Hiroshima Mayor denounces U.S. [Archive]

kitty

08-06-2003, 01:45 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east...v.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/06/hiroshima.anniv.ap/index.html)

<img src='http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/06/hiroshima.anniv.ap/1940s.hiroshima.nara.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Hiroshima mayor hits out at U.S.
Wednesday, August 6, 2003 Posted: 11:36 AM EDT (1536 GMT)

HIROSHIMA, Japan (AP) -- The mayor of Hiroshima has criticized the U.S. for pursuing new nuclear weapons technology, as he marked the 58th anniversary of the world's first atomic bomb attack.

Tadatoshi Akiba said Washington's apparent worship of "nuclear weapons as God" was threatening world peace.

"The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the central international agreement guiding the elimination of nuclear weapons, is on the verge of collapse," Akiba said during the annual ceremony held Wednesday at the Peace Memorial Park.

"As the U.S.-British-led war on Iraq made clear, the assertion that war is peace is being trumpeted as truth."

At 8:15 a.m., a bell tolled, marking the minute on Aug. 6, 1945 when the U.S. atomic bomb's explosion devastated this city, 429 miles southwest of Tokyo. For 60 seconds, tens of thousands of survivors, residents, activists and officials from around the world bowed in silence to commemorate the 160,000 people who were killed or injured in the blast.

Reminding the crowd of the "blazing hell fire that swept over this very spot 58 years ago," Akiba called all nuclear weapons "utterly evil, inhumane and illegal under international law."

This year's ceremony comes less than a week after North Korea agreed to U.S. demands for six-nation talks to resolve the standoff over the isolated communist regime's nuclear programs. China, Russia, Japan and South Korea were expected to take part, though no timeline for the meetings has been decided.

Akiba didn't directly criticize Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. But he urged North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, President Bush and the heads of other nuclear-armed countries to visit Hiroshima and confront the nuclear attack's aftermath.

Some 160,000 people were killed or injured in the bombing.

The Bush administration wants Congress to approve $68 million for research into advanced nuclear weapons technology, including research on a ground-penetrating nuclear warhead, known as a bunker-buster, and smaller, so-called mini-nukes, of less than 5 kilotons.

The United States has had a self-imposed ban on nuclear testing since 1992.

During Wednesday's ceremony, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi reaffirmed Japan's policy banning the production, possession and transport of nuclear weapons within its borders.

"Our country's stance on this will not change," Koizumi said, adding that Tokyo would push for countries to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which would impose a moratorium on nuclear explosion tests.

Afterward, thousands of people lined up in the sweltering heat to burn incense, pray and shoot photographs at the arch-shaped stone memorial, which contains the names of hundreds of thousands of people who were in the city on the day of the bombing.

Hiroshima city added to the cenotaph 5,050 names of those who have died from cancer and other long-term ailments over the past year, raising the toll to 231,920, city official Yukiko Ota said.

Ceremonies will be held Saturday on the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, on the southernmost main island of Kyushu. About 70,000 people were killed by an atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki from a U.S. aircraft, three days after the one that leveled Hiroshima.

Six days later, on Aug. 15, 1945, Japan's surrender ended World War II.

nicedream

08-06-2003, 02:12 PM

A different perspective...

Nicholas D. Kristof: The complex truth about Hiroshima (http://www.iht.com/articles/105324.html)

It feels unseemly to defend the vaporizing of two cities, events that are regarded in some quarters as among the most monstrous acts of the 20th century. But we owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse.

kitty

08-06-2003, 02:34 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nicedream @ Aug 6 2003, 08:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> A different perspective...

Nicholas D. Kristof: The complex truth about Hiroshima (http://www.iht.com/articles/105324.html)

It feels unseemly to defend the vaporizing of two cities, events that are regarded in some quarters as among the most monstrous acts of the 20th century. But we owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse. [/b][/quote]
I'm sorry. That death toll is ridiculous. I don't believe that there was no better alternative to annhilating more than 100,000 civilians. At the very least, they could have dropped the bombs on military targets.

BigLew

08-06-2003, 03:18 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nicedream @ Aug 6 2003, 12:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> A different perspective...

Nicholas D. Kristof: The complex truth about Hiroshima (http://www.iht.com/articles/105324.html)

It feels unseemly to defend the vaporizing of two cities, events that are regarded in some quarters as among the most monstrous acts of the 20th century. But we owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse. [/b][/quote]
Justification of this much civilian death due to "what if's" fall deaf on my ears.

RasFarengi

08-06-2003, 03:48 PM

Well...hell the Japanese didn't think too hard about slaughtered almost 300, 000 civilians in Nanjing...did they? And I mean slaughter, rap, torture, men, women, and children. I would rather die from a N-bomb myself, if you were anywhere near ground zero, you would die instantly, you wouldn't even know what happened, at least that is humane.

Truth is innocent people will always die in war. We firebombed Dresden, Germany and killed a hell of a lot, thousands of civilians died.

Hell we killed thousands in Tokyo.

You know how we did it?

We dropped bombs in a spiral pattern coming out from the center, than ignited the middle, the resulting fire, sucked the oxygen out of the air, even out of some of the bomb sheltered, those who didn't die from the fire died from suffocation...no shit

My wife’s family fled Tokyo to Nagano, and their house got burned to the ground, because of the firebombing.

You think the Germans and the Japanese weren't doing similar shit... <_<

Best thing to say is, times were different back then, and we (well some of us) learned our lesson. It is history it cannot be changed...and the Japanese wear hurt and like normal human beings they will overlook what their people did and focus on what was done to them.

Every person thinks their burden is the heaviest.

Trust me though, if we would have invaded from the South and the Russians from the North it would have been seriously bloody, especially with the mentality of the Japanese back then. They would not have just laid down their arms and come out peacefully.

kitty

08-06-2003, 03:53 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 6 2003, 09:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well...hell the Japanese didn't think too hard about slaughtered almost 300, 000 civilians in Nanjing...did they? And I mean slaughter, rap, torture, men, women, and children. I would rather die from a N-bomb myself, if you were anywhere near ground zero, you would die instantly, you wouldn't even know what happened, at least that is humane

[/b][/quote]
Just because of the way they slaughtered the citizens of Nanking, doesn't justify the U.S. doing the same to them.

Fireblade

08-06-2003, 03:55 PM

I think what matters most now isn't what was done in the past, but what might come in the future. I'm sure as hell convinced that GW will lead us into the next world war.

RasFarengi

08-06-2003, 03:57 PM

Just because of the way they slaughtered the citizens of Nanking, doesn't justify the U.S. doing the same to them.

In my opinion, nothing justifies war, but I am a practical man.

If you are going to do it, do it right, do it fast, and get it over with.

I changed my post a little while you were responding. Many military analyst at the time thought less people will die if we dropped the bomb, and they also wanted to test this new weapon and show off in front of the USSR (who were our friends, but were quickly growing suspect).

We even had plans to use it on Germany, but they gave up due after Russia entered Germany so...the Japanese wouldn't quit fighting although they were out of resources.

If I was the general, as much as I like Japanese people, I would have dropped the bomb too. This is war...

BigLew

08-06-2003, 04:27 PM

Many military analyst at the time thought less people will die if we dropped the bomb, and they also wanted to test this new weapon and show off in front of the USSR (who were our friends, but were quickly growing suspect).

Oh never mind that justifies everything. :confused: Just cause military analysts said so it must be true! And what better way to show off our power than nuking civilians.

Napoleon Chynamite

08-06-2003, 04:34 PM

Well supposedly after WW2 there isn't this 'all's fair in war' mentality. That's why the Geneva Convention exists and why the term 'war crimes' exist. I don't believe all should be fair in war, and that all morals or the humanity of other countries or the civilians on enemy soil can be justifiably discarded. If people say it was 'practical' for Truman to give the green light for the bomb, it depends on what you mean. If his intention was to annihilate a shitload of innocent Japanese people, then yeah, that is the most practical thing to do.

By the way Ras, how does your wife feel about your opinion on this matter? I'm sincerely curious and wondering...

RasFarengi

08-06-2003, 04:40 PM

Oh never mind that justifies everything.  Just cause military analysts said so it must be true! And what better way to show off our power than nuking civilians.

Military Analyst are not perfect, they make the best determination they can on imperfect data, but at the same time this is war, you can't get perfect data...let me remind you the Japanese were trying to kill us...all of us.

These analyst are professionals and they are objective, I think we can always look back on history and say what should have been, hindsight is 20:20, but you can't do that. You have to view the world as people at the time viewed it if you want to judge those people fairly.

If the Japanese had the bomb you think they would not have used it given their track record at the time in Asia, and the fact they had no resources left and were just basically sacrafising their own people in suicide attacks?

This is the real world. Like I said, I don't think any wars are justified, but if you are going to do it half assed, play to win. Second Play is the first loser.

BigLew

08-06-2003, 04:48 PM

The thing is this, if we do it it's somehow justifiable if someone else does it, it becomes a "war crime".

