What ordinary men can do: The bombing of Hiroshima

[Japanrocks12]

Japanese propaganda can be likened to Nazi propaganda in almost every way. That was not my reference, Zardnaar. So eager to cover up the true atrocities of Japanese war conduct was the government that the civilians were not able to know what was really going on behind the veil of propaganda. So it is wrong to kill the civilians, who were not in anyway responsible for the Japanese brutal war methods as it is wrong to kill the soldiers who were driven to do it via the bushido code, something that had been nailed to their heads albeit forcibly.

 

[Zardnaar]

Japanese propaganda can be likened to Nazi propaganda in almost every way. That was not my reference, Zardnaar. So eager to cover up the true atrocities of Japanese war conduct was the government that the civilians were not able to know what was really going on behind the veil of propaganda. So it is wrong to kill the civilians, who were not in anyway responsible for the Japanese brutal war methods as it is wrong to kill the soldiers who were driven to do it via the bushido code, something that had been nailed to their heads albeit forcibly.

look at it from a soldiers point of view. If somethings dangerous you kill it. I wouldn't sit around wondering at the enemies motivation. If a child runs at me with a gun or bamboo spear I would just shoot him. Tactics like this BTW shocked the allies. Kamikaze ataacks and the Hitler youth were quite shocking at the time. As was Banzai charges and throwing children off cliffs.

Civilians were targets in WW2 and in the years leading up to it and it was the Axis powers who started doing it. China, Spain, Ethiopia. The Allies responded in kind but had greater resources to do it with

 

[Japanrocks12]

My whole point is that the civilians are not the perpetuators of Japan's sanguine acts of violence. They should not be killed in a mass murder fashion. Think about this for a second. The only reason you are a soldier is to redeem your honor. Nothing else matters. If it did, it was because they too were victims -- of propaganda.

The Americans were no less eager than the Japanese in asserting their racial dominance.

 

[Japanrocks12]

look at it from a soldiers point of view. If somethings dangerous you kill it. I wouldn't sit around wondering at the enemies motivation. If a child runs at me with a gun or bamboo spear I would just shoot him. Tactics like this BTW shocked the allies. Kamikaze ataacks and the Hitler youth were quite shocking at the time. As was Banzai charges and throwing children off cliffs.

Civilians were targets in WW2 and in the years leading up to it and it was the Axis powers who started doing it. China, Spain, Ethiopia. The Allies responded in kind but had greater resources to do it with

You are kidding aren't you?

 

[Winner]

War criminal? They saved hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives.

Maybe. By doing a terrible war crime.

Also, you can't just "show" Japan the effect of the bomb, either the bomb would be a dud, or they would see the effect, and evacuate there cities and move military assests away from cities, and Millions, thats right MILLIONS would die anyway from the invasion.

The Japan was nearly destroyed in the time of the bombings. There was a possibility to force them to negotiations after using one of the (two) bombs to demonstrate the new capability.

But because of Allied ignorance (of Japanese culture, especially the role of the Emperor, or honor) and will to end the was as quickly as possible, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were obliterated.

I say the "good" side is a good side jsut because it doesn't do bad things. You can't claim to be a good side when acting like you (evil) enemy.

It is irresponsible of you to wag your finger at America for using this weapon. What would we tell our people, we had a weapon that would have ended the war, but we didn't use it, instead costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, not to mention that a massive amount of japanese civilians, more then the Atom Bombs and fire bombing casulaties COMBINED. Also, what would the future be like? If we invaded? It is very possible that the Soviet Union might have taken the whole of Japanese occupied Manchuria, all of Korea, and the Northern Parts of Japan. The future would be different and for thw worst, not to mention the stigma attached to a long, violent occupation, because it would be violent.

I don't argue with you that the invasion would be easier. It would be surely much worse. I say the Allies have not exhausted all the alternatives, they haven't make much effort to avoid the usage of atomic bombs. Together with the fire bombings of Japan cities, it is clear the US has indeed committed war crimes, even in the WW2 standards.

I am fighting the naive opinion of many posters, that WW2 was a battle between good and evil, where the bad guys killed millions of civilians, while the good guys saved everyone and gave them a chocolate and chewing gums. It isn't that easy.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I would just like to ask to Basketcase and Strider to be a bit more humble when they talk about the horror of 350,000 people being blinded, burnt and irradiated untill death. Loosing my hair, my skin, my teeth, my white blood cells untill I slowly die is certainly not the death I wish to experiment. I wish no one to experience such a death.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I can see how eager that people are to side with their home countries. Wow. I didn't expect to see such naivity here on CFC.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I would just like to ask to Basketcase and Strider to be a bit more humble when they talk about the horror of 350,000 people being blinded, burnt and irradiated untill death. Loosing my hair, my skin, my teeth, my white blood cells untill I slowly die is certainly not the death I wish to experiment. I wish no one to experience such a death.

Finally, someone who actually agrees with me. The military and civilian populace are separate the last time I checked.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I am fighting the naive opinion of many posters, that WW2 was a battle between good and evil, where the bad guys killed millions of civilians, while the good guys saved everyone and gave them a chocolate and chewing gums. It isn't that easy.

This is a very European point of view Winner.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

I can see how eager that people are to side with their home countries. Wow. I didn't expect to see such naivity here on CFC.

Where have you been?

 

[Riesstiu IV]

This is a very European point of view Winner.

