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.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Russia and Japan had a non-aggression pact. While russia explicitly announced that they wouldn't renew it when it expire (~1946), they didn't go to war with Japan until after Hiroshima.

In April 1945 the Soviets denounced the nonaggression pact. Whether this restarted the war ended in '41 may be debated, but non-aggression was gone before Potsdam.

My sources say they renounced it in August 1945 which coincides with their invasion of Japanese controlled land.

Russia denounced its non-aggression pact with Japan in August of 1945 and launched a swift and crushing offensive into Manchuria. At the same time, Russian troops seized the Kuriles and Karafuto and entered northern Korea. All but northern Korea remain under Russian control today.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/R/u/Russia.htm

The above is a great encyclopedic site for the Pacific War; lots of interesting material in an easy to read format that includes citations.

it should also be put in as a further reminder, it was the Allies who had the war forced upon them, not the Japanese. The Japanese invaded country after country. The allies were the ones being invaded.

I understand, but being the second to the party doesn't mean you get to wave your ass around. Not that I think that's what the allies did, it's just not an excuse is all. The allies fought a pretty terrible war and were by far the most humane, especially when compared to the regular atrocities inflicted by the axis powers.

Hiroshima did have factories, but that doesn't justify it as a military target.

Andrew1975 wrote:

it should also be put in as a further reminder, it was the Allies who had the war forced upon them, not the Japanese. The Japanese invaded country after country. The allies were the ones being invaded.

I understand, but being the second to the party doesn't mean you get to wave your ass around. Not that I think that's what the allies did, it's just not an excuse is all. The allies fought a pretty terrible war and were by far the most humane, especially when compared to the regular atrocities inflicted by the axis powers.

Yea it kinda does. Its not a party, they were invaded. IN historical times thats kill the entire enemy population and salt the earth kind of thing.

After coming back after 13 hours, I'm enjoying where this thead has gone. Frazzled and Ketara have both been making good points. Emp.'s faithful needs to come back, he's a good debater. And I'm sorry avatarform, but your logic, claims, and evidence are all sketchy, silly, and/or off-topic.

Kasrkai wrote:Hiroshima did have factories, but that doesn't justify it as a military target.

These factories were developing war materials, like the engines for Japan's planes. Hence, a military target.

Frazzled wrote:
Yea it kinda does. Its not a party, they were invaded. IN historical times thats kill the entire enemy population and salt the earth kind of thing.

I take it you haven't actually studied history, then.

Either way, comparing "historical times" to WWII is a red herring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Clearly you didn't understand the comparison. Which is doubly ironic from someone who spends more time trying to think of ways of calling me stupid than he does of understanding the problem. A flame with long words is still a flame, and not an actual response.

I understood the comparison perfectly, I merely believe that it was an awful one for the same reason I have been demeaning your argument this entire time.

If you classify Japan as a threat, then you must also classify every other country in the world as a threat. This is fine, though I consider such things inherently foolish it is at least consistent. However, if you are going to do such a thing, you must further explain why Japan was thus deserving of a nuclear strike while other nations were allowed to go about their business despite similar connections to Germany; hence the comment about Argentina. When you get to that point, you start reaching arguments from political will (we were very angry at Japan), arguments from racism (the Japanese are inhuman), arguments from future conflict (the Soviets are scary), and arguments from international assertion (the bomb makes us look strong) because the argument from threat has been eliminated by comparative analysis.

And yes, I have been flaming you, that much should be obvious. The argument you are making is frustratingly bad.

I'm not just saying this because I posted the article on page 3, but it seems to me that an awful load of members have been missing a major irony of the pacific war, and yes, I'm looking at you Frazz, especially with statements like these

The Japanese invaded country after country. The allies were the ones being invaded.

So China and Hong King were being invaded, despite large chunks being occupied by Britain and other European powers for a number of years. Ditto India, Singapore and Malaysia.

And what about American colonies in the pacific: Midway, Wake Island, Phillipines etc were they not aleady occupied?