RasFarengi

08-06-2003, 04:53 PM

The thing is this, if we do it it's somehow justifiable if someone else does it, it becomes a "war crime".

Welcome to the world of hypocracy. That is also human nature. It is just like many japanese politicians will cry all day about US "War Crimes" and deny their own ever happened.

People are people...

kimpossible

08-06-2003, 05:01 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FrozenPizza @ Aug 6 2003, 02:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> By the way Ras, how does your wife feel about your opinion on this matter? I'm sincerely curious and wondering... [/b][/quote]
Actually Hube, you'll find that many Japanese are split on this matter. You'll find some that denounce the US for it and you'll even find some that think it was the right thing under the circumstances. There probably even more Okinawans that are alright with it, they were caught in some serious crossfire between the Japanese government and US armed forces. If I remember correctly, there was even one battle where Okinawans were slaughtered left and right both by US and Japanese forces.

In my own family there are opposing viewpoints though it's not a real Japanese family. My mother thinks it was the right thing to do. My grandmother is still pissed that her brothers weren't able to kill more chinks because the bombs forced Japan from its destiny to dominate the world.

Tao

08-06-2003, 05:15 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hello_Hapa @ Aug 6 2003, 07:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> My grandmother is still pissed that her brothers weren't able to kill more chinks because the bombs forced Japan from its destiny to dominate the world. [/b][/quote]
hahaha, that was funny.

I agree with Ras on this one. People are always bitching about how they got shafted the most. And frankly, dying from nuclear radiation in my opinion, is a lot more humane than what the japanese doctors did to chinese peasants. Case in point, this one doctor who raped a teen, and then took out the fetus and dissected it in front of other doctors while the mother was still alive. Call me biased if you want, but having the japanese bitch about atrocities commited on them during WW2 is like the pot calling the kettle black.

YuheiCarreau

08-06-2003, 05:28 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tao @ Aug 6 2003, 07:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> hahaha, that was funny.

I agree with Ras on this one. People are always bitching about how they got shafted the most. And frankly, dying from nuclear radiation in my opinion, is a lot more humane than what the japanese doctors did to chinese peasants. Case in point, this one doctor who raped a teen, and then took out the fetus and dissected it in front of other doctors while the mother was still alive. Call me biased if you want, but having the japanese bitch about atrocities commited on them during WW2 is like the pot calling the kettle black. [/b][/quote]
Yes, but then there are quite a few cruel and malicious acts perpetrated by the Chinese against others and against their own people. And it's not like every single Japanese person supported the war while it was happening, or even knew a fraction of what was their soldiers were truly doing. There's an annoying American tendency to characterize the Nazis as seperate from the German people, even as predators who victimized the public, yet the Japanese emperor, military dictatorship, and the civilian population are always shown as being of the same mind.

If you don't like the Japanese because you're Chinese, I'm fine with that. But don't gimme this crap about how one doctor actions can condemn every single Japanese.

I'm glad someone else posted this, because I was worried about posting something. YW has very few Japanese members, and quite a few who'd like to keep it that way.

AliBabaIncorporated

08-06-2003, 05:55 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YuheiCarreau @ Aug 6 2003, 04:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> YW has very few Japanese members, and quite a few who'd like to keep it that way. [/b][/quote]
huh?

Cipherous

08-06-2003, 05:55 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 6 2003, 02:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Welcome to the world of hypocracy. That is also human nature. It is just like many japanese politicians will cry all day about US "War Crimes" and deny their own ever happened.

People are people... [/b][/quote]
yeah,

its karma

its ironic

but people still don't learn

pfc beansprout

08-06-2003, 07:02 PM

~as far as i'm concerned....HISTORICALLY speaking, U.S. did this shit due to there racist shit they do (umm...native americans, slavery, chinese exclusion act, iraqi war....).....think about it...the shit this gov. has done...take a step back, these motherfuckers are racists as hell....yeah, and god bless america...

Tao

08-06-2003, 07:09 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YuheiCarreau @ Aug 6 2003, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> yet the Japanese emperor, military dictatorship, and the civilian population are always shown as being of the same mind.

[/b][/quote]
ok, that was generalized, and i'm sure there were civlians that were innocent. but the very fact that the government still refuses to apologize to China and Korea that I hold as the main reason for my beliefs. to me that action tells a lot about the mentality of mainstream japanese.

If you don't like the Japanese because you're Chinese, I'm fine with that. But don't gimme this crap about how one doctor actions can condemn every single Japanese.

There are other examples, but I do understand what you mean, and agree with you. I have japanese friends that hold very traditional beliefs but I don't pass judgement on them just because of that. And I don't expect others to judge me solely based on history. All I'm saying is that it is hypocritical for the government of japan to cry foul if they themselves have not fessed up. Even Germany has formally apologized, and german companies have paid retribution to holocaust victim relatives and descendants for the use of jews as slave labor. If the japanese government can at least formally apologize, then I would see no problem in them wanting an apology for the bombing.

MellowDrama

08-06-2003, 07:50 PM

If we step away from the nationalism bullshit, the fucking Mayor is spot on. NO FUCKING NEW NUKES!

If you can't agree on that, then you have some serious fucking problems!

RasFarengi

08-06-2003, 09:30 PM

Frozen:

I have spoken about this with my wife before. Surprisingly, or not surprisingly, we do not agree on this issue :o Yes, that rare time (about twice an hour) when my wife disagrees with me. :o

Well here is her short story.

Her family was kind of well off in Tokyo before WWII, they owned a house in Tokyo at the time, and her grandfather volunteered for the war, and was sent to China to drive a truck, he volunteered early, because he felt things might get bad later on and he wanted to do his time and come home. He ended up getting shot in Manchuria (DongBei) and got sent home early.

At this time the Americans started the firebombing campaign, they lost their house, everything, they almost got killed. Ended up hiding out in an underground bomb shelter. Finally fled back to where her grandmother came from, Nagano Prefecture. Nagano is a bunch of mountains in Central Honshu so no one was bombing there.

After the war was over, they returned to Tokyo, and someone had squatted on their land, built a shitty building, and they had no paperwork to prove their owned the house, their neighbors had moved away or been killed. That property today would have been worth a pretty penny, being that it was in present day Central Tokyo.

Her grandmother also lost a brother in the war, he didn't want to go to war and he didn't believe Hirohito-tenno was God, so he hid for a while, he got caught, and was beaten nearly to death, his family was punished with ration reduction, he was sent off to the war, and no one knows exactly what happened to him....he was sent to Okinawa...never came back...which is interesting, because my American grandfather also fought on Okinawa.. :o My grandfather came home (with a metal hip) my wife's great uncle did not.

So anyway, my wife's grandparents left Tokyo and returned to Nagano and became farmers. Her grandmother to this day hates Americans, and despite the racial issues with me, I think she dislikes me most because I am American.

My wife's doesn't want to hear anything about what happened in China or anywhere else, she thinks dropping the bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima was evil. She doesn't believe the Japanese would have fought the Americans if they invaded, at least not enough to claim bombing two Japanese cities would have saved more lives. She also said she believes that some very horrible things happened in other Asian countries, but she blames the Japanese Royal Family and the Generals. She said the average Japaense person didn't even know what was happening, because their was an information black out in Japan, and many of the soilders who committed atrocities were forced to under threat of their own life or that of their family back in Japan by high ranking military officers.

She is reading this as I type, and nodding her head...

Still she obviously doesn't hate America and neither do her parents, they are very cool with me, but her grandmother still has some serious issues with WWII and Americans. I think that is understandable.

Innocent people always suffer in war.

Emperor_Mike

08-06-2003, 09:47 PM

History is written by the victor and the cases of war-era Germany and Japan are no different. I agree with Yuhei that America had a very biased view regarding the Nazis and the Japanese militarists. It is hardly fair to neatly separate the crimes committed by National Socialists from the civilians and yet bind Japan, it's wrong doings in China, Korea and other Asian states with every-day Japanese citizens. I think that this sort of un-evenhanded treatment may have a lot to do with the fact that it was Japan who struck the first blow of the conflict and, perhaps in some odd and illogical way, has served as a sort of sticking point in how Americans revisit history.

All conflicts have innocent parties and there hasn't been one in recorded human history where an entire nation has been held accountable for its actions and condemned/punished accordingly. The inherent unfairness in historical assessments by biased intellectuals creates a very confining atmosphere for the multifaceted natures of situations to develop. As a direct result of this, most people are inclined to believe that things are as they are simply because in their eyes everything is clear-cut and in black and white. Very little time is devoted to exploring at length the grey areas in recorded events. The type of shameful ignorance many have brought upon themselves will only lead to tragedy, in my opinion, as individuals become more and more convinced that their interpretation of past (or present) events is correct and everything else to the contrary is wrong or misguided.

I suppose this is where all of us have to learn how to examine both sides of an subject before reaching a conclusion. If anything, this sort of issue is best visited upon with circumspect analysis and ought to teach us that not everything is as it seems.

pfc beansprout

08-06-2003, 10:51 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MellowDrama @ Aug 6 2003, 08:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If we step away from the nationalism bullshit, the fucking Mayor is spot on. NO FUCKING NEW NUKES!