Oh, please. This view is not limited to Europeans. This just makes you sound like an arrogant moralist. Just look at the history forums. I've seen everything from a German poster attempting it justify the German invasion of Ukraine as "liberation" to a defense of WWI era European nationalism.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Oh, please. This view is not limited to Europeans. This just makes you sound like an arrogant moralist. Just look at the history forums. I've seen everything from a German poster attempting it justify the German invasion of Ukraine as "liberation" to a defense of WWI era European nationalism.

Adler's point of view is very marginal. His point of view is more than marginal in his country. You can't compare this with the mainstream ideas spread in the United States.

Whatever you may say, there's a real difference over here between Europeans and Americans. I think that's the key difference to explain all other differences between the two shores of the Atlantic. In Europe, world war 2 is mainly seen as the most horrific event which has ever occured in world History. In the United States, world war 2 is mainly seen as the ultimate victory of good against evil. Once you've understood this, you know a lot more why Americans are more in the side of Mars and why Europeans are more in the side of Venus.

I don't say who's right and who's wrong. There's no moralist implications in what I'm saying. Actually, I tend to believe both Americans and Europeans are partly right and partly wrong. The truth is between both points of view. We shouldn't abuse of war, but we have to prepare for war in order to avoid it. However, peaceful solutions should always be promoted.

 

[BasketCase]

I would just like to ask to Basketcase and Strider to be a bit more humble when they talk about the horror of 350,000 people being blinded, burnt and irradiated untill death.

Marla, I never mentioned any such thing anywhere in this thread (quote me--I dare you). And Strider is exactly right: the Japanese government was very adamant about fighting to the last man, and Emperor Hirohito had a very difficult time convincing his cabinet to surrender, even after The Bomb had been dropped.

Strider is also right in his comments about military vs. civilian targets. The two were NOT separate during World War II; guided weapons didn't exist back then. The closest things we had were bombsights that were accurate to within around a hundred yards. The only way we could destroy a factory or any other target was to send a large number of bombers and drop enough rounds on a target to have a reasonable chance of hitting it.

I fail to see how humility or the lack of it has anything to do with this.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Marla, I never mentioned any such thing anywhere in this thread (quote me--I dare you). And Strider is exactly right: the Japanese government was very adamant about fighting to the last man, and Emperor Hirohito had a very difficult time convincing his cabinet to surrender, even after The Bomb had been dropped.

Strider is also right in his comments about military vs. civilian targets. The two were NOT separate during World War II; guided weapons didn't exist back then. The closest things we had were bombsights that were accurate to within around a hundred yards. The only way we could destroy a factory or any other target was to send a large number of bombers and drop enough rounds on a target to have a reasonable chance of hitting it.

I fail to see how humility or the lack of it has anything to do with this.

What about the outright refusal to drop such a bomb in the first place KNOWING that civilians, completely innocent civilians that have absolutely nothing to do with the Japanese war machine, will be killed? This is like saying that we'll kill all the inhabitants of New York City just because military bases are stationed near there.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Marla, I never mentioned any such thing anywhere in this thread (quote me--I dare you). And Strider is exactly right: the Japanese government was very adamant about fighting to the last man, and Emperor Hirohito had a very difficult time convincing his cabinet to surrender, even after The Bomb had been dropped.

Strider is also right in his comments about military vs. civilian targets. The two were NOT separate during World War II; guided weapons didn't exist back then. The closest things we had were bombsights that were accurate to within around a hundred yards. The only way we could destroy a factory or any other target was to send a large number of bombers and drop enough rounds on a target to have a reasonable chance of hitting it.

I fail to see how humility or the lack of it has anything to do with this.

You fail to see how the lack of humility has anything to do with a bombs dropped on twin cities killing more than 350,000 people?

 

[Japanrocks12]

This is a very European point of view Winner.

No it isn't. Good vs. Evil is out of the question when applied to World War II.

 

[BasketCase]

What about the outright refusal to drop such a bomb in the first place KNOWING that civilians, completely innocent civilians that have absolutely nothing to do with the Japanese war machine, will be killed?

Has nothing to do with it. Every pilot in every Air Force in World War II got in the cockpit knowing they were probably going to kill some innocent people because, again, "smart" weapons did not exist.

Civilians, completely innocent civilians that had absolutely nothing to do with the Japanese war machine (or the German war machine, for that matter) were getting killed all the time over the course of the entire war. So there's no reason Hiroshima or Nagasaki should be any different.

In fact, some of the civilians killed in World War II were legitimate targets; the people working in the factories, building tanks and battleships or doing nuclear research at Peenemunde, were mostly civilians. When we bombed Peenemunde, our targets were in fact civilians--one of our aiming points was the barracks where all the scientists were housed. The Allies were hoping to kill most of them to further slow down Germany's nuclear research.

Germany and Japan had to be stopped, whatever the cost, and the only tools we had with which to do it were inaccurate and sloppy. There was simply no other choice.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Why drop the bomb then? Japan was almost about to surrender anyway, it was heavily damaged from U.S. air raids.

You killed not only the guys making the tanks, bombs, and missiles, but also the guy who worked at the market to earn a living. People who had absolutely nothing at all to do with the war ---- women and children included.

 

[BasketCase]

That's the thing--Japan was NOT about to surrender. Before the nukes, the Japanese leadership was planning to fight to the death.

 

[Nobody]

Edit: Wrong thread, moose moose