Poll |
 |
|
 |
Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 03:44:14
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
micahaphone wrote:
Before their abrupt surrender, Germany was our main nuclear target.
No it wasn't. This may have been the impression that the scientists were working under, but (seriously read the article onpage 3) it appears that the US government was always going to use it on Japan rather than Germany.
Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki at least had some military assets in them, which is why they were on our nuclear hit list.
You don't honestly believe this. The atomic bombs were used to inflict the most severe amount of death and damage possible, that the target was a civilian one made it all the more devestating. This is sort of why they were dropped on cities. Automatically Appended Next Post: ArbeitsSchu wrote:You seem to be missing some very pertinent points that are really very obvious. German had chemical weapons stocks and a suspected nuclear program, and a proven delivery system. These are all facts. Germany had provably shared intelligence with Japan. Also fact.
In the same way that the US was so eager to share their military secrets with the USSR?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/13 03:47:19
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 03:53:08
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Monstrous Master Moulder
Secret lab at the bottom of Lake Superior
|
Emperors Faithful wrote:micahaphone wrote:
Before their abrupt surrender, Germany was our main nuclear target.
No it wasn't. This may have been the impression that the scientists were working under, but (seriously read the article onpage 3) it appears that the US government was always going to use it on Japan rather than Germany.
Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki at least had some military assets in them, which is why they were on our nuclear hit list.
You don't honestly believe this. The atomic bombs were used to inflict the most severe amount of death and damage possible, that the target was a civilian one made it all the more devestating. This is sort of why they were dropped on cities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:You seem to be missing some very pertinent points that are really very obvious. German had chemical weapons stocks and a suspected nuclear program, and a proven delivery system. These are all facts. Germany had provably shared intelligence with Japan. Also fact.
In the same way that the US was so eager to share their military secrets with the USSR?
I think our "unsteady frenemy" status with Russia was rather different the the Alliance of the Axis.
Also, if they wanted to inflict "the most death and destruction possible", then how come they chose to attack Nagasaki, instead of some other, larger city? Granted Hiroshima was a large city, but it had many important industries for the war effort. Nagasaki had a large mountain range that divided the town, resulting in less damage, despite the fact that the stronger atomic bomb was used on it? I mean, it was a secondary target due to cloud cover, but they could have found several cities more visible and important to Japanese culture if they solely wanted to inflict pain on the people of Japan.
|
Commissar NIkev wrote:
This guy......is smart |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 04:03:21
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
micahaphone wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:micahaphone wrote:
Before their abrupt surrender, Germany was our main nuclear target.
No it wasn't. This may have been the impression that the scientists were working under, but (seriously read the article onpage 3) it appears that the US government was always going to use it on Japan rather than Germany.
Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki at least had some military assets in them, which is why they were on our nuclear hit list.
You don't honestly believe this. The atomic bombs were used to inflict the most severe amount of death and damage possible, that the target was a civilian one made it all the more devestating. This is sort of why they were dropped on cities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:You seem to be missing some very pertinent points that are really very obvious. German had chemical weapons stocks and a suspected nuclear program, and a proven delivery system. These are all facts. Germany had provably shared intelligence with Japan. Also fact.
In the same way that the US was so eager to share their military secrets with the USSR?
I think our "unsteady frenemy" status with Russia was rather different the the Alliance of the Axis.
I'd hardly call the relationship between the US and the UK a 'frenemy' status. That didn't mean you let them in on the nuclear bomb.
And there's little evidence to suggest Germany was any closer to Japan that the US was to Russia.
Also, if they wanted to inflict "the most death and destruction possible", then how come they chose to attack Nagasaki, instead of some other, larger city? Granted Hiroshima was a large city, but it had many important industries for the war effort. Nagasaki had a large mountain range that divided the town, resulting in less damage, despite the fact that the stronger atomic bomb was used on it? I mean, it was a secondary target due to cloud cover, but they could have found several cities more visible and important to Japanese culture if they solely wanted to inflict pain on the people of Japan.
This bit put in bold would have something to do with it.
The two cities vaporized were the targets, not collateral damage around any military installations within the city.
