted to depose their leaders, it'd take a bit time to overthrow their regimes(you can't expect that to happen within a day).
There were many Iraqis not wanting Saddam, but how many of them could actively fight(and abandon their families)? It isn't like a huge revolution took place in Saddam's years, right?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Even if the Iraqis, Germans or Japanese wanted to depose their leaders, it'd take a bit time to overthrow their regimes(you can't expect that to happen within a day).
There were many Iraqis not wanting Saddam, but how many of them could actively fight(and abandon their families)? It isn't like a huge revolution took place in Saddam's years, right?

There had been multiple riots in Southern Iraq in 1991 after the Gulf War. It's clear that it hasn't be enough massive to be called a revolution but it has still occured. Shiite rebels were supported by Western countries then but the uproar had been quelled by Saddam. That event is rather obscure and we don't really know what happened then, but obviously the White House had been scared then because they wanted to avoid Iraq to explode in a civil war.

 

[EzInKy]

Even if the Iraqis, Germans or Japanese wanted to depose their leaders, it'd take a bit time to overthrow their regimes(you can't expect that to happen within a day).
There were many Iraqis not wanting Saddam, but how many of them could actively fight(and abandon their families)? It isn't like a huge revolution took place in Saddam's years, right?

Yes, as Marla points out, they were rebelling. But that really isn't my point, particularly since the topic is WW2 and use of nuclear weapons against "innocent" civillians. The people of Japan and Germany allowed their leaders to kill, rape, and pillage a number of neighboring countries and did not lift a finger to stop them. That made them every bit as responsible for the atrocities that occurred as the soldiers who committed them.

 

[King Alexander]

Yes, as Marla points out, they were rebelling. But that really isn't my point, particularly since the topic is WW2 and use of nuclear weapons against "innocent" civillians. The people of Japan and Germany allowed their leaders to kill, rape, and pillage a number of neighboring countries and did not lift a finger to stop them. That made them every bit as responsible for the atrocities that occurred as the soldiers who committed them.

I'm curious to know what percentage of the people in the countries you mentioned, REALLY supported their regime, deep inside them(I know, most will deny it, or say they were under control and couldn't done otherwise).

In Germany, the people elected Hitler, but did they REALLY expected such things to happen(I doubt it: these kind of regimes, show their TRUE face only once they're in power, and it's then late for any remorse for those they voted Hitler) --- am I wrong? In many other regimes, what I said has happened, wasn't this the case with Germany and Japan?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Then why hadn't they fought with their bamboo sticks once MacArthur arrived ? After all, there's no reason why they would in one case and not in the other... if they were so much convinced Americans were eating kids.

Because once the American troops landed and began to distribute food, medicine, services to the Japanese populace, the Japanese were shocked at the very light and generous treatment they're being punished with.

Anyone would have expected far far worse, considering just what their soldiers were doing in the occupied Asian countries for years.

Of course, I also know that the fact the Emperor himself has taken the decision to capitulate has had a considerable impact on the Japanese population, who's been raised in the respect of the will of their emperor. But I'm not sure we had necessarily to hit for the first nuclear strike the center of a city in order to obtain those words from the Emperor.

The nukings gave the Emperor the backing to override the Japanese military, who were intent to fighting to the last man. He could not have done it otherwise, with the military in control of everything.

Even when he was going to do that famous Japanese surrender broadcast, a band of soldiers almost derailed it, by mutining and trying to waylay him as the Emperor made his way to the broadcasting locale. It was a close-call thing.

 

[EzInKy]

I'm curious to know what percentage of the people in the countries you mentioned, REALLY supported their regime, deep inside them(I know, most will deny it, or say they were under control and couldn't done otherwise).

It doesn't matter how deeply they supported them, it doesn't matter whether they were under "control". If they weren't out in the streets protesting and rioting then they were aiding and abetting their leaders actions by maintaining the status quo.

In Germany, the people elected Hitler, but did they REALLY expected such things to happen(I doubt it: these kind of regimes, show their TRUE face only once they're in power, and it's then late for any remorse for those they voted Hitler) --- am I wrong? In many other regimes, what I said has happened, wasn't this the case with Germany and Japan?

Japan was a feudilistic nation, Germany turned into a Dictatorship. Emperors and Dictators can not stay in power unless the people willingly follow their will. Even those who did not support them were guilty of taking no action to stop them. It matters not that they might have been killed in doing so because a soldier putting down a rebellion at home can not be in a foreign land raping Nanking or gassing Jews.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I would have preffered exhausting all other options first to achieve a Japanese surrender, instead of rushing to use our new toys, in order to thwart the Soviets.

And how many more Asian civilians would have to die, while the Allies tried to 'persuade' the Japanese to surrender?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Bug, for all intents and purposes, the war was over, the only question was when the Japanese were going to surrender. You arent suggesting that the Japanese could have turned the tide of the war and gone back on the offensive, are you?

Might be true, but there're still millions of Japanese troops on the Asian mainland.

I've read that up to 4/5s of the Imperial Japanese Army was garrisoning Asia - China, Korea, Manchuria. Would the Americans be willing to bleed more, after an invasion of Japan, to remove its armies fr all the mainland holdouts?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

That said, I'd like to go on the record to salute all the millions of brave American servicemen and women who took the war to Japan, and ended the evil militaristic regime controlling the Japanese empire, and helped create today's prosperous Asia (and Japan).

Yes, including also those brave pilots who risked their lives delivering the A-bombs to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[EzInKy]

And how many more Asian civilians would have to die, while the Allies tried to 'persuade' the Japanese to surrender?

This I don't get either...why were the lives of the Japanese civillians, who were doing nothing to stop their leaders from continuing the war, worth more than the lives of the Chinese and Koreans still under Japanese control?