If you can't agree on that, then you have some serious fucking problems! [/b][/quote]
absolutely..............NO FUCKIN NUKES GEORGE!

kitty

08-06-2003, 11:19 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 6 2003, 10:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

These analyst are professionals and they are objective, I think we can always look back on history and say what should have been, hindsight is 20:20, but you can't do that. You have to view the world as people at the time viewed it if you want to judge those people fairly.

[/b][/quote]
Analysts may be 'professional' but they sure as hell aren't objective. Nobody, and I mean, nobody, is objective. Analysts work for a particular country and from a particular society, and will have certain biases towards or against doing certain actions. Call me paranoid or a conspiracy theorist, but isn't it interesting that the U.S. had no problem dropping to atomic bombs on Japan (the coloured folk) but didn't drop any on Germany (the white folk)?

By all rights, an 'objective' analyst would have considered dropping them on both countries...

kitty

08-06-2003, 11:21 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tao @ Aug 6 2003, 11:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> hahaha, that was funny.

I agree with Ras on this one. People are always bitching about how they got shafted the most. And frankly, dying from nuclear radiation in my opinion, is a lot more humane than what the japanese doctors did to chinese peasants. Case in point, this one doctor who raped a teen, and then took out the fetus and dissected it in front of other doctors while the mother was still alive. Call me biased if you want, but having the japanese bitch about atrocities commited on them during WW2 is like the pot calling the kettle black. [/b][/quote]
If you truly believed that a culture that commits atrocities should die by the same horrors... pretty much all of humanity would have to die. I don't think there's a single civilization that has ever or currently exists that hasn't oppressed or terrorized another group of peoples...

Faithless

08-06-2003, 11:29 PM

Question:

Did the US or any allies do anything for Japan shortly after the war to alleviate the suffering or cleanup Japan?

Ogumo

08-06-2003, 11:43 PM

Hmm...I posted a topic about this today and got no respones. I will give you my thoughts on this topic. If you want you may call me bias I do not care. I highly disagree with these bombings. These were innocent japanese civilians. They posed no threat. This was a result of american racism and hate for japan and her people. Fuck america. If they used this weapons on a army target. That would have made sense. But americans are senseless. They wanted to kill every japanese because we are not white like they are. It is true that americans would have taken extreme heavy loss of life on thier side. It may have taken three invasions to finally kill japan. But america had no way of knowing this. Intruth they could have waited for japan to surrender. (the heavens son was preparing surrender after a major army was killed in manchuria). Japan would have been forced to surrender in the fall of 1945. Truman knew that part. He just did not give a damn. Americans truly are a dog like people prone for violence. Those of you who disagree. You do so because you read the american made books... that is winners truth. their victory and use of these weapons was made to look justified. I have never been to the hiroshima. But i have visted nagasaki. I have met survivors from there. That was a day that really opened my eyes. As for what japan did to china. I disagree with the belief that japan is innocent. Japan was very wrong for what it did to china hell for what it did to asia! Many japanese don't believe it to be possible to kill that many that short time space. So if you are chinese...korean. I understand your hate for japan. I truly do. Also japan has appologized to china...china wasnt satisfied with it...china wanted it in writting or something and japanese leadership would only give it spoken. Either way the appology was made.

Tao

08-07-2003, 12:00 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kittygirl @ Aug 7 2003, 01:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If you truly believed that a culture that commits atrocities should die by the same horrors... pretty much all of humanity would have to die. I don't think there's a single civilization that has ever or currently exists that hasn't oppressed or terrorized another group of peoples... [/b][/quote]
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if Japan wants to "teach the US a lesson about starting wars" it should start with them apologizing to Korea and China first. It would seem fair to me...no?

And btw, while I was looking up the Iris Chang book online I also came across this pagehttp://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/
There's a link to a book called "Japan's Secret War : Japan's Race Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb"

Form your own conclusions.

Ogumo

08-07-2003, 12:05 AM

I doubt that shit is true about japanese trying to build an a atomic bomb. I have never heard of this once. I am aware of most of the japanese advanced weapons back then but not once have i heard anything about an atomic bomb being tested.

Tao

08-07-2003, 12:10 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ogumo @ Aug 7 2003, 02:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I doubt that shit is true about japanese trying to build an a atomic bomb. I have never heard of this once. I am aware of most of the japanese advanced weapons back then but not once have i heard anything about an atomic bomb being tested. [/b][/quote]
yeah personally i've never heard of it either befoe I saw the website. I knew the germans had came close to it, but since they kicked einstein out it was sorta hard ;) . But anyhoot, I know from the posts it seems like I have a grudge against the japanese or something. But in real life I am not bitter about this stuff. I would never let history dictate how I treat others.

Faithless

08-07-2003, 12:49 AM

Here's something that's the shits about American occupation after the bombings:

http://www.dtra.mil/news/fact/nw_hnforce.html

Following the surrender of Japan on August 14, 1945, U.S. forces began occupying the country.

The first occupation troops arrived in the vicinity of Hiroshima about 60 days after the bombing. The main body of occupation troops entered Nagasaki about 45 days after the bombing. In each city, a group of American scientists arrived three days before these troops and performed a radiological survey. However, repatriation of former prisoners of war (POWs) through Nagasaki began before the survey and actual occupation of the city.

U.S. troops were in the vicinity of Hiroshima between October 6, 1945, and March 6, 1946, and in the vicinity of Nagasaki principally between September 11, 1945, and July 1, 1946.

The mission of the occupation was to establish control of the area, ensure compliance with surrender terms, and demilitarize the Japanese war machine. The mission did not include the cleanup or any radiological decontamination of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, any other areas, or the rebuilding of Japan.

So, after doing a little, "this is for your own good", we stood their and watched as the Japanese suffered. :frown:

Emperor_Mike

08-07-2003, 01:10 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ogumo @ Aug 6 2003, 10:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I doubt that shit is true about japanese trying to build an a atomic bomb. I have never heard of this once. I am aware of most of the japanese advanced weapons back then but not once have i heard anything about an atomic bomb being tested. [/b][/quote]
It wasn't so much the testing of the atomic bomb that's the theory, it's the research put into coming up with the technology to build the weapons. Of this I have no doubt since it is well known that Japan, like Germany and Russia, engaged in secret programs aimed at acquiring the Bomb among other things. I've actually come across some small blurbs in various WWII books about this in the past and this book ought to be fascinating.

tommyhtown

08-07-2003, 01:35 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tao @ Aug 6 2003, 10:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And btw, while I was looking up the Iris Chang book online I also came across this pagehttp://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/
There's a link to a book called "Japan's Secret War : Japan's Race Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb"

Form your own conclusions. [/b][/quote]
WMD?

ModernLogic

08-07-2003, 02:59 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 6 2003, 01:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well...hell the Japanese didn't think too hard about slaughtered almost 300, 000 civilians in Nanjing...did they? And I mean slaughter, rap, torture, men, women, and children. I would rather die from a N-bomb myself, if you were anywhere near ground zero, you would die instantly, you wouldn't even know what happened, at least that is humane.

Truth is innocent people will always die in war. We firebombed Dresden, Germany and killed a hell of a lot, thousands of civilians died.

Hell we killed thousands in Tokyo.

You know how we did it?

We dropped bombs in a spiral pattern coming out from the center, than ignited the middle, the resulting fire, sucked the oxygen out of the air, even out of some of the bomb sheltered, those who didn't die from the fire died from suffocation...no shit

My wife’s family fled Tokyo to Nagano, and their house got burned to the ground, because of the firebombing.

You think the Germans and the Japanese weren't doing similar shit... <_<

Best thing to say is, times were different back then, and we (well some of us) learned our lesson. It is history it cannot be changed...and the Japanese wear hurt and like normal human beings they will overlook what their people did and focus on what was done to them.

Every person thinks their burden is the heaviest.

Trust me though, if we would have invaded from the South and the Russians from the North it would have been seriously bloody, especially with the mentality of the Japanese back then. They would not have just laid down their arms and come out peacefully. [/b][/quote]
Excellent Point Ras! You took the words out of my mouth.

Don't buy the lie that the Japanese were victims of the war. Don't buy the lie that they were trying to "liberate" Asia from Western imperialists. Don't buy the lie that it was the evil US empire that drove Japan into war.

The Japanese deserved every kilo-joule of energy released by the "Little Boy" and "Fat Man." They were the aggressors in the war and they were punished accordingly.

ModernLogic

08-07-2003, 03:04 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YuheiCarreau @ Aug 6 2003, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Yes, but then there are quite a few cruel and malicious acts perpetrated by the Chinese against others and against their own people. And it's not like every single Japanese person supported the war while it was happening, or even knew a fraction of what was their soldiers were truly doing. There's an annoying American tendency to characterize the Nazis as seperate from the German people, even as predators who victimized the public, yet the Japanese emperor, military dictatorship, and the civilian population are always shown as being of the same mind.

If you don't like the Japanese because you're Chinese, I'm fine with that. But don't gimme this crap about how one doctor actions can condemn every single Japanese.