|
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 04:06:26
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Monstrous Master Moulder
Secret lab at the bottom of Lake Superior
|
Emperors Faithful wrote:micahaphone wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:micahaphone wrote: Before their abrupt surrender, Germany was our main nuclear target. No it wasn't. This may have been the impression that the scientists were working under, but (seriously read the article onpage 3) it appears that the US government was always going to use it on Japan rather than Germany. Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki at least had some military assets in them, which is why they were on our nuclear hit list. You don't honestly believe this. The atomic bombs were used to inflict the most severe amount of death and damage possible, that the target was a civilian one made it all the more devestating. This is sort of why they were dropped on cities. Automatically Appended Next Post: ArbeitsSchu wrote:You seem to be missing some very pertinent points that are really very obvious. German had chemical weapons stocks and a suspected nuclear program, and a proven delivery system. These are all facts. Germany had provably shared intelligence with Japan. Also fact. The targets had military assets in them. The point of destroying them was to send a message to the Japanese people that being near the military guaranteed death and destruction. And as we seem to be quibbling over the same points, can I ask what you would have preferred to the use of atomic weapons? What would have been better? In the same way that the US was so eager to share their military secrets with the USSR? I think our "unsteady frenemy" status with Russia was rather different the the Alliance of the Axis. I'd hardly call the relationship between the US and the UK a 'frenemy' status. That didn't mean you let them in on the nuclear bomb. And there's little evidence to suggest Germany was any closer to Japan that the US was to Russia. Also, if they wanted to inflict "the most death and destruction possible", then how come they chose to attack Nagasaki, instead of some other, larger city? Granted Hiroshima was a large city, but it had many important industries for the war effort. Nagasaki had a large mountain range that divided the town, resulting in less damage, despite the fact that the stronger atomic bomb was used on it? I mean, it was a secondary target due to cloud cover, but they could have found several cities more visible and important to Japanese culture if they solely wanted to inflict pain on the people of Japan. This bit put in bold would have something to do with it. The two cities vaporized were the targets, not collateral damage around any military installations within the city. EDIT: for some reason I can't see what I just typed: so I'll restate it. Every city listed as a target had integral military assets in them. The point was to hurt the Japanese war effort, while also sending a message to the Japanese people about what supporting the military would lead to. But seeing as we're just debating over the same facts, I'd like to suggest a new question: what would you have preferred to the use of atomic weapons?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/13 04:08:58
Commissar NIkev wrote:
This guy......is smart |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 04:18:27
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Rifleman Grey Knight Venerable Dreadnought
Realm of Hobby
|
Frazzled wrote:Ketara wrote:@ Frazzled
Either that or your generation was taught by one who needed to justify their own actions and global stance to themselves?
Make no mistake, I have no real interest either way, bar an academic one. I'm not interested in penalising America, the Japanese committed atrocities just as bad. I wouldn't put either on the level of say, the Holocaust, just the natural order of war.
The thing remains though, that Japan was out of supplies, half levelled by extensive incendiary and napalm bombing, their navy was no longer an issue, and the Americans and allied forces were capable of moving at will about the place. Those are military facts, regardless of your viewpoint.
To my mind, that would classify it as 'unnecessary', in the sense that the war was as good as over, and the Japanese no longer had any meaningful way of striking back. You are of course, free to examine those military facts I have given there, and draw a separate conclusion.
However, to simply accuse someone with no stake either way, who is indeed an academic in the field of warfare of , 'PC bs whitewashing' is bold indeed. I would appreciate academic citation if I am wrong. If you can prove that Japan was still amply supplied with ammo, soldiers, warships, aircraft, and so on, and still possessed the means and wherewithal to use it, I will accept it and draw another conclusion. So in the interests of defending your stance, discrediting the one you feel is wrong, and spreading education, please do so.
Wow just wow.
I don't have to debate some loser revisionst scholar.
-When did Japanese troops leave China?
-When did Japanese troops leave Vietnam?
-When did Japanese troops leave Cambodia?
-When did Japanese troops leave Laos?
-When did Japanese troops leave Malaysia?
-When did Japanese troops leave Singapore?
-Were the Japanese working on a nuclear program?
-Were the Japanese working on their own jet fighters?
-Did the Japanese surrender Manchuria after the first A bomb? Did they ever surrender Manchuria?
-Did the Japanese surrender after the first A bomb? Did they surrender after the first A bomb and the invasion of Manchuria?
-how many millions of civilians died at the hands of the Japanese? How many were dying daily when they surrenderd?
In the words of the immortal bard: nuts.
Like many War-Histories, history is written by the victors.
Who says what you "learned" at school is the reality?
Would further atrocities committed by USMC and other Defence personnel change the US public's views of the present invasions? As they did in Vietnam and the US Govt decided to explain away by claiming it was only a single unit who committed them.
Any who take the time to investigate the other side of an opinion or "fact" would know that what you are taught to believe at school is only half-truths.
There were attrocities on both sides. War is never the correct choice or a method of vindication to decide who is in the "right".
|
 MikZor wrote:
We can't help that american D&D is pretty much daily life for us (Aussies)
Walking to shops, "i'll take a short cut through this bush", random encounter! Lizard with no legs.....
I kid  Since i avoid bushlands that is
But we're not that bad... are we?  |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 04:29:49
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
micahaphone wrote:
EDIT: for some reason I can't see what I just typed: so I'll restate it.
Every city listed as a target had integral military assets in them. The point was to hurt the Japanese war effort, while also sending a message to the Japanese people about what supporting the military would lead to.
Which clearly explains why the bombs were detonated in the city centers. Not over any particular military installation.
The point was to make an example of the Japanese population. By killing them. A lot of them.
But seeing as we're just debating over the same facts, I'd like to suggest a new question: what would you have preferred to the use of atomic weapons?
It's not so much the use of the atomic bomb, but the fact that civilians were targetted, or at the very least how their deaths in addition to any other targets were a welcome bonus. Generally, killing civilians is a pretty gakky thing to do. Targetting them is even worse.