Let's not forget the evils of Japanese occupation, but the west was in no position to take the moral high ground about Japanese imperialism. Hence, the conflcit boiled down to a racial struggle. Germany was nuked, Japan was not, despite the Germans being far more of a threat.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:And what about American colonies in the pacific: Midway, Wake Island, Phillipines etc were they not aleady occupied?

I was unaware the US committed the Rape of Nanking or the Bataan Death March.

Also, Midway and Wake Island aren't colonies and never have been.

Let's not forget the evils of Japanese occupation, but the west was in no position to take the moral high ground about Japanese imperialism.

Yeah they could. They weren't raping women in occupied territory or killing of POW's in the thousands.

Hence, the conflcit boiled down to a racial struggle.

The previous statement does not logically follow to this. Even if we agree that the Allies (EDIT: I'm gonna exclude Russia for this one, they weren't nice) couldn't take the moral high ground, they could still believe they had it. In a war of ideology everyone believes they're on the moral high ground and can claim it even if objective reality suggests otherwise.

Germany was nuked, Japan was not, despite the Germans being far more of a threat.

I'm going to assume, and pray, you mixed those two countries up, or are using nuked as a poor analogy.

Frazzled wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

it should also be put in as a further reminder, it was the Allies who had the war forced upon them, not the Japanese. The Japanese invaded country after country. The allies were the ones being invaded.

I understand, but being the second to the party doesn't mean you get to wave your ass around. Not that I think that's what the allies did, it's just not an excuse is all. The allies fought a pretty terrible war and were by far the most humane, especially when compared to the regular atrocities inflicted by the axis powers.

Yea it kinda does. Its not a party, they were invaded. IN historical times thats kill the entire enemy population and salt the earth kind of thing.

Yeah sure, but you also can't go full ass just because you were attacked, especially if you are concerned about holding the morale high ground. The allies responded to axis atrocities pretty well without having to stoop to that same level of depravity. The world is a better place for it and the allies were able to hold their heads high and look themselves in the mirror after the war.

I'm not a advocate of measured responses, by any means. "Send me to the hospital, I'll send you to the morgue" is fine with me. But you don't have to be depraved about it.

Do_I_Not_Like_That, if you are really saying that allied occupation was anywhere near as bad as axis occupation you really really need to read more.

Either way, comparing "historical times" to WWII is a red herring.

Maybe, but lets face it, Japanese occupation was pretty Medieval and very much consisted of rape, murder, and plunder.

Andrew1975 wrote: The allies responded to axis atrocities pretty well without having to stoop to that same level of depravity. The world is a better place for it and the allies were able to hold their heads high and look themselves in the mirror after the war.

I'm not a advocate of measured responses, by any means. "Send me to the hospital, I'll send you to the morgue" is fine with me. But you don't have to be depraved about it.

The allies? You mean the same Allies who had concentration camps of their own as well as eugenics programs in the US and who thought that sterilizing the mentally disabled was a good idea?

Phototoxin wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote: The allies responded to axis atrocities pretty well without having to stoop to that same level of depravity. The world is a better place for it and the allies were able to hold their heads high and look themselves in the mirror after the war.

I'm not a advocate of measured responses, by any means. "Send me to the hospital, I'll send you to the morgue" is fine with me. But you don't have to be depraved about it.

The allies? You mean the same Allies who had concentration camps of their own as well as eugenics programs in the US and who thought that sterilizing the mentally disabled was a good idea?

Oh, I wasn't aware that the Allies had declared war on the mentally disabled. Seams a pretty one sided battle. I'm not really against sterilizing the mentally disabled anyway! Do they really have the ability to take care of their progeny? I also feel like everyone should be on birth control until they qualify and apply for a parenting license. But that's just me.

Call me crazy, but you must be even crazier if you are comparing these camps to either the Japanese or German camps? You are out of your mind!

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Yea it kinda does. Its not a party, they were invaded. IN historical times thats kill the entire enemy population and salt the earth kind of thing.

I take it you haven't actually studied history, then.

Either way, comparing "historical times" to WWII is a red herring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Clearly you didn't understand the comparison. Which is doubly ironic from someone who spends more time trying to think of ways of calling me stupid than he does of understanding the problem. A flame with long words is still a flame, and not an actual response.