I'm glad someone else posted this, because I was worried about posting something. YW has very few Japanese members, and quite a few who'd like to keep it that way. [/b][/quote]
Typical Japanese rhetoric that tries to draw attention from their own crimes by talking about Tibet or Tiananmen.

Look, if we're talking about China's crimes, I would condemn the Chinese government with equal severity that I condemn the Japanese. But the point in case is that we're discussing the legitimacy of the Atomic Bombings, not Chinese atrocities.

RasFarengi

08-07-2003, 05:54 AM

Kitty:

U.S. had no problem dropping to atomic bombs on Japan (the coloured folk) but didn't drop any on Germany (the white folk)?

By the bomb ready, to my knowledge America and the USSR were about to invade GErmany. The Germans were finished and about to surrender.

Japan did not. They kept fighting, and unlike Germany they were doing suicide missions, and would not surrender. You have to imagine that many Americans had never fought an enemy like this, and I am sure many analyst did not know or believe based on the information they were recieving the Japanese would really give up.

So the argument was simple. Drop the bomb and force defeat. Just like Japan thought a sneak attack on Hawaii would show Japan's strenght and make America cowar (because that is how they think), we used the same logic.

We did it bigger and better thought, and it worked.

The alternative, the plan, was Russia invade from the North through Hokkaido and America from the South, up through Okinawa to Kyushu, and we would meet in Honshu.

I personally believe millions would have died in this. The Japanese were taught at the time that the emporer was God (which many didn't believe, but many did), that Americans were cannibals, barbaric savages, etc. If anything they would fight just because they believed they would be killed themselves (I'm talking about civilians). When we forced a defeat the Emporer (who many thought was God) said it was okay to quit fighting and things were going to be okay, that is quite different.

Like I said, none of us were alive back then, and we don't know what it was like.

One thing I can say on the race issue, is that Japanese people were consider racially inferior, that is obvious, because they were not white. Many of the war propoganda at the time showed all Japanese as evil, sneaky, etc.

THe war propoganda for the Germans, showed the average Russian person as a victim of the NAZI regime, big difference. I have no doubt race played into it, but you don't think Japanese thoughts whites were barbarian and inferior? you think they did not teach that to Japanese people in Japan as well? They did. So it goes both ways.

Ogumo

08-07-2003, 10:28 AM

Yes I agree japan was wrong. But it did not deserve a hiroshima. In my eyes americans are the most barbaric people of all and lets not forget about there blood lusting leader truman. As for japan getting the atomic bomb. Now that I think about it they were probably waiting for germany to get it then germany would have given it to japan.

YuheiCarreau

08-07-2003, 10:28 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AliBabaIncorporated @ Aug 6 2003, 07:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YuheiCarreau @ Aug 6 2003, 04:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>YW has very few Japanese members, and quite a few who'd like to keep it that way.[/b][/quote] huh?[/b][/quote]

Case in point:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Xiao Rong Ji @ Aug 7 2003, 04:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Excellent Point Ras! You took the words out of my mouth.

Don't buy the lie that the Japanese were victims of the war. Don't buy the lie that they were trying to "liberate" Asia from Western imperialists. Don't buy the lie that it was the evil US empire that drove Japan into war.

The Japanese deserved every kilo-joule of energy released by the "Little Boy" and "Fat Man." They were the aggressors in the war and they were punished accordingly.[/b][/quote]

<_< Should I even dignify this shit with a response? I can understand that kind of talk coming from a Nanking survivor, but not from someone young enough to be his grandson.

YuheiCarreau

08-07-2003, 10:37 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ogumo @ Aug 7 2003, 12:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Yes I agree japan was wrong. But it did not deserve a hiroshima. In my eyes americans are the most barbaric people of all and lets not forget about there blood lusting leader truman. As for japan getting the atomic bomb. Now that I think about it they were probably waiting for germany to get it then germany would have given it to japan. [/b][/quote]
As I recall, Germany had a nuclear bomb in development but it was significantly behind the Manhattan Project by 1945. Then Hitler killed himself and his generals surrendered before the American atomic bomb was complete. Obviously the US finished the bomb before the war with Japan ended.

Interestingly, Truman's justification for using the bomb - that it prevented millions of deaths on both side - was explained somewhat when a pair of American journalists discovered part of the American plans for the invasion of Japan. One of their more shocking discoveries was the authorization of gas warfare - that's right kiddies, chemical weapons - to injure and possibly kill off a good portion of the Japanese civilian population before the marine landings. So I guess Truman decided it wouldn't matter if he used two civilian targets to demonstrate the power of the atomic bomb, because he was already gunning for civilians anyway.

But of course, the Japanese people deserved it all. The Japanese people, the military, and the Emperor were one and the same.

RasFarengi

08-07-2003, 10:39 AM

The Japanese deserved every kilo-joule of energy released by the "Little Boy" and "Fat Man." They were the aggressors in the war and they were punished accordingly.

Yeah I think it is one thing to discuss a historical event, and there is nothing wrong with discussing war, but to appear to take joy that innocent people were killed, is not cool.

Yuhei:

So I guess Truman decided it wouldn't matter if he used two civilian targets to demonstrate the power of the atomic bomb, because he was already gunning for civilians anyway.

This really depends on what you believe. If you believe the Japanese would have fought even civilians and used gorilla warfare tactics, as the Japanese government was training them to do in the event of invasion, than all civilians until otherwise known have to be considered "enemy combatants." No military leader worth is salt would send his boys (no women fighting then) into a urban warfare situation not taking this into account, you are asking to get them slaughtered (Somalia case and point).

kimpossible

08-07-2003, 10:41 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tao @ Aug 6 2003, 03:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I agree with Ras on this one. People are always bitching about how they got shafted the most. And frankly, dying from nuclear radiation in my opinion, is a lot more humane than what the japanese doctors did to chinese peasants. Case in point, this one doctor who raped a teen, and then took out the fetus and dissected it in front of other doctors while the mother was still alive. Call me biased if you want, but having the japanese bitch about atrocities commited on them during WW2 is like the pot calling the kettle black. [/b][/quote]
One big flaw in this argument. The populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not equal the Japanese army. Place the blame where it belongs.

Ogumo

08-07-2003, 10:58 AM

The germans didnt develop the bomb because they were arrogant. They thought the war would be over before it was complete. There for they didnt need it. Too bad they didnt finish it.

Ogumo

08-07-2003, 10:59 AM

The blame is where it belongs. On the damned american military and government. Barbarians.

Tao

08-07-2003, 11:15 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hello_Hapa @ Aug 7 2003, 12:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> One big flaw in this argument. The populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not equal the Japanese army. Place the blame where it belongs. [/b][/quote]
I'm not saying the civilians deserved to be bombed. I'm responding to the article Kitty posted, about the politicians condemning Bush for his war prone administration. To which I argue that it seems like "the pot calling the kettle black." I'm saying the japanese government has no right to bitch about how the US should be handling their foreign relations and human rights violations.

This whole thing about whether or not the bombs should have been dropped is a side issue. What's done is done, you can't change that fact, and I really don't want to dwell on that arguement anymore. What irks me is that the officials made it seem like they're standing on some pedestal condemning the US as war mongering barbarians when they don't even want to acknowledge their own past.

YuheiCarreau

08-07-2003, 11:33 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tao @ Aug 7 2003, 01:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm not saying the civilians deserved to be bombed. I'm responding to the article Kitty posted, about the politicians condemning Bush for his war prone administration. To which I argue that it seems like "the pot calling the kettle black." I'm saying the japanese government has no right to bitch about how the US should be handling their foreign relations and human rights violations.

This whole thing about whether or not the bombs should have been dropped is a side issue. What's done is done, you can't change that fact, and I really don't want to dwell on that arguement anymore. What irks me is that the officials made it seem like they're standing on some pedestal condemning the US as war mongering barbarians when they don't even want to acknowledge their own past. [/b][/quote]
The mayors of Hiroshima have been anti-nuke for the past 50-odd years. As far as I know, it's something of an expectation of those who wish to hold the office.

Try to distinguish between different levels of government. This is the mayor of a city, not a spokesperson for the entire country. He is speaking as the representative of a city that was devastated by a nuclear bomb, not as the voice of the entire nation of Japan.

MellowDrama

08-07-2003, 06:44 PM

I hardly see this as "pot calling the kettle black." We live in 2003. Do you see Japan with nukes? NO! I see the US, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, UK, and France with them, NK trying to get them.

Which nation quit the ABM Treaty? USA. Which country took over another one because without one iota of proof said nation was trying to get nukes? USA.

The past and WW II doesn't have shit to do with this discussion as far as I'm concerned. What the mayor of Hiroshima is saying is, "Look, we got nuked, and you know what? It fucking sucks. DON'T NUKE ANYONE AGAIN!"

ModernLogic

08-07-2003, 08:16 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YuheiCarreau @ Aug 7 2003, 08:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Xiao Rong Ji @ Aug 7 2003, 04:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Excellent Point Ras!  You took the words out of my mouth.