I've already had this discussion, but the use of atomic weapons against a military asset (rather than an entire city) may have worked just as fine.
|
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 04:36:50
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Monstrous Master Moulder
Secret lab at the bottom of Lake Superior
|
Just to quote a short academic article, " Following the Sino-Japanese War, with its military-related depots, Hiroshima gradually took on the atmosphere of a military supply base. In 1942, the Marine Headquarters (commonly known as the Akatsuki Corps) was established in the city." It contained several key factories, and it's port was a major naval base. There were smaller military bases inside the city, but the main targets were the factories that were creating war materials, like the engines for airplanes. And of course killing civilians was an donkey-cave move, but how else to send a message of surrender or die? What else whould we have done? It was a horrible thing to do. War, in general, is full of horrible things.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/13 04:38:13
Commissar NIkev wrote:
This guy......is smart |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 04:57:09
Subject: Re:In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
micahaphone wrote:Just to quote a short academic article, " Following the Sino-Japanese War, with its military-related depots, Hiroshima gradually took on the atmosphere of a military supply base. In 1942, the Marine Headquarters (commonly known as the Akatsuki Corps) was established in the city." It contained several key factories, and it's port was a major naval base.
There were smaller military bases inside the city, but the main targets were the factories that were creating war materials, like the engines for airplanes. And of course killing civilians was an donkey-cave move, but how else to send a message of surrender or die? What else whould we have done?
It was a horrible thing to do. War, in general, is full of horrible things.
That makes purposefuly killing civilians okay, right? No wait... I must be missing something.
The Article from Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
‘The only language [the Japanese] seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true.’ US President Harry S Truman, 11 August 1945, in a letter justifying his decision to drop the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
|
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:04:37
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Monstrous Master Moulder
Secret lab at the bottom of Lake Superior
|
From roughly the 1930s onto the end of world war 2, Japan had a very militaristic culture. Surrendering was one of the worst things to do. Killing civilians was horrible, but what's your alternative? What would have been better than dropping the bomb?
|
Commissar NIkev wrote:
This guy......is smart |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:10:33
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
micahaphone wrote:From roughly the 1930s onto the end of world war 2, Japan had a very militaristic culture. Surrendering was one of the worst things to do. Killing civilians was horrible, but what's your alternative? What would have been better than dropping the bomb?
Not dropping the bomb?
How about a surrender that allowed Japan to save face? Somehow that strikes me as a little more moral than genocide.
|
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:12:54
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Monstrous Master Moulder
Secret lab at the bottom of Lake Superior
|
Emperors Faithful wrote:micahaphone wrote:From roughly the 1930s onto the end of world war 2, Japan had a very militaristic culture. Surrendering was one of the worst things to do. Killing civilians was horrible, but what's your alternative? What would have been better than dropping the bomb?
Not dropping the bomb?
How about a surrender that allowed Japan to save face? Somehow that strikes me as a little more moral than genocide.
And what exactly would the USA have been doing? Twiddling our thumbs while we waited for the Japanese people to say "whoah, our entire mindset these 14 years has been entirely wrong! It'd be best if we just surrendered right now."
|
Commissar NIkev wrote:
This guy......is smart |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:17:08
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
micahaphone wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:micahaphone wrote:From roughly the 1930s onto the end of world war 2, Japan had a very militaristic culture. Surrendering was one of the worst things to do. Killing civilians was horrible, but what's your alternative? What would have been better than dropping the bomb?
Not dropping the bomb?
How about a surrender that allowed Japan to save face? Somehow that strikes me as a little more moral than genocide.
And what exactly would the USA have been doing? Twiddling our thumbs while we waited for the Japanese people to say "whoah, our entire mindset these 14 years has been entirely wrong! It'd be best if we just surrendered right now."
An unconditional surrender isn't what I said, that's unpopular with pretty much any country you'd care to name. I said a surrender that would allow Japan to save face.
|
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:20:22
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
The dropping of the atomic bombs was justified because:
The droppings of regular bombs were justified, and what is an atomic bomb but a bigger bomb?
What, exactly, is wrong with dropping an atomic bomb anywhere?
Please, enlighten me.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:20:54
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Monstrous Master Moulder
Secret lab at the bottom of Lake Superior
|
Emperors Faithful wrote:micahaphone wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:micahaphone wrote:From roughly the 1930s onto the end of world war 2, Japan had a very militaristic culture. Surrendering was one of the worst things to do. Killing civilians was horrible, but what's your alternative? What would have been better than dropping the bomb? Not dropping the bomb? How about a surrender that allowed Japan to save face? Somehow that strikes me as a little more moral than genocide. And what exactly would the USA have been doing? Twiddling our thumbs while we waited for the Japanese people to say "whoah, our entire mindset these 14 years has been entirely wrong! It'd be best if we just surrendered right now." An unconditional surrender isn't what I said, that's unpopular with pretty much any country you'd care to name. I said a surrender that would allow Japan to save face. Was not the mindset of the Japanese government, military, and civilian population that surrender, to use a cheesy phrase "the highest dishonor"? As previously stated, expected casualties for any invasion of the Japanese homeland were extremely high, as they would most likely fight 'till the last man. Japan showed little intention of surrendering before the use of atomic weapons.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/13 05:22:17
Commissar NIkev wrote:
This guy......is smart |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:30:53
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:The dropping of the atomic bombs was justified because:
The droppings of regular bombs were justified, and what is an atomic bomb but a bigger bomb?
What, exactly, is wrong with dropping an atomic bomb anywhere?
Please, enlighten me.
I think there is a general concensus that dropping bombs on civilians is a no-no.
micahaphone wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:An unconditional surrender isn't what I said, that's unpopular with pretty much any country you'd care to name. I said a surrender that would allow Japan to save face.