I understood the comparison perfectly, I merely believe that it was an awful one for the same reason I have been demeaning your argument this entire time.

If you classify Japan as a threat, then you must also classify every other country in the world as a threat. This is fine, though I consider such things inherently foolish it is at least consistent. However, if you are going to do such a thing, you must further explain why Japan was thus deserving of a nuclear strike while other nations were allowed to go about their business despite similar connections to Germany; hence the comment about Argentina. When you get to that point, you start reaching arguments from political will (we were very angry at Japan), arguments from racism (the Japanese are inhuman), arguments from future conflict (the Soviets are scary), and arguments from international assertion (the bomb makes us look strong) because the argument from threat has been eliminated by comparative analysis.

And yes, I have been flaming you, that much should be obvious. The argument you are making is frustratingly bad.

And you seem to be incapable of differentiating between a nation that is in a state of war with the USA, versus any other nation that just happens to exist at the time. The USA was not engaged in active warfare with "every other country in the world." It wasn't on the verge of starting an invasion that would have made D-Day seem like a gentle seaside holiday with "every other nation in the world." Its a very simple position. Can Japan extend any war-fighting capability to menace the USA, its armed forces or areas under its aegis in 1945? (As asked IN 1944/45.) and thus does it constitute any potential threat? The answer is actually YES, it potentially can engage USA forces or the USA mainland, as indeed it did. Japan managed to strike against the mainland of the USA with a weapon. The weapon used was ineffective, but the delivery system was not. It achieved its purpose. THAT THERE constitutes a threat.

Not that I actually claimed that was why they dropped the bomb. I'm just saying its ridiculous, facile and childish to declare that Japan was zero threat to the US. The purpose in using the bomb was mainly to intimidate the next great potential enemy, the USSR, and any other future unknown antagonists, and to test the potential of the weapon in the field.

Nice to know this gets to be a sensible grown-up conversation though. If my "argument" is that bad, you should be able to demolish it without resorting to juvenile name-calling. Of course it would have to be an "argument" for that to work, as opposed to a display of facts. But if that's all you've got, then knock yourself out son.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
And you seem to be incapable of differentiating between a nation that is in a state of war with the USA, versus any other nation that just happens to exist at the time. The USA was not engaged in active warfare with "every other country in the world." It wasn't on the verge of starting an invasion that would have made D-Day seem like a gentle seaside holiday with "every other nation in the world."

Because for the purposes of this argument the distinction is irrelevant. The presence of a declared war does not indicate the presence of an unusual threat. Hostility and threat are not the same thing.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Its a very simple position. Can Japan extend any war-fighting capability to menace the USA, its armed forces or areas under its aegis in 1945? (As asked IN 1944/45.) and thus does it constitute any potential threat? The answer is actually YES, it potentially can engage USA forces or the USA mainland, as indeed it did. Japan managed to strike against the mainland of the USA with a weapon. The weapon used was ineffective, but the delivery system was not. It achieved its purpose. THAT THERE constitutes a threat.

And, again, that argument is nonsense because it further extends to any and all nations near the United States or the territory it controls, meaning that the extent to which Japan presented a threat to the US was no greater than that presented by any and all other countries in the world.

Arguing that because the Japanese had the capacity use an ineffective explosive delivery system that they represented something akin to a unique threat, thereby necessitating the use of nuclear weapons to force a surrender is preposterous because the argument that a surrender must be forced in order to end a war is a nonstarter.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Nice to know this gets to be a sensible grown-up conversation though. If my "argument" is that bad, you should be able to demolish it without resorting to juvenile name-calling. Of course it would have to be an "argument" for that to work, as opposed to a display of facts. But if that's all you've got, then knock yourself out son.

I've already explicitly indicated, several times, why your position is flatly wrong. The flaming began after you restated it in increasingly absurd ways, while failing to properly refute my objection.

I was unaware the US committed the Rape of Nanking or the Bataan Death March.

Then you need to read about how the US subjugated the Philippines during the Spanish American war.
Torture, mutilation, destruction of villages, and relocation of natives were the rule. It was a brutal colonial acquisition, period. Just like the Belgians taking the Congo, or the French Vietnam.