Don't buy the lie that the Japanese were victims of the war.  Don't buy the lie that they were trying to "liberate" Asia from Western imperialists.  Don't buy the lie that it was the evil US empire that drove Japan into war.

The Japanese deserved every kilo-joule of energy released by the "Little Boy" and "Fat Man."  They were the aggressors in the war and they were punished accordingly.[/b][/quote]

<_< Should I even dignify this shit with a response? I can understand that kind of talk coming from a Nanking survivor, but not from someone young enough to be his grandson. [/b][/quote]
Feel free to actually respond to my post rather than avoid the discussion at hand with snide comments.

Here, I'll dumb it down even further for you: The Japanese were very naughty so they were punished accordingly. Got it?

Tao

08-07-2003, 09:30 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MellowDrama @ Aug 7 2003, 08:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The past and WW II doesn't have shit to do with this discussion as far as I'm concerned. What the mayor of Hiroshima is saying is, "Look, we got nuked, and you know what? It fucking sucks. DON'T NUKE ANYONE AGAIN!" [/b][/quote]
you've got a point there.....

YuheiCarreau

08-07-2003, 09:34 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Xiao Rong Ji @ Aug 7 2003, 10:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YuheiCarreau @ Aug 7 2003, 08:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Xiao Rong Ji @ Aug 7 2003, 04:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Excellent Point Ras! You took the words out of my mouth.

Don't buy the lie that the Japanese were victims of the war. Don't buy the lie that they were trying to "liberate" Asia from Western imperialists. Don't buy the lie that it was the evil US empire that drove Japan into war.

The Japanese deserved every kilo-joule of energy released by the "Little Boy" and "Fat Man." They were the aggressors in the war and they were punished accordingly.[/b][/quote]

<_< Should I even dignify this shit with a response? I can understand that kind of talk coming from a Nanking survivor, but not from someone young enough to be his grandson. [/b][/quote]
Feel free to actually respond to my post rather than avoid the discussion at hand with snide comments.

Here, I'll dumb it down even further for you: The Japanese were very naughty so they were punished accordingly. Got it? [/b][/quote]
1. Do not talk down to me. I really can't stress this enough.

2. Don't justify the death of Japanese civilians with the death of Chinese civilians. See, the Japanese civilians didn't kill the Chinese civilians; the Japanese military did. Look those two words up in the dictionary if you need to, but if you're too lazy: "civilian" means noncombatant. As in, a person who has little to no influence over military actions, especially under a military dictatorship.

3. You're a fucking kid. You didn't live through Nanking. You weren't around to see Manchuria fall to the Japanese. So spare me the righteous Chinese indignation shit.

4. Don't make a post like this again.

Ogumo

08-07-2003, 10:05 PM

YuheiCarreau: Im glad you said something. I was really about to go off on that shit head. I hate asians that act like he does. He's say fuck japan but then he'll go off and smile while america fucks up an asian nation for no reason.

SunWuKong

08-08-2003, 12:40 AM

Xiao Rong Ji, have the maturity to recognise the tragedy of millions of deaths caused by the atomic bombs. that the Japanese military caused deaths in Asia does not mean that Japanese deaths should be celebrated. tone down your rhetoric, or your posting privileges will be limited.

this is your only warning.

achtungbaby

08-08-2003, 01:31 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 6 2003, 02:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well...hell the Japanese didn't think too hard about slaughtered almost 300, 000 civilians in Nanjing...did they? And I mean slaughter, rap, torture, men, women, and children. I would rather die from a N-bomb myself, if you were anywhere near ground zero, you would die instantly, you wouldn't even know what happened, at least that is humane.

Truth is innocent people will always die in war. We firebombed Dresden, Germany and killed a hell of a lot, thousands of civilians died.

Hell we killed thousands in Tokyo.

You know how we did it?

We dropped bombs in a spiral pattern coming out from the center, than ignited the middle, the resulting fire, sucked the oxygen out of the air, even out of some of the bomb sheltered, those who didn't die from the fire died from suffocation...no shit

My wife’s family fled Tokyo to Nagano, and their house got burned to the ground, because of the firebombing.

You think the Germans and the Japanese weren't doing similar shit... <_<

Best thing to say is, times were different back then, and we (well some of us) learned our lesson. It is history it cannot be changed...and the Japanese wear hurt and like normal human beings they will overlook what their people did and focus on what was done to them.

Every person thinks their burden is the heaviest.

Trust me though, if we would have invaded from the South and the Russians from the North it would have been seriously bloody, especially with the mentality of the Japanese back then. They would not have just laid down their arms and come out peacefully. [/b][/quote]
Do you normally go to funerals to lambast the dead? The memorial was about giving respect to the hundreds of thousands of civilians who perished from the bomb, and a call to denounce nuclear proliferation. What's wrong with that? I didn't hear anything in the Mayor's comments that alluded that the America's actions were somehow more evil or sinister than anyone else's.

Cipherous

08-08-2003, 01:33 AM

damn, the YW mods cracking down.

wheres the justice.

lol

Fireblade

08-08-2003, 01:34 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MellowDrama @ Aug 7 2003, 05:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The past and WW II doesn't have shit to do with this discussion as far as I'm concerned. What the mayor of Hiroshima is saying is, "Look, we got nuked, and you know what? It fucking sucks. DON'T NUKE ANYONE AGAIN!" [/b][/quote]
Does anyone see the wisdom in this post. I do.

achtungbaby

08-08-2003, 01:38 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Xiao Rong Ji @ Aug 7 2003, 02:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But the point in case is that we're discussing the legitimacy of the Atomic Bombings, not Chinese atrocities. [/b][/quote]
I don't think that's the point at all. I mean really, what benefit do we get from trumpeting the decision to fire bomb hundreds of thousands of citizens? I'm not arguing that the bomb was unnecessary -- just that war can suck, and that the only people who dance around when families perish are immature, spoiled brats, who've never lost anything in their life.

achtungbaby

08-08-2003, 01:44 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YuheiCarreau @ Aug 7 2003, 10:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Try to distinguish between different levels of government. This is the mayor of a city, not a spokesperson for the entire country. He is speaking as the representative of a city that was devastated by a nuclear bomb, not as the voice of the entire nation of Japan. [/b][/quote]
I think this is an important point to make, because as I understand, this particular mayor has always been pretty vociferous in his denunciation of nuclear weapons, to the point where Japanese national leaders never echo or vocally support some of his more stronger tirades. I don't have any personal connection to the bomb or the city, but I'm sure if I grew up in the aftermath, I'd probably be a little outspoken on the topic too:)

Cipherous

08-08-2003, 01:49 AM

You guys have to remember that if it the US invaded Japan instead of dropping the atomic bomb, the death tolls would've been very similiar (firebombing and all). The US casualities in the far east would've been comparable with the conflict in the European front.

I don't think the Japanese would've surrendered as easily as everyone thought they would. Therefore, the war would've lagged on even longer. Hell, they didn't even surrender after Hiroshima, it took a bigger blast in nagasaki for them to give in.

As for the death of Japanese civilians, its unfair to say that they deserved them because it wasn't the Japanese per se that caused the rape of nanking. It was the imperialistic Japanese military.

Faithless

08-08-2003, 01:49 AM

I wonder if the problem is that some people who say, now, that they support the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually discount the imagery and the accounts of the devistation.

achtungbaby

08-08-2003, 02:08 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cipherous @ Aug 8 2003, 12:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You guys have to remember that if it the US invaded Japan instead of dropping the atomic bomb, the death tolls would've been very similiar (firebombing and all).  The US casualities in the far east would've been comparable with the conflict in the European front. [/b][/quote]
Sure, no one's disputing that strong possibility. But I've heard that when you visit the Unforgettable Fire at Hiroshima, the first impulse on your mind isn't to puff your chest up with pride that the U.S. taught those Jap bastards a lesson -- it's that the loss of human life on such a large scale in an instant can have ripple effects that last for generations.

I remember watching this documentary on the attacks of 9/11, and literally hours after the buildings went down, amidst the civic panic and chaos, crowds of people actually began debating in the streets angrily over the issue of the justification of the attacks. No one was actually coming right out and saying they're glad those people burned and it was because of years of oppression wrought by the U.S. government onto other countries, but they were saying in effect that the U.S. got what they deserved.

I hate this kind of arrogant naivete, this insistence to cling to ideas in your head that mean more than people do. The documentary even showed one interview of a guy who was self-admittedly cynical and critical of U.S. foreign policy, but he said when he actually made it downtown and saw the first firetruck that had been completely demolished, it made him think about the people there sacrificing their lives, and then of the people whom they were trying to save.

kitty

08-08-2003, 02:16 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ChottoMatte @ Aug 8 2003, 07:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I wonder if the problem is that some people who say, now, that they support the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually discount the imagery and the accounts of the devistation. [/b][/quote]
I definitely think so. Face it, the brutality of the Nanking Massacre has been caught on photographs and have recently made it into print form. They're cruel, bloody, and gruesome -- the pictures of the bomb are generally of a big mushroom cloud or shadows on walls of people have been vaporized by the blast.