Was not the mindset of the Japanese government, military, and civilian population that surrender, to use a cheesy phrase "the highest dishonor"? As previously stated, expected casualties for any invasion of the Japanese homeland were extremely high, as they would most likely fight 'till the last man. Japan showed little intention of surrendering before the use of atomic weapons.
I have already asked you to read the article on page 3. There was a fair amount of support for the idea of a conditional surrender, especially if the terms were favourable in regards to the status of the Emperor. Your arguement that they showed no inclination towards a favourable surrender is patently false.
Also, the invasion plan intended to make use of up to a further 15 nuclear bombs. It's not the nature of the weapon I take issue with, it's what it was used to target. I also find the firebombing of Tokyo morally reprehensible.
|
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:37:16
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Monstrous Master Moulder
Secret lab at the bottom of Lake Superior
|
Emperors Faithful wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:The dropping of the atomic bombs was justified because: The droppings of regular bombs were justified, and what is an atomic bomb but a bigger bomb? What, exactly, is wrong with dropping an atomic bomb anywhere? Please, enlighten me. I think there is a general concensus that dropping bombs on civilians is a no-no. micahaphone wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:An unconditional surrender isn't what I said, that's unpopular with pretty much any country you'd care to name. I said a surrender that would allow Japan to save face. Was not the mindset of the Japanese government, military, and civilian population that surrender, to use a cheesy phrase "the highest dishonor"? As previously stated, expected casualties for any invasion of the Japanese homeland were extremely high, as they would most likely fight 'till the last man. Japan showed little intention of surrendering before the use of atomic weapons. I have already asked you to read the article on page 3. There was a fair amount of support for the idea of a conditional surrender, especially if the terms were favourable in regards to the status of the Emperor. Your arguement that they showed no inclination towards a favourable surrender is patently false. Also, the invasion plan intended to make use of up to a further 15 nuclear bombs. It's not the nature of the weapon I take issue with, it's what it was used to target. I also find the firebombing of Tokyo morally reprehensible. The conventional bombs were being dropped on civilians. Invading the island would have caused massive civilian casualties. Nearly every part of war is morally reprehensible; it'd be hard to find a part that isn't. The article on page three shows that Japan was willing to have a conditional surrender, but does not mention what those conditions were, instead veering off to cold war politics (a good point) and racism (a point I'm somewhat sketchy on). What are these terms? Could Japan have wanted to keep territory? I know they were afraid that their Emperor, who was very revered, would be killed, but did we ever insinuate this? What exactly were their terms?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/13 05:41:31
Commissar NIkev wrote:
This guy......is smart |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:39:25
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:The dropping of the atomic bombs was justified because:
The droppings of regular bombs were justified, and what is an atomic bomb but a bigger bomb?
What, exactly, is wrong with dropping an atomic bomb anywhere?
Please, enlighten me.
Its not what was dropped , its WHERE its dropped.
Enlightened yet?
|
Paused
◙▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
◂◂ ► ▐ ▌ ◼ ▸▸
ʳʷ ᵖˡᵃʸ ᵖᵃᵘˢᵉ ˢᵗᵒᵖ ᶠᶠ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:42:04
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
ArbeitsSchu wrote:You seem to be missing some very pertinent points that are really very obvious. German had chemical weapons stocks and a suspected nuclear program, and a proven delivery system. These are all facts. Germany had provably shared intelligence with Japan. Also fact. From the viewpoint of the allies In 1944/5 its very easy to see the obvious conclusion to that: Germany may have shared its chemical weapons/nuclear research/proven delivery systems with Japan. Thus Japan is a threat. I'm not talking about with hindsight or information found since then. I'm talking about at the time, with information known at the time.
What proven delivery systems was Japan going to use to drop a nuclear bomb on the United States? One of the vaunted German twin-engine bombers?
The argument that Japan was a threat because they possessed weapons of any type is a nonstarter. As I said above, Japan was a threat only in the sense that all other nations in the world are threats, which is just realist hokum predicated on Ken Waltz's dreck. I mean seriously, Germany also shared intelligence and technology with Argentina, and we didn't drop a nuclear bomb on them. Automatically Appended Next Post: micahaphone wrote:Nearly every part of war is morally reprehensible; it'd be hard to find a part that isn't.
Rosie the Riveter eventually became a feminist icon, and helped launch the 60's cultural revolution.
Also, if war didn't exist, my jobs prospects would be greatly diminished.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/13 05:43:42
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:45:07
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Monstrous Master Moulder
Secret lab at the bottom of Lake Superior
|
Okay, you got me there. I'm thinking more along the combat lines; I should have been more clear.
|
Commissar NIkev wrote:
This guy......is smart |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:48:24
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Emperors Faithful wrote:I think there is a general concensus that dropping bombs on civilians is a no-no.
You probably need to go back in time and tell the participants of WWII, who spent most of the war dropping bombs on cities.
Most of which, I'd argue, where immoral, because they killed loads of innocent people and achieved little. Dresden did nothing to make the war end sooner. The saturation bombing of Berlin didn't either. In fact, they took resources away from tactical bombing campaigns that were having a good effect.