“There is the case of the Philippines. I have tried hard, and yet I cannot for the life of me comprehend how we got into that mess. Perhaps we could not have avoided it — perhaps it was inevitable that we should come to be fighting the natives of those islands — but I cannot understand it, and have never been able to get at the bottom of the origin of our antagonism to the natives. I thought we should act as their protector — not try to get them under our heel. We were to relieve them from Spanish tyranny to enable them to set up a government of their own, and we were to stand by and see that it got a fair trial. It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority of the Filipinos, a government according to Filipino ideas. That would have been a worthy mission for the United States. But now — why, we have got into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation.”

---------Mark Twain

Here's something to think about--If we had not occupied the Philippines in the first place, there would be no US troops to be captured and subjected to the Bataan Death march. Our military presence wasn't there to protect the poor Filipinos--It was to protect our commercial interests, as part of our US empire--Oops, I mean our "National Interests" abroad.

Even if the Japanese still attacked us, if we had no US troops as POWs in the Philippines to liberate, as well as to keep MacArthur's political pledge to return, the Pacific campaign would have gone faster by skipping the Philippines altogether. The Navy saw clearly the quickest way to defeat Japan was straight up the Island chain. The Philippines had no strategic importance other than the presence of Japanese ships and planes. Once those were neutralized, it would become one big prison camp like Rabaul. Whatever atrocities the Japanese would have done to the locals would still be less than the hundreds of thousands killed or maimed when the US invaded the island in 1944.

Brushfire wrote:

I was unaware the US committed the Rape of Nanking or the Bataan Death March.

Then you need to read about how the US subjugated the Philippines during the Spanish American war.
Torture, mutilation, destruction of villages, and relocation of natives were the rule. It was a brutal colonial acquisition, period. Just like the Belgians taking the Congo, or the French Vietnam.

“There is the case of the Philippines. I have tried hard, and yet I cannot for the life of me comprehend how we got into that mess. Perhaps we could not have avoided it — perhaps it was inevitable that we should come to be fighting the natives of those islands — but I cannot understand it, and have never been able to get at the bottom of the origin of our antagonism to the natives. I thought we should act as their protector — not try to get them under our heel. We were to relieve them from Spanish tyranny to enable them to set up a government of their own, and we were to stand by and see that it got a fair trial. It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority of the Filipinos, a government according to Filipino ideas. That would have been a worthy mission for the United States. But now — why, we have got into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation.”

---------Mark Twain

Here's something to think about--If we had not occupied the Philippines in the first place, there would be no US troops to be captured and subjected to the Bataan Death march. Our military presence wasn't there to protect the poor Filipinos--It was to protect our commercial interests, as part of our US empire--Oops, I mean our "National Interests" abroad.

Even if the Japanese still attacked us, if we had no US troops as POW in the Philippines to liberate, as well as to keep MacArthur's pledge to return, the Pacific campaign would have gone faster by skipping the Philippines altogether. The Navy saw clearly the quickest way to defeat Japan was straight up the Island chain. The Japanese army would have been stranded and cut off there. Whatever atrocities the Japanese would have done to the locals would still be less than the hundreds of thousands killed or maimed when the US invaded the island in 1944.

Again we are talking about WWII not Vietnam, the Spanish American War or the War on terror. Please try to find relevant examples people!

Oh and the Fillipino people loved the allies compared to the Japanese. To answer Mr. Twain's question, we got a pretty good ally that loves us to this day by the way!

Again we are talking about WWII not Vietnam, the Spanish American War or the War on terror. Please try to find relevant examples people!

Oh and the Fillipino people loves the allies compared to the Japanese.

You cannot separate the past conflicts anymore than you can separate how WWI and the resulting Versailles treaty created the conditions for WW2. From my study of history, every war only breeds the conditions for the next one.

Ask the Moros if they love the US after they were defeated by them in 1898. Ask the Hawaiians how much they love the US for replacing their royalty rule for the benefit of the Dole pineapple company. Ask the natives of Bikini atoll, or Diego Gracia, how much they appreciated being removed from their home islands they had lived on for generations by US, in the interests of our national security.