People in this thread talk about how it's 'kinder' to die by an atomic blast -- I'm sorry but unless you've experienced both the toturous deaths of the Nanking massacre AND death by an atomic bomb, AND you enjoy dying in general, you really have no right to talk about radiation poisoning or vaporization as being a 'merciful' annhilation of over a hundred thousand people.

Absolutely nothing warrants that kind of killing on that grand a scale of that many innocents, without even a *hint* of a military target to justify dropping the bomb.

And as far as the alternatives -- the Japanese civillians were aware of the propaganda calling upon them to fight to the very last man. They also thought they were winning the war until they saw airplanes upon their shores. The average citizen (many of whom died in the bombings) had no clue what was going on, and it's really all speculation to say they would've taken up arms, or they would've surrendered immediately.

All I know is that the Americans probably could've invaded Japan using strategies to minimize civilian deaths. They didn't need to kill 160,000 yellow peoples and congratulate themselves for the rest of the century on their military prowess.

Faithless

08-08-2003, 02:20 AM

Oh my god! Where's the hand clapping emoticon when you need it? :rolleyes:

Faithless

08-08-2003, 02:27 AM

It's almost as if the Japanese were left there to die, too.

The bombs destroyed a helluva lot, including most of the hospitals. I read one account of only three hospitals out of 55 existed in one of the cities. The bombs killed many Japanese doctors too. Historical accounts say that the badly wounded just inundated the few doctors that did survive, and they were totally ill equipped to handle the situation because the medical supplies were fucked-over.

Then here come the Americans to occupy. They have orders not to help, but occupy. Heartless bastards.

achtungbaby

08-08-2003, 02:36 AM

Anyone ever wondered if we would have used the bombs on Germany if given the ability and need?

Ogumo

08-08-2003, 06:14 AM

Indeed. They didnt care what they did because americans are terrible doglike people.

achtungbaby: Do you seriously think they would have used it? Hell no. The germans didnt have the bomb so they would have warned them and asked them to surrender. Even so I still doubt that they would have used it because the germans were white people.

SunWuKong

08-08-2003, 07:34 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ogumo @ Aug 8 2003, 08:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Indeed. They didnt care what they did because americans are terrible doglike people.

achtungbaby: Do you seriously think they would have used it? Hell no. The germans didnt have the bomb so they would have warned them and asked them to surrender. Even so I still doubt that they would have used it because the germans were white people. [/b][/quote]
well the difference is that Japan directly attacked a base in American territory. i think if Germany did the same thing, the US would have dropped the bombs on Germany. the war-time propaganda back then knew no racial lines. the Germans were hated just as much as the Japanese were hated.

and the idea that they wouldn't drop the bomb on Germany because Germans are white, that's a little uninformed of you. after WW2, the US and the USSR went through decades of the Cold War where the whole point was building up nuclear warheads in case they have to fire them at each other.

BigLew

08-08-2003, 07:54 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kittygirl @ Aug 8 2003, 12:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> All I know is that the Americans probably could've invaded Japan using strategies to minimize civilian deaths. [/b][/quote]
Well yeah but then we have Vietnam...

Don't get me wrong I don't think nuking over 100,000 civilians is any better. But there were over 3,000,000 Vietnamese casualties during that conflict and no one will ever know the civilian count because of the U.S. toe tag policy.

Tao

08-08-2003, 08:01 AM

I hate this kind of arrogant naivete, this insistence to cling to ideas in your head that mean more than people do.

well said

RasFarengi

08-08-2003, 08:25 AM

SWK:

I disagree. The wartime propaganda was racial. The Japanese were often showed as a wicked people, and shown as disfigured to make them look subhuman, typically you could see this in posters. The German were not depicted this way. They were shown primarily as victims of the evil NAZI party.

I think this had to do with the fact that Mainstream American was not familiar with Asians, and did consider them inferior. This was the 1940’s. Many many people in America had these social Darwinist attitudes, and believed that white’s were superior, and even among white ethnicities there was hierarchy. Germans were part of Western culture, and a very large percentage of WASP America had German ancestry. There were isolated groups of German-Americans in Ohio, Pennsylvania, even Texas, but for the most part they were integrated, they didn’t stand out much, and they were white.

Japanese Americans were much fewer in number and largely segregated (not always because they wanted to be). Some of these attitudes probably led to Japanese American interment, especially since many Japanese were immigrants or children of immigrants at the time, and thought to have a closer connection with Japan.

When the decision came down for internment many wanted to also intern the Italians, but Roosevelt, or one of his advisors, forgot which, stated, the Italians were no threat, that he had met Italian people and for the most part they were good people who were loyal to America. The key thing is, “he knew Italians people.”

achtungbaby and Kitty:

Anyone ever wondered if we would have used the bombs on Germany if given the ability and need?

I think SWK was right in the fact that America would have used the bomb on Germany if Germany had attacked the United States the way Japan did, and if Germans did not give up, the Italians switched sides (they could never fight anyway, Ethiopia whipped their ass...hehe).

I think you are questioning racial attitudes. At the time, at least to me there was clear racial propaganda going around, on both sides of the Pacific. I talked a little above about America’s attitude toward Japanese, but Japanese were also spreading propaganda to its own citizens, saying American were savage barbarians, cannibals, rapists, etc.

Still if you look at who got killed the most in WWII, it was the Russians and the Chinese. They were primarily killed by their own race. Russians by Germans and Chinese by Japanese, and many of those killed were civilians, not military.

All sides bombed civilian targets during the war. They did it primarily for intimidation. Look what the Russians did at Stalingrad. Look what the German’s did to London, what the Japanese did in China, or what the allies did in Italy. They all did it.

American firebombed Dresden and killed tens of thousands of people; the firebombing of Tokyo killed almost 100,000 people, which is something people don’t speak about much.

This war was not fought in 2003, it was fought in the 1930’s-1940’s. The attitude of how to fight a war and what was justified was very different from today.

Yes I think we would have bombed Germany…SWK made a good point in that after WWII, the Cold War started and we seemed to have little problem pointing nukes at Eastern Europe. It was mostly white against white. in the European theater anyway.

We can all look back at history and judge the people by the knowledge we have today and our values today, but that is not objective. If we want to judge things fairly we have to look at the values of the time, and the information available to people making the decisions and the consquences of making the wrong decision.

RasFarengi

08-08-2003, 08:46 AM

Here is a good question to all those against the bombing

If you were a white man in 1940 whatever, and you had been at war for a few years, you saw millions of your people affected, and some of your own friends and children of your friends come home in body bags, lame, etc.

You knew that you would win the war, Germany just gave up, which was a relief, but the Japanese knew they were beat but they just would not quit. They started suicide attacks even (something totally insane from a Western mindset), these people started the war with a sneak attack, and you don't know much about them. You have a few experts on Japan, telling you various things, but you aren't sure how to judge the situation. (also keep in mind you would likely hold many of the same racial attitudes of the day)...

Your military advisors have two plans.

Invade Japan from the South and have Russians invade from the North. Now you don't really trust Russia or like Communist, but you need Stalin’s help on this one. If you invade, your analyst are telling you there is a good change due to propaganda and brainwashing that a sizable Japanese civilian population will fight American soldiers. The estimate of civilian deaths will go in the millions, they are even advising the use of chemical weapons, such as Mustard Gas. They also are saying that American casualties will be high in a densely populated country like Japan, when they might have to fight street to street similar to the invasion of France. You know your boys are tired and already had a hard time in Okinawa and Saipan, where the Japanese fought very hard, and resorted to suicide attacks or committing suicide instead of giving up, many Americans casualties were heavy too. So what your analyst are telling you doesn’t sound unreasonable.

The other plan is to use this new weapon, that can decimate a small city in seconds, civilian casualties will be high, but a show of strong force with this bomb might force the Japanese to concede, and spare American lives and probably in the end many Japanese. You don’t want to bomb Tokyo, so you choose some smaller coastal cities that are less defended and less populated. This is mainly to intimidate, you are not looking for maximum casualties by bombing Tokyo or Osaka. Still you don’t like the idea of almost 200,000 civilians being whipped out, although you know maybe 100,000 civilians have already died in Tokyo’s firebombing, and Dresden and London took heavy hits.

You have to weigh these two plans…based on the best information you have available during wartime. You know the data is not perfect, but you don’t really have a choice about things, you have to have faith in your people, and your judgment. What do you do? Which plan would you take?

try to remove yourself from your own personal biases, and put yourself in the position of the president of the United States in 1940’s, use your imagination. What would you do.

BigLew

08-08-2003, 08:47 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 8 2003, 06:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> We can all look back at history and judge the people by the knowledge we have today and our values today, but that is not objective.  If we want to judge things fairly we have to look at the values of the time, and the information available to people making the decisions and the consquences of making the wrong decision. [/b][/quote]
So you're saying todays values, concerning killing lottsa innocents, is different from values of killing innocents during the the WWII era???