Whereas dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war. The loss of life was worth the US and Japanese lives that would have been lost in the invasion, to say nothing of the Chinese, Japanese and Russian lives being lost in the incredibly bloody fighting on the continent.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:52:33
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
micahaphone wrote:
The conventional bombs were being dropped on civilians. Invading the island would have caused massive civilian casualties. Nearly every part of war is morally reprehensible; it'd be hard to find a part that isn't.
I think I've already said killing civilians on purpose is bad, m'kay?
The article on page three shows that Japan was willing to have a conditional surrender, but does not mention what those conditions were, instead veering off to cold war politics (a good point) and racism (a point I'm somewhat sketchy on).
Denial?
What are these terms? Could Japan have wanted to keep territory?
Maybe they would have. The approachof the Soviets ensured this wasn't going to be a reality.
I know they were afraid that their Emperor, who was very revered, would be killed, but did we ever insinuate this? What exactly were their terms?
I can't recall if it was ever specifically declared that the Emperor was going to be put on trial (which would have been a stupendous move on the Allies part). But in the wake of an unconditional surrender they knew they wouldn't be able to do anything about it if that was what the Allies wanted (and looking at what happened to Japanese commanders, it wouldn't have been out of the question).The Emperor's well-being was always a top priority. In fact, in thier final surrender that was the only condition. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:I think there is a general concensus that dropping bombs on civilians is a no-no.
You probably need to go back in time and tell the participants of WWII, who spent most of the war dropping bombs on cities.
A lot of people back then were also homophobic racists. Should I go back and tell them they were wrong about that as well?
Most of which, I'd argue, where immoral, because they killed loads of innocent people and achieved little. Dresden did nothing to make the war end sooner. The saturation bombing of Berlin didn't either. In fact, they took resources away from tactical bombing campaigns that were having a good effect.
Whereas dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war. The loss of life was worth the US and Japanese lives that would have been lost in the invasion, to say nothing of the Chinese, Japanese and Russian lives being lost in the incredibly bloody fighting on the continent.
A surrender without invasion or vaporising two cities appears to have been entirely possible. People here are far to quick to assume it had to be one way or the other.
I also don't agree with the approach of Consequentialism.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/13 05:57:32
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 05:58:48
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Monstrous Master Moulder
Secret lab at the bottom of Lake Superior
|
Emperors Faithful wrote:micahaphone wrote: The conventional bombs were being dropped on civilians. Invading the island would have caused massive civilian casualties. Nearly every part of war is morally reprehensible; it'd be hard to find a part that isn't. I think I've already said killing civilians on purpose is bad, m'kay? The article on page three shows that Japan was willing to have a conditional surrender, but does not mention what those conditions were, instead veering off to cold war politics (a good point) and racism (a point I'm somewhat sketchy on). Denial? What are these terms? Could Japan have wanted to keep territory? Maybe they would have. The approachof the Soviets ensured this wasn't going to be a reality. I know they were afraid that their Emperor, who was very revered, would be killed, but did we ever insinuate this? What exactly were their terms? I can't recall if it was ever specifically declared that the Emperor was going to be put on trial (which would have been a stupendous move on the Allies part). But in the wake of an unconditional surrender they knew they wouldn't be able to do anything about it if that was what the Allies wanted (and looking at what happened to Japanese commanders, it wouldn't have been out of the question).The Emperor's well-being was always a top priority. In fact, in thier final surrender that was the only condition. 1) I'm just saying, the article didn't specify. 2) If the territory thing was in there (I shall research this tomorrow- I must go to bed soon), we would not have accepted it. Until later, I shall chalk that up as an uncertain. 3) Ditto for the threats against the Emperor. Was that solely an internal fear, or had we hinted at it? EDIT for failing grammar. I really need to hit the sack. goodnight all.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/13 05:59:41
Commissar NIkev wrote:
This guy......is smart |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 06:03:56
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
micahaphone wrote:2) If the territory thing was in there (I shall research this tomorrow- I must go to bed soon), we would not have accepted it. Until later, I shall chalk that up as an uncertain.
Accepted what? Japan was a defeated nation with no ability to bargain for territory they no longer held.
3) Ditto for the threats against the Emperor. Was that solely an internal fear, or had we hinted at it?
Had the Allies ever come out and said that the Emperor would be put on the block? No. But they also hadn't said that he wouldn't be.