Brushfire wrote:You cannot separate the past conflicts anymore than you can separate how WWI and the resulting Versailles treaty created the conditions for WW2. From my study of history, every war only breeds the conditions for the next one.

Congratulations. You've discovered the concept of causation. *golf clap*

While the events of the Spanish-American War had an effect on the events of WWII and the Pacific campaign in that it put the Phillipines and Guam under US control, answering the question "Who was worse in WWII, the US or the Japan?" with "The U.S. did bad stuff in the Spanish-American War" is pointless because it's completely off topic and only serves to avoid answering the question at hand. I never claimed the Allies did nothing bad. Merely that actions of the Axis leave it possible for one to put forward the case (somewhat easily really) that the Axis was worse.

LordofHats wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:And what about American colonies in the pacific: Midway, Wake Island, Phillipines etc were they not aleady occupied?

I was unaware the US committed the Rape of Nanking or the Bataan Death March.

Even the trial judges at the Tokyo trials found that the Rape of Nanking was not sanctioned by the Japanese Government. If 'Japan' as a whole is responsible for the Rape of Nanking, then so is the 'US' as a whole responsible for the thousands of rapes in the wake of Okinawa.

Let's not forget the evils of Japanese occupation, but the west was in no position to take the moral high ground about Japanese imperialism.

Yeah they could. They weren't raping women in occupied territory or killing of POW's in the thousands.

They sort of were. Not to the extent of the Bataan Death March (if we're not including the Soviets), but hardly an excuse to take the high ground over Imperialism.

Also, when Vietnam was 'liberated' from the French imperialists to be replaced with Japanese ones there was a a fair division in the populace. Some resisted the Japanese as they had the French (Ho Chi Minh), while others were more accepting of this change of hands. Neither case makes Western Imperialism look any better.

Hence, the conflcit boiled down to a racial struggle.

The previous statement does not logically follow to this. Even if we agree that the Allies (EDIT: I'm gonna exclude Russia for this one, they weren't nice) couldn't take the moral high ground, they could still believe they had it. In a war of ideology everyone believes they're on the moral high ground and can claim it even if objective reality suggests otherwise.

Think about it. The Western forces in Asia weren't upset over Imperialism, but that it was Japanese Imperialism. Imperialism tends to be frowned upon if you aren't white.

Germany was nuked, Japan was not, despite the Germans being far more of a threat.

I'm going to assume, and pray, you mixed those two countries up, or are using nuked as a poor analogy.

I think that was supposed to be "Japan was Nuked, Germany was not, despite the Germans being far more of a threat."

This would be understandable if their policies had changed when Germany surrendered, but it appears the target was always going to be Japan.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Even the trial judges at the Tokyo trials found that the Rape of Nanking was not sanctioned by the Japanese Government. If 'Japan' as a whole is responsible for the Rape of Nanking, then so is the 'US' as a whole responsible for the thousands of rapes in the wake of Okinawa.

Again. I never said the US did nothing bad. There were several incidents of POW's being executed by US troops in number but never to the scale of incidents committed by Germany and Japan. Comparing Okinawa to the Rape of Nanking is a great disservice. Both were bad, but one is undoubtedly worse than the other.

This would be understandable if their policies had changed when Germany surrendered, but it appears the target was always going to be Japan.

Leslie Groves begs to differ. There were talks about using the weapon on all three Axis powers while it was in development. Roosevelt told Leslie Groves that if Germany wasn't defeated by the time the bomb was ready that he would order it to be dropped on Germany. The plan had always been to take Germany out of the game first. That never changed in any respect even after FDR died (EDIT: of course Germany pretty much was defeated when FDR died, so that worked out). Japan had the unfortunate position of being the last Axis power standing when the bomb was ready to be deployed.

LordofHats wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Even the trial judges at the Tokyo trials found that the Rape of Nanking was not sanctioned by the Japanese Government. If 'Japan' as a whole is responsible for the Rape of Nanking, then so is the 'US' as a whole responsible for the thousands of rapes in the wake of Okinawa.