RasFarengi

08-08-2003, 08:55 AM

So you're saying todays values, concerning killing lottsa innocents, is different from values of killing innocents during the the WWII era???

Biglew:

I think they are. Countries today go out of their way (Western or developed countries anyway) to avoid civilian casualties. In Afganistan we killed 5,000 civilians, that is the estimate. We took a lot of heat for that, and the main reason people have changed I think it dew to the media.

People during WWII, (especially in Japan and America) did not see the horror of war, well Japanese saw it toward the end, most Americans never saw it. Fighting in a war was often thought of as an honorable and just thing, and no side in WWII, really went out of thier way to spare civilian causalties, then again back then they wouldn't be all over CNN and other international news agencies would they? People all over the worldl would not see the horror of war in FULL COLOR, with blood and children crying with no arms and legs...laying next to dead mothers...etc.

That changes everything, the public sees what war is, and when you really see war, most people will not support it accept in extreme cases. People will rally against that kind o behavior and protest, back then people did not see it, and I think to question your governmetn in that way at the time was considered unpatriotic to an extreme. World is different now.

During WWII, all sides, killed a lot of civilians, and bombed civilian targets and nonmilitary targets...that might happen today, but not at such a level, and if they did, they would have to cover it up or face allegations of serious war crime, etc.

SunWuKong

08-08-2003, 09:00 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 8 2003, 10:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I think this had to do with the fact that Mainstream American was not familiar with Asians, and did consider them inferior. This was the 1940’s. Many many people in America had these social Darwinist attitudes, and believed that white’s were superior, and even among white ethnicities there was hierarchy. Germans were part of Western culture, and a very large percentage of WASP America had German ancestry. There were isolated groups of German-Americans in Ohio, Pennsylvania, even Texas, but for the most part they were integrated, they didn’t stand out much, and they were white.

Japanese Americans were much fewer in number and largely segregated (not always because they wanted to be). Some of these attitudes probably led to Japanese American interment, especially since many Japanese were immigrants or children of immigrants at the time, and thought to have a closer connection with Japan.

When the decision came down for internment many wanted to also intern the Italians, but Roosevelt, or one of his advisors, forgot which, stated, the Italians were no threat, that he had met Italian people and for the most part they were good people who were loyal to America. The key thing is, “he knew Italians people.” [/b][/quote]

actually, German and Italian Americans were also interned.

BigLew

08-08-2003, 09:00 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 8 2003, 06:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So you're saying todays values, concerning killing lottsa innocents, is different from values of killing innocents during the the WWII era???

Biglew:

I think they are. Countries today go out of their way (Western or developed countries anyway) to avoid civilian casualties. In Afganistan we killed 5,000 civilians, that is the estimate. We took a lot of heat for that, and the main reason people have changed I think it dew to the media.

People during WWII, (especially in Japan and America) did not see the horror of war, well Japanese saw it toward the end, most Americans never saw it. Fighting in a war was often thought of as an honorable and just thing, and no side in WWII, really went out of thier way to spare civilian causalties, then again back then they wouldn't be all over CNN and other international news agencies would they? People all over the worldl would not see the horror of war in FULL COLOR, with blood and children crying with no arms and legs...laying next to dead mothers...etc.

That changes everything, the public sees what war is, and when you really see war, most people will not support it accept in extreme cases.

During WWII, all sides, killed a lot of civilians, and bombed civilian targets and nonmilitary targets...that might happen today, but not at such a level, and if they did, they would have to cover it up or face allegations of serious war crime, etc. [/b][/quote]
What has changed is how we get our information. Widespread propoganda is alot harder nowaday because there are many many more sources controlling the information that gets to the public. The values remain the same, mass death of civilians is always bad and was just as bad in the past. The public just has more access to see it if it does happen today this doesn't mean the values have changed.

RasFarengi

08-08-2003, 09:08 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigLew @ Aug 8 2003, 10:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 8 2003, 06:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So you're saying todays values, concerning killing lottsa innocents, is different from values of killing innocents during the the WWII era???

Biglew:

I think they are. Countries today go out of their way (Western or developed countries anyway) to avoid civilian casualties. In Afganistan we killed 5,000 civilians, that is the estimate. We took a lot of heat for that, and the main reason people have changed I think it dew to the media.

People during WWII, (especially in Japan and America) did not see the horror of war, well Japanese saw it toward the end, most Americans never saw it. Fighting in a war was often thought of as an honorable and just thing, and no side in WWII, really went out of thier way to spare civilian causalties, then again back then they wouldn't be all over CNN and other international news agencies would they? People all over the worldl would not see the horror of war in FULL COLOR, with blood and children crying with no arms and legs...laying next to dead mothers...etc.

That changes everything, the public sees what war is, and when you really see war, most people will not support it accept in extreme cases.

During WWII, all sides, killed a lot of civilians, and bombed civilian targets and nonmilitary targets...that might happen today, but not at such a level, and if they did, they would have to cover it up or face allegations of serious war crime, etc. [/b][/quote]
What has changed is how we get our information. Widespread propoganda is alot harder nowaday because there are many many more sources controlling the information that gets to the public. The values remain the same, mass death of civilians is always bad and was just as bad in the past. The public just has more access to see it if it does happen today this doesn't mean the values have changed. [/b][/quote]
Okay I can agree that most people will probably say, "it is wrong for innocent people to be killed in war..." I also think your right about the access to media. So maybe the general attitude toward civilians deaths has not changed.

Still that is abstract...apply that to a subjective situation...

I don't know, do you think most Americans today really care that their were mass casualties in Afganistan? What about with Japan, do you thinik most Americans of that generation really lost sleep over that? I doubt it.

My grandfather's attitude is...(excuse the racial slur, but this is how he talks)," The Japs started it, we finished it..."

In these situation I think it was a revenge thing too...so I don't think most people were sympathetic.

I also think a lot of this has to do with patriotism..."you don't feel sorry for the enemy..." "Don't question your government or military in times of war...give them the benefit of the doubt.." hell even the media is biased like this.

RasFarengi

08-08-2003, 09:10 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Aug 8 2003, 10:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Actually, German and Italian Americans were also interned. [/b][/quote]
I heard there was some internment of very recent immigrants (makes sense, because they might be spies or likely to be traitors), but I don't know much about that, I was under the impression it was no wide spread interment. If you have more info, I would like to hear it.

SunWuKong

08-08-2003, 09:58 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 8 2003, 11:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Aug 8 2003, 10:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Actually, German and Italian Americans were also interned. [/b][/quote]
I heard there was some internment of very recent immigrants (makes sense, because they might be spies or likely to be traitors), but I don't know much about that, I was under the impression it was no wide spread interment. If you have more info, I would like to hear it. [/b][/quote]
here's a google search for it. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22german+american%22+%22italian+american%22+int ernment)

RasFarengi

08-08-2003, 10:11 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Aug 8 2003, 10:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 8 2003, 11:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Aug 8 2003, 10:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Actually, German and Italian Americans were also interned. [/b][/quote]
I heard there was some internment of very recent immigrants (makes sense, because they might be spies or likely to be traitors), but I don't know much about that, I was under the impression it was no wide spread interment. If you have more info, I would like to hear it. [/b][/quote]
here's a google search for it. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22german+american%22+%22italian+american%22+int ernment) [/b][/quote]
Thanks...it looked like they were 1st generation or 1.5 types...from one of the articles I read about Italians, still I wasn't really aware of how many actually got interned.

I guess the difference is, and the reason so many people consider Japanese interment especially racist is that they pretty much went beyond just recent immigrants.

SunWuKong

08-08-2003, 10:16 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 8 2003, 12:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Aug 8 2003, 10:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 8 2003, 11:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Aug 8 2003, 10:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Actually, German and Italian Americans were also interned. [/b][/quote]
I heard there was some internment of very recent immigrants (makes sense, because they might be spies or likely to be traitors), but I don't know much about that, I was under the impression it was no wide spread interment. If you have more info, I would like to hear it. [/b][/quote]
here's a google search for it. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22german+american%22+%22italian+american%22+int ernment) [/b][/quote]
Thanks...it looked like they were 1st generation or 1.5 types...from one of the articles I read about Italians, still I wasn't really aware of how many actually got interned.

I guess the difference is, and the reason so many people consider Japanese interment especially racist is that they pretty much went beyond just recent immigrants. [/b][/quote]
i think they were equally terrible - German, Italian, Japanese internment. it's just that more attention has been given Japanese internment because the issue is racialised. German and Italian Americans are white and most are very integrated, even genetically. i think it's part of the "white guilt" that more attention was given to Japanese American internment.

sidenote: i don't know how many Italian Americans can claim to be 100% genetically Italian, but when was the last time you heard someone say that he's 100% German American?