|
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 06:07:47
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Even with such things as cracking the Nazi codes, those forces tasked with investigating and retrieving Nazi technology and research in the last weeks of the war were constantly finding new technology, weaponry and techniques that were decades in advance of allied technology. Such things were a surprise to Allied Intelligence, much as many of the innovations that actually went in to service were also a surprise. What they found was a collection of high end research projects where the real world applications were not worth the research time. When you hear stories about the Russians coming across the development of a long range bomber planned to reach New York from Berlin, the first thought is 'holy crap the Nazis could have bombed New York if the war had continued for another few years'. But shortly afterwards we start to think 'what in blue blazes were the Nazis doing developing a long range bomber to hit New York while the Russians were advancing on Berlin? The thing about Nazi super science is that it was a collection of hair brained schemes. You get all this cool looking weapons tech that makes for great stories, but in the real world their inability to prioritise and produce practical weapons harmed their ability to fight the war. And a good thing to, because a sane regime with the industrial capacity of most of continental Europe behind it could have dominated the globe, rather than being utterly crushed in a few years. But if they were sane they wouldn't have been the Nazis. Can anyone say that Japan would have not resorted to such methods in a lengthened conflict? They did indeed work on delivery systems which actually reached the continental US. (Balloons surprisingly enough.) Yes, they tasked schoolkids with building ballons, and they sent hundreds of thousands up over the gulf stream. For the total of one effective hit, killing a handful of people. Turns out the while a city is very big, the entirety the west coast of the US is much bigger, and the odds of a bomb landing successfully is so remote that it made the whole thing a very stupid idea indeed. Automatically Appended Next Post: ArbeitsSchu wrote:Maybe thats why France couldn't get into Nato meetings for ages? Couldn't get into? France withdrew from NATO, due to US dominance of its activities. Well, withdrew its forces from NATO command, it remained part of the organisation. Automatically Appended Next Post: Brushfire wrote:The Germans scientists were geeks working in a ivory tower with nice ideas, while Germany was going up in flames. I think those scientists were very practically minded people, that is if they keep telling Hitler their superweapon projects had real and practical uses and would be ready in just a few months then they can keep working in their labs, and not get reassigned to an infantry division on the Eastern front. Automatically Appended Next Post: ArbeitsSchu wrote:exactly like the T-34 in fact. A peasants tractor with angled armour..its about as simple as it gets, and a wonder-weapon when it showed up. You're really not giving the right amount of credit to the christie suspension. What Germany lacked in many cases was the will to use some of their most potentially devastating weapons, or the acumen to use them properly. Now, the problem was that the superweapons weren't as effective as people like to pretend, and that it was a war where quantity decided battles, far more than particular instances of superior tech. If they hit London with a V2 full of hi-explosive, they could have done nailed the Normandy beach-heads with a payload of something far more unpleasant, for example. They fired V-2s at London. Explosive is scary and all and makes a big mess where it lands, but really doesn't make that much of dent in something on the scale of a city. To effect a city on any material level you need lots explosions, constantly, and therein lies the problem with V-2s. They were highly engineered and incredibly time consuming to produce, so they couldn't operate on that scale. Weapon delivery like V-2 only became useful when we had much bigger bombs to put in them - nukes. The point is that Germany could have and in many cases DID share their ideas and technology with Japan, and allied leaders at the time had no idea what had been shared. Where Germany lacked the will or capacity, Japan may have not. From the viewpoint of an allied leader in 45, Japan is a very real threat, even without a conventional navy. No, Japan wasn't. They had exactly as little capability, and this talk about lacking will is nonsensical. What Japan represented was a costly, exhaustive invasion. Which alone is reason enough to drop the bomb. So I don't know why you're bothering with this superweapon stuff at all. Germany is on the brink of destruction, and you also now KNOW that Germany has been sharing things with Japan, This is a bizarre claim. a nation still engaged in war-fighting, with a degree less respect for the rules of war than even the Germans (which is saying something.) Whereas that is just plain ridiculous. Automatically Appended Next Post: ArbeitsSchu wrote:German had chemical weapons stocks and a suspected nuclear program, and a proven delivery system. The German nuclear weapons programs wasn't suspected, it was known. Allied operatiions had been undertaken to stop it, specifically to stop the supply of heavy water. The allies knew the scope of the German program, and they knew it was very small and limited, just another one of the nazi crazy side projects. I mean, just compare it to the scope of the Manhattan Project, which chewed up immense resources and still had to cut corners at the end and hope it all worked out to get a bomb ready in time. The German plan had resources maybe 1/1,000 of that. Automatically Appended Next Post: Emperors Faithful wrote:A lot of people back then were also homophobic racists. Should I go back and tell them they were wrong about that as well?  That'd also be helpful. Meanwhile, there's still loads of bombs getting dropped on cities, because that's where the key targets are. Thing is, if you fight a war by arbitrary rules like 'don't drop bombs on civilians' then you can end up dragging a war on, getting more of your soldiers and more of their soldiers killed, and likely loads of civilians as well. Playing games with rules like that can be immoral. A surrender without invasion or vaporising two cities appears to have been entirely possible. My reading indicates no such conclusion was likely. Meanwhile, every month there was god knows how many thousands dying in China. When war drags on in a place like that, where you have subsistance level farming during the good times, then the civilian death toll just gets uglier month by month, even when no-one is trying to kill civilians. So you might have been welcome to say Japan will surrender any day now, I'm going to go with doing what has to be done to end the war as quickly as possible.
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2011/05/13 06:53:08
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 08:05:38
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Oberleutnant
|
@ Various people including Sebster: And when the American military leadership of 1945 developed its time machine and flew to the future of NOW and googled Japan's war effort then they would have known that Japan didn't actually receive anything particularly useful from Germany, that most German research was advanced but not immediately useful, and a host of other exciting things......
Far too many people in this thread are thinking in terms of what we know now, and not what was known in 1944/45, which makes most of the counter arguments completely void. What they actually HAD is not only irrelevant but unknown to planners at the time. What they MIGHT have had however, is very very important.
And I already stated my reasons for why the attack was necessary. Everything else is a response to this ridiculous beleif that Japan was not a threat to the US because it lacked a Navy or effective Air Force. I seem to recall a big hole in the middle of Manhattan made by a group with no air force and no navy. And if nothing else, if Japan was not a threat as much as people in this thread seem to believe was the case, then why didn't the whole Pacific Fleet just pack up and sale home? Why carry on prosecuting a war against a nation that is "no threat"?