Again. I never said the US did nothing bad. There were several incidents of POW's being executed by US troops in number but never to the scale of incidents committed by Germany and Japan. Comparing Okinawa to the Rape of Nanking is a great disservice. Both were bad, but one is undoubtedly worse than the other.

So is comparing the bombing of London to that of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and other.

One was bad, the others were undoubtedly worse.

This would be understandable if their policies had changed when Germany surrendered, but it appears the target was always going to be Japan.

Leslie Groves begs to differ. There were talks about using the weapon on all three Axis powers while it was in development. Roosevelt told Leslie Groves that if Germany wasn't defeated by the time the bomb was ready that he would order it to be dropped on Germany. The plan had always been to take Germany out of the game first. That never changed in any respect even after FDR died (EDIT: of course Germany pretty much was defeated when FDR died, so that worked out). Japan had the unfortunate position of being the last Axis power standing when the bomb was ready to be deployed.

I'm a little skeptical on this. Can you provide a source?

The article on page 3 supports the opposite conclusion.

Ambivalent in that it was a good deal for the Americans and a bad one for the Japanese.

The Americans would have lost alot of men in conquering the Japanese mainland, which they would have been forced to do given the "Banzai"-spirit of the Japanese people. The result would have been alot of civilian casulties, just like in the bombings. To the Americans, it gave the same result without throwing away the lives of American soldiers. All in all, a good call if you ask me.

However (before you call me something mean) the aftermath of the bombings surely gave the Americans some meat to throw around in the kitchen. The Japanese people were devastated by the sheer show of force. It was no longer any point in the kamikaze pilots to sacrifice themselves, for example, since the blast alone would be counter-intuitive to what they really cared about: protecting their loved ones, their country and the Emperor. To me, and many military personnel and officials at the time, the surrender came as a shock. If one truly studies the Japanese culture around death, honour and suicide (I have in several papers during my time as a history student at the university), the sheer amount of banzai-bravado should have kept the Japanese going, which would have ended in either more bombs or the Americans revising their plans.

In the end, the Japanese followed their code of honour to an extent. Bringing war home to your region and endangering your family, friends and the people you held responsibility of, was an even greater dishonour than losing a battle to the samurai. Truth be told, the samurai didn't commit suicide just because the lost a battle or fled, it was a question of dignity. And to this end the American plan worked, after the bombs fell the Emperor took responsibility to those that admired him and took to serve him and lost the battle with dignity.

All I can say is that whether or not you believe the Americans did wrong, both the President and the Emperor signed the bomb-orders and surrender respectively for good reasons: preventing further deaths of the people that looked to them for leadership and inspiration.

I'm a little skeptical on this. Can you provide a source?

The article on page 3 supports the opposite conclusion.

Leslie Grove's book Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project

I feel no need to even address the article in detail to be honest. He has some interesting information, but a lot of it screams "cherry picked for my purposes" and flies in the face of several known facts, like the fact that Japan wasn't surrendering, and a general lack of historical perspective on how he approaches a lot of his quotes and information. His entire position on Imperialism screams that he doesn't actually know much about the history of it. Imperialism was on the downturn in WWI, and was dead by the end of WWII as a goal of Western powers, something the author of the article hand waves away by acknowledging while at the same time saying we bombed them because there isn't enough room for non-white imperialists around here! EDIT: The US had given up Imperialism ages ago. It was dead and buried when the Great Depression hit. Imperialism and the authors entire position on it is more in line with the British Imperialism rather than American Imperialism.

Also, check when the NSA was founded. It's very informative. He pretty much lost all credibility for me in the first few hundred words with that one. It's hard to intercept enemy communications when you don't exist.

International and foreign policy motives (To clarify, motives heavily tied to what would soon become the Cold War) played a bigger role in dropping the bomb than racism. Racism probably had a role to play. I wouldn't be shocked. But Mr. Hume takes it to an absurd level that I don't think he's even properly supported. He strings together a bunch of inflamatory remarks and cherry picked quotes and says they say what he wants them to say.

That said, regardless of motivation, in hindsight we do know that Japan was unlikely to surrender. It's not really a debatable position as far as I know. Invasion of Japan would have killed just as many if not more people as the bombings (likely more). We'll never know in the end. X-Day never came and Downfall never happened. All we can do is play the numbers game. In retrospect the bombing did end the war. Alternatives may have ended it but I find anyone claiming Japan would have surrendered on its own or should have been left alone because it was no longer a threat to have a poor grip on historical reality (as it is currently known). The bombings played an important role after the war too. You never know how deadly a weapon is till you use it. Because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no sane person wants to use nuclear weapons, which may not be true if they hadn't been used then (they probably would have ended up being used later in another conflict). The same thing happened with chemical weapons after WWI.

tl;dr

My opinion is that if the casualty projections on a full-scale invasion of Japan are to be believed, the bombing of Hiroshima(and the subsequent bombing of Nagasaki) was the lesser of two evils. That said, it's still a bummer that it happened.

I can't reply to everyone in one post, nor can I possibly read them and comment on them. But I do find this sort of discussion entertaining, and so, feel free to PM me.

In any case, here are some rebuttals to common counter arguments:*

1) Dropping bombs on civilians is bad.
Why?
[strawman]Because it kills innocent people[/strawman]
Boo hoo? Why are innocent people so important?
[strawman]Because they just are, OK!?[/strawman]

Additional: I will note that the above argument would require you to prove that any of the people killed were innocent, which (in wartime) is extremely hard if Clausewitzian logic is employed.

2) Dropping atomic bombs is bad because of radiation.
Living on a planet this close to the sun is bad because of radiation. What? It kills people too you know!

* Disclaimer: The straw man is based on normal responses I get when I offer that argument, feel free to articulate your own points here or in a PM. However, I cannot guarantee that I will be able to address them in this thread.

EDIT: I suppose you could sum up my argument with two premises:

1) gak HAPPENS, DEAL WITH IT

2) BOMBING THE BAD GUYS IS NEVER BAD.
2a) THE BAD GUYS ARE WHOMEVER LOSES, ALWAYS.

EDIT2: Ok, 2.5 premises.

WWII in general was a bad idea. But we didn't have that much of a choice in it. The suffering of those innocents whom were stricken by the bombs in the years after is unfortunate, sure... but so is the suffering of the people who were enslaved by the Japanese nation at the time.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I can't reply to everyone in one post, nor can I possibly read them and comment on them. But I do find this sort of discussion entertaining, and so, feel free to PM me.

In any case, here are some rebuttals to common counter arguments:*

1) Dropping bombs on civilians is bad.
Why?
[strawman]Because it kills innocent people[/strawman]
Boo hoo? Why are innocent people so important?
[strawman]Because they just are, OK!?[/strawman]

First off, that is not what a straw-man a straw man is

Second off, are you honestly going to claim that killing innocent people is not a bad thing

Additional: I will note that the above argument would require you to prove that any of the people killed were innocent, which (in wartime) is extremely hard if Clausewitzian logic is employed.

have you ever once read On War or read more then one critics take on it

I think that "bad guys are whoever loses" is in regard to the saying about history being written by the winners, which is somewhat true.

I'm not touching the Holocaust issue with a 10-foot pole, however.

youbedead wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:I can't reply to everyone in one post, nor can I possibly read them and comment on them. But I do find this sort of discussion entertaining, and so, feel free to PM me.

In any case, here are some rebuttals to common counter arguments:*

1) Dropping bombs on civilians is bad.
Why?
[strawman]Because it kills innocent people[/strawman]
Boo hoo? Why are innocent people so important?
[strawman]Because they just are, OK!?[/strawman]

First off, that is not what a straw-man a straw man is

Second off, are you honestly going to claim that killing innocent people is not a bad thing

I think attributing that argument to you guys is "creating a position that is easy to refute," "attributing said position to [you guys]," and then "refuting it." But that's not important.