Addendum: For those who seem to think that I'm stating opinion and not fact, here's a google for you. 30AU and T-Force. Then go and read up about what the Germans did or did not have, and the rest of it. Automatically Appended Next Post: On a slightly different angle: There seems to be some confusion about the difference between the act of bombing being "right" and "necessary", which are obviously two distinct things.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/13 08:14:41
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 08:19:10
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
ArbeitsSchu wrote:@ Various people including Sebster: And when the American military leadership of 1945 developed its time machine and flew to the future of NOW and googled Japan's war effort then they would have known that Japan didn't actually receive anything particularly useful from Germany, that most German research was advanced but not immediately useful, and a host of other exciting things......
Far too many people in this thread are thinking in terms of what we know now, and not what was known in 1944/45, which makes most of the counter arguments completely void. What they actually HAD is not only irrelevant but unknown to planners at the time. What they MIGHT have had however, is very very important.
Taking action on a "maybe" can be understood. IF there was anything to suggest that it was a maybe. They DIDN'T have a nuclear program and the Allies DIDN'T suspect anything otherwise.
And I already stated my reasons for why the attack was necessary. Everything else is a response to this ridiculous beleif that Japan was not a threat to the US because it lacked a Navy or effective Air Force. I seem to recall a big hole in the middle of Manhattan made by a group with no air force and no navy.
Under the circumstances would being in control of a plane that size count as having some sort of make-shift air force?
Regardless, trying to compare 9/11 to WWII is a bit off, donchathink?
And if nothing else, if Japan was not a threat as much as people in this thread seem to believe was the case, then why didn't the whole Pacific Fleet just pack up and sale home? Why carry on prosecuting a war against a nation that is "no threat"?
Because of US popular opinion. And popular opinion is hardly something you want to base your moral compass on.
Addendum: For those who seem to think that I'm stating opinion and not fact, here's a google for you. 30AU and T-Force. Then go and read up about what the Germans did or did not have, and the rest of it.
This is about Japan, not Germany. There is nothing to suggest that the Allies believed Japan and Germany were working on a nuclear program together.
|
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 08:29:12
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
I seem to recall a big hole in the middle of Manhattan made by a group with no air force and no navy.
Right, and I can beat someone to death with a the keyboard I'm using right now. Clearly I'm a threat to US citizens, and therefore the US.
What a joke.
You keep saying that people arguing against you are reaching a conclusion based on knowledge developed after the end of the war, I have repeatedly shown why this is not the case. Either you are being willfully ignorant, or you cannot, by way of intellectual limitations, perceive this fact.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 08:33:48
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
LunaHound wrote:Was Hiroshima a civilian city or Military place?
Both. Obviously it was a city. It also contained a number of legitimate military targets such as army headquarters and supply depots.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 08:42:21
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
sebster wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:A lot of people back then were also homophobic racists. Should I go back and tell them they were wrong about that as well? 
That'd also be helpful.
Meanwhile, there's still loads of bombs getting dropped on cities, because that's where the key targets are.
Sure, but there's a huge difference between striking at targets within a city, and simply targetting the city itself. The first one may view civilian casualties as a collateral, the other is hoping for civilian casualties in itself.
You can do so with Nukes or conventional bombs, BTW.
Thing is, if you fight a war by arbitrary rules like 'don't drop bombs on civilians' then you can end up dragging a war on, getting more of your soldiers and more of their soldiers killed, and likely loads of civilians as well. Playing games with rules like that can be immoral.
It could never be as simple as "don't drop bombs on civilians", especially with the technology available at the time, because then civilians themselves would be used as shields by one side or the other to protect sites from bombing attacks.
Getting to the point where you are specifically targetting sites becuase it's going to cause a massive amount of destruction to infrustructure and civilian life is much worse.
A surrender without invasion or vaporising two cities appears to have been entirely possible.
My reading indicates no such conclusion was likely.
If you mean an unconditional surrender wasn't going to happen then you'd be absolutely correct.
If by surrender you mean an agreement that lets Japanese officials save face then it's different.
I would be dubious about such a surrender though, given the Treaty of Versailles, though the eventual outcome that could in part be due to the Great Depression.
Meanwhile, every month there was god knows how many thousands dying in China. When war drags on in a place like that, where you have subsistance level farming during the good times, then the civilian death toll just gets uglier month by month, even when no-one is trying to kill civilians.So you might have been welcome to say Japan will surrender any day now, I'm going to go with doing what has to be done to end the war as quickly as possible.
I hardly think the situation in China was what prompted the US to drop the bomb. That wasn't the motivation behind it.
After pouring in an huge amount of resources into the nuclear program do you think the US government was going to let them sit by unused? Of course not, by dropping the A-bomb and annhilating two cities in moments the US established itself as the dominant military force in the world, by using it on an enemy that was already defeated.
|
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/05/13 11:16:56
Subject: In Retrospect... Was Hiroshima a good idea?
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
micahaphone wrote:A total of 200,000 people, if I'm remembering correctly, were killed due to the use of atomic weapons in WW II. By the time that we used fat man and little boy, we had already killed 500,000 civilians (and plenty of property) in Tokyo through conventional and incendiary bombing methods. Our outlook suggested that this would be necessary for most large cities.
Additionally, if we had not dropped said bombs, we would have had to invade the Japanese mainland. we expected to lose at least 250,000 American lives (that's not counting Japanese casualties) in the initial invasion of Japan, with around 200,000 more (once again, only American) deaths throughout. It was most likely that Japanese citizens would fight back and aid the military, as was the culture at the time, meaning more civilian casualties as well.
So all in all, it was the lesser two evils that we chose when we dropped the fission bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Here's to hoping that we never have to use them ever again.
Also, Russia would have joined in the fight. Did we really want to have a Berlin- style situation in Tokyo?
Exactly. Thatsa why this hindsight crap argument is, well crap. Automatically Appended Next Post: LunaHound wrote:Its a city. By definition its a civilian, filled with civilians. A city may contain targets of military interest, but in and of itself is not a "military" place.
In that case , i vote for Bad Idea.
Desperate or not , killing civilians is no better than terrorist doing 9-11
Then your thinking lacks logic. Hindsight in this case is blind. Automatically Appended Next Post: AvatarForm wrote:Frazzled wrote:Ketara wrote:@ Frazzled
Either that or your generation was taught by one who needed to justify their own actions and global stance to themselves?
Make no mistake, I have no real interest either way, bar an academic one. I'm not interested in penalising America, the Japanese committed atrocities just as bad. I wouldn't put either on the level of say, the Holocaust, just the natural order of war.
The thing remains though, that Japan was out of supplies, half levelled by extensive incendiary and napalm bombing, their navy was no longer an issue, and the Americans and allied forces were capable of moving at will about the place. Those are military facts, regardless of your viewpoint.
To my mind, that would classify it as 'unnecessary', in the sense that the war was as good as over, and the Japanese no longer had any meaningful way of striking back. You are of course, free to examine those military facts I have given there, and draw a separate conclusion.
However, to simply accuse someone with no stake either way, who is indeed an academic in the field of warfare of , 'PC bs whitewashing' is bold indeed. I would appreciate academic citation if I am wrong. If you can prove that Japan was still amply supplied with ammo, soldiers, warships, aircraft, and so on, and still possessed the means and wherewithal to use it, I will accept it and draw another conclusion. So in the interests of defending your stance, discrediting the one you feel is wrong, and spreading education, please do so.
Wow just wow.
I don't have to debate some loser revisionst scholar.
-When did Japanese troops leave China?
-When did Japanese troops leave Vietnam?
-When did Japanese troops leave Cambodia?
-When did Japanese troops leave Laos?
-When did Japanese troops leave Malaysia?
-When did Japanese troops leave Singapore?
-Were the Japanese working on a nuclear program?
-Were the Japanese working on their own jet fighters?
-Did the Japanese surrender Manchuria after the first A bomb? Did they ever surrender Manchuria?
-Did the Japanese surrender after the first A bomb? Did they surrender after the first A bomb and the invasion of Manchuria?
-how many millions of civilians died at the hands of the Japanese? How many were dying daily when they surrenderd?
In the words of the immortal bard: nuts.
Like many War-Histories, history is written by the victors.
Who says what you "learned" at school is the reality?
Would further atrocities committed by USMC and other Defence personnel change the US public's views of the present invasions? As they did in Vietnam and the US Govt decided to explain away by claiming it was only a single unit who committed them.
Any who take the time to investigate the other side of an opinion or "fact" would know that what you are taught to believe at school is only half-truths.
There were attrocities on both sides. War is never the correct choice or a method of vindication to decide who is in the "right".
Thats suich bs its like being on a ranch. Is this what passes for education now?
How many million did the Japanese kill? How many death marches, how many Nankings. This is just crazy talk. Automatically Appended Next Post: Emperors Faithful wrote:micahaphone wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:micahaphone wrote:From roughly the 1930s onto the end of world war 2, Japan had a very militaristic culture. Surrendering was one of the worst things to do. Killing civilians was horrible, but what's your alternative? What would have been better than dropping the bomb?
Not dropping the bomb?
How about a surrender that allowed Japan to save face? Somehow that strikes me as a little more moral than genocide.
And what exactly would the USA have been doing? Twiddling our thumbs while we waited for the Japanese people to say "whoah, our entire mindset these 14 years has been entirely wrong! It'd be best if we just surrendered right now."
An unconditional surrender isn't what I said, that's unpopular with pretty much any country you'd care to name. I said a surrender that would allow Japan to save face.
Thats what happened.
If we followed Japanese policy, on conquering the country we would have put the entire military and government to death or sent them to death camps inlcuidng the Emperor. All prisoners would have been killed or sent to death camps. Their production and crops exported to the US. Their women used for prostitutes. Entire cities would have been killed for kicks. WE would have ground their culture into dust.
Thats how the Japanese did it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Emperors Faithful wrote:micahaphone wrote:2) If the territory thing was in there (I shall research this tomorrow- I must go to bed soon), we would not have accepted it. Until later, I shall chalk that up as an uncertain.
Accepted what? Japan was a defeated nation with no ability to bargain for territory they no longer held.
They still retained most of their possessions in Asia. Jeez read a book.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/05/13 11:30:14
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
|
|