I, being a logical being, do not see killing innocent people as detrimental to my survival or to the survival of the human race (provided it is limited in scope to fewer than 7 billion people). Enlighten me as to what I am missing?

youbedead wrote:

Additional: I will note that the above argument would require you to prove that any of the people killed were innocent, which (in wartime) is extremely hard if Clausewitzian logic is employed.

have you ever once read On War or read more then one critics take on it

Never read any critics, just read and interpreted it myself in Philosophy class last semester.

youbedead wrote:
2) Dropping atomic bombs is bad because of radiation.
Living on a planet this close to the sun is bad because of radiation. What? It kills people too you know!

* Disclaimer: The straw man is based on normal responses I get when I offer that argument, feel free to articulate your own points here or in a PM. However, I cannot guarantee that I will be able to address them in this thread.

EDIT: I suppose you could sum up my argument with two premises:

1) gak HAPPENS, DEAL WITH IT

2) BOMBING THE BAD GUYS IS NEVER BAD.
2a) THE BAD GUYS ARE WHOMEVER LOSES, ALWAYS.

EDIT2: Ok, 2.5 premises.

Ah, so the jews must have been the bad guys in the holocaust then.

That is what a strawman looks like

Except the Jews didn't lose the Holocaust, because they still exist. Let's look at the Holocaust:

1) Goal: Exterminate all Jews.
2) Were all Jews Exterminated?
3) No.

Conclusion: Holocaust was a failure.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm not just saying this because I posted the article on page 3, but it seems to me that an awful load of members have been missing a major irony of the pacific war, and yes, I'm looking at you Frazz, especially with statements like these

The Japanese invaded country after country. The allies were the ones being invaded.

So China and Hong King were being invaded, despite large chunks being occupied by Britain and other European powers for a number of years. Ditto India, Singapore and Malaysia.

And what about American colonies in the pacific: Midway, Wake Island, Phillipines etc were they not aleady occupied?

Let's not forget the evils of Japanese occupation, but the west was in no position to take the moral high ground about Japanese imperialism. Hence, the conflcit boiled down to a racial struggle. Germany was nuked, Japan was not, despite the Germans being far more of a threat.

The Japanese voluntarily joined the international Imperial system in the late 19th century and used it to take hold of places like Formosa and Korea. This put them on the same moral ground as western colonising nations. Then the Japanese attacked the other members of the system. This put them on the lower moral ground.

Ask the Moros if they love the US after they were defeated by them in 1898. Ask the Hawaiians how much they love the US for replacing their royalty rule for the benefit of the Dole pineapple company. Ask the natives of Bikini atoll, or Diego Gracia, how much they appreciated being removed from their home islands they had lived on for generations by US, in the interests of our national security.

I think you could honestly ask most of these people if they are better off now. It's like the African Americans. Did slavery suck, yes! Would you rather be living in the Congo where every 12 year old is armed with an AK 47 and tribal genocide is de regular? I think not.

The people that the US has screwed the most through out history are the American Indian. That's a fact! But I don't really think the majority of them really want to go back to living in teepees and trading wampum!

My point is not that what happened to them wasn't bad, but at least there are people to ask! The Axis powers would ave left few people alive and those that were would have been completely enslaved!

This has nothing really to do with the conversation though. You can nit pick all you want about the allies actions during WWII, but you have to admit all the alternatives were much worse! You can question the morality of dropping the bombs, but you then must deal with the morality of what would have happened if they didn't. That situation would have been far worse for everyone! All the Japanese that died would have probably died anyway, but in a much more gruesome manner, along with potentially millions more. In many ways the A bombs were merciful.

That said, regardless of motivation, in hindsight we do know that Japan was unlikely to surrender. It's not really a debatable position as far as I know. Invasion of Japan would have killed just as many if not more people as the bombings (likely more). We'll never know in the end. X-Day never came and Downfall never happened. All we can do is play the numbers game. In retrospect the bombing did end the war. Alternatives may have ended it but I find anyone claiming Japan would have surrendered on its own or should have been left alone because it was no longer a threat to have a poor grip on historical reality (as it is currently known). The bombings played an important role after the war too. You never know how deadly a weapon is till you use it. Because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no sane person wants to use nuclear weapons, which may not be true if they hadn't been used then (they probably would have ended up being used later in another conflict). The same thing happened with chemical weapons after WWI.

This is about perfect!