Ogumo

08-08-2003, 10:59 AM

Hmm...if I was a white american man at war with the japanese empire...and if I had to make that choice... My choice would be to let the russians lead a large portion of the invasion. Let them take most of the casualties in battle. While american planes used bombs on the target. Then again my choice is biased...becasue i cannot stand what the americans did japan... But in truth it would have taken more than one invasion to kill japan. The first would have failed for sure. The second would have been weaker. But at that point during the third japan would really be dieing and starving. Im sure the third or so would have worked. But the americans had no knowledge of what would have happened. I still feel that they should have atleast demonstrated what would happen. They didnt have to do it twice. In truth they should have just waited until the fall japan would have had to surrender. There were many possibilities for things to have happened if they didnt use the atomic weapons. Who knows what would have happened to japan.

RasFarengi

08-08-2003, 11:11 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ogumo @ Aug 8 2003, 11:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Hmm...if I was a white american man at war with the japanese empire...and if I had to make that choice... My choice would be to let the russians lead a large portion of the invasion. Let them take most of the casualties in battle. While american planes used bombs on the target. Then again my choice is biased...becasue i cannot stand what the americans did japan... But in truth it would have taken more than one invasion to kill japan. The first would have failed for sure. The second would have been weaker. But at that point during the third japan would really be dieing and starving. Im sure the third or so would have worked. But the americans had no knowledge of what would have happened. I still feel that they should have atleast demonstrated what would happen. They didnt have to do it twice. In truth they should have just waited until the fall japan would have had to surrender. There were many possibilities for things to have happened if they didnt use the atomic weapons. Who knows what would have happened to japan. [/b][/quote]
Oguma:

what you said was interesting.

1)
Well I don't think letting the Russians lead the charge would be good. Even toward the end of WWII, the Cold War was starting...the Russian could not agree with the Brits and Americans how to divide up the spoils of the war. The Brits and AMericans did not like Stalin or communism and did not trust him. Stalin being extremely paranoid always felt the same. Having Russian troops on the ground at the conclusion of WWII would have for certain made Japan a communist state. Their were already a lot of communist locked up in prison in Japan just waiting for their brothers support.

2) Multiple Invasions? Uhm...how many American soldiers and Japanese civilians do you think would have died by violence, disease, and starvation in this time period?

3) Waiting? Well, problem with that, is the war will not stop. The Japanese were still fighting with nothing, and people on both sides were still dying, and also the cost, you can't ignore economics, drain on the countries resources, food rations at home being extended...more of your citizens dying (remember you are American not Japanese, first priority is to your nation and your countrymen it is your duty)...the very fact that more American will die needlessly should be enough in this instance.

Ogumo

08-08-2003, 11:42 AM

RasFarengi: If Russia was to invade it may have been bad for japan because many of the japanese would have resisted it. They were fed up with the violence that happened right inside of our nation. While america offered a less a harsh government. That is why japanese responded the way that they did. But even if russia did help with those invasions america did the most work. There fore it would have been able to claim japanese islands. The leader stalin would have been upset but he would have left japan.

the first invasion may not have shown any harm to japanese civilians because the americans and russians would not have made it to dry land ever again. Ask your japanese friend about the storms that happened a few weeks after japan's surrender. The ally boats would have been destroyed in the trip to japan. So would their air planes. The others after that would have been worse though. But as you said ultimately it would hurt japanese people.

Perhaps like you say. Japanese soldiers had little to nothing. My grandfather was telling me before they moved him out of china japanese soldiers were eating each other. Well until the the japanese emperor ordered them not to. Then they just ate chinese people and americans people...He would tell me stories about how soldiers of japan would dig holes put bombs in them along with one soldier and that would be a trap for tanks...you get the idea of how desperate things were for japan. In truth I do not even think that they would have had to wait until fall. The americans were reading japanese messages to each other. They over heard plans of the japanese surrender. When they got these messages they should have said "hey these people realize they have no choice. Lets try to speak with the leader of japan." But you must understand the americans didnt give a damn. They just wanted to kill the sub human japs. "those nips are going to get what they deserve! damn nips". That was an act of revenge. Japan did not deserve that. Hell no nation deserves that. The americans killed thousands (now the number is in the millions) of innocent japanese civilians just to get revenge for a few thousand american soldiers. This was a true barbaric act. But if I looked at it as if japan had these weapons and japanese lives were on the line I would want to kill as many people as it took for the americans to surrender. But I would still want a non civilian target. Either that or the capital of america. If japan had attacked...let us say new york city or some other city with atomic weapons I would still be against this. It doesnt matter what side it was. No one deserves such things.

kitty

08-08-2003, 12:15 PM

The Russians didn't have to lead the charge. Most of the Japanese military forces were sitting up at that northern border because the Japanese were almost paranoid-ly (that's not a word, I know) afraid of a Russian invasion and diverted a lot of force there to sit on a border that Russia really didn't have much of an intention of invading for awhile.

The U.S. and Russia could've played on those fears by having Russia begin an attack that... well... would be powerful but not intended to break through. Japan would've most likely concentrated its military on defending the northern border, leaving the rest of its border weakened, allowing the U.S. to sweep in.

And of course, there's the option of weakening them by maintaining the blockade, preventing the import/export of goods. Japan had such small landmass that it wasn't able to sustain its population. By combining the blockade and the norther invasion scenarios, along with maintaining diplomatic talk to keep a channel for surrender open, the bombs could've been avoided.

From what I understand, the main reason the Japanese government maintained the 'no surrender' policy was because they were afraid a U.S. invasion would've meant the destruction of the emperor system during restructuring. The U.S. went in and eventually kept the emperor, which was really all the Japanese were afraid of... if they had known that the U.S. possibly wouldn't have gotten rid of the emperor, they may have been more likely to surrender sooner. They already knew, pretty much when Pearl Harbour ostensibly failed, that they weren't going to win a prolonged war with the U.S.

Ogumo

08-08-2003, 12:27 PM

Indeed. They expected them to hit from the north. Hell one of the major reasons of the war was more land for japan's population. Also the reason that japan would not surrender was because they were afraid of the americans. They thought that they would do terrible things to the people of japan. That was one of the emperor's concerns. He was thinking about the people of japan. The reason the military would not surrender was because it was a ridiculous thought for any japanese to surrender. To do so would be to lose honor. The brutality of the japanese war was how japanese had been fighting for hundreds of years. Brutally killing the enemy. Surrender was not allowed. There is a old saying "always death before surrender". That was definately a factor for why japan was refusing to surrender.

RasFarengi

08-08-2003, 12:36 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kittygirl @ Aug 8 2003, 01:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The Russians didn't have to lead the charge. Most of the Japanese military forces were sitting up at that northern border because the Japanese were almost paranoid-ly (that's not a word, I know) afraid of a Russian invasion and diverted a lot of force there to sit on a border that Russia really didn't have much of an intention of invading for awhile.

The U.S. and Russia could've played on those fears by having Russia begin an attack that... well... would be powerful but not intended to break through. Japan would've most likely concentrated its military on defending the northern border, leaving the rest of its border weakened, allowing the U.S. to sweep in.

And of course, there's the option of weakening them by maintaining the blockade, preventing the import/export of goods. Japan had such small landmass that it wasn't able to sustain its population. By combining the blockade and the norther invasion scenarios, along with maintaining diplomatic talk to keep a channel for surrender open, the bombs could've been avoided.

From what I understand, the main reason the Japanese government maintained the 'no surrender' policy was because they were afraid a U.S. invasion would've meant the destruction of the emperor system during restructuring. The U.S. went in and eventually kept the emperor, which was really all the Japanese were afraid of... if they had known that the U.S. possibly wouldn't have gotten rid of the emperor, they may have been more likely to surrender sooner. They already knew, pretty much when Pearl Harbour ostensibly failed, that they weren't going to win a prolonged war with the U.S. [/b][/quote]
Oguma:

I disagree. If Russia had troops on the ground and did the foot combat, you can bet they will not just say…”Okay, you Americans just come on in here and administrate things…” NO way, Stalin’s goal was the spread of communism…it proved that in Mongolia, North Korea, and Eastern Europe. He would not have left, and that would have put America in a serious predicament. We would lose another country to the Communist (have to think from a Cold War mentality), or we will have to start a new war with the USSR. I don’t think any President who has half a brain will risk that much.

Kitty:

One thing you seem to be doing is thinking about what is best for both sides in order to prevent an atomic bomb being dropped. Unfortunately, when you are at war, you don’t think about what is best for the enemy. You think about what is best for you and what is good enough for your allies to keep them your allies.

A blockade is nice, but what about all the Japanese troops still in China? When Japan gave up, those troops stopped fighting and went home, but if Japan did not give up the fighting would have continued, there would also still be a lot of fighting in South East Asia and the Pacific, the Japanese were not totally defeated, and yes we could have eventually beat them, but how many more American and allied troops would have died fighting suicide attacks?

If we went with your invasion plan, you are also still assuming that the Japanese civilians would not have taken arms, in a densely populated country, and if the civilians became combative, than you are talking about a lot of casualties on both sides. Would you put US soldiers in that situation, when you were not certain? Remember the war has already went on for over 4 years (well US involvement), many crippled soldiers and body bags have already come home, and you have to ask the military and the American public who are already wore down to man-up for another big invasion that will likely have more casualties than the invasion of Normandy that might take weeks or months to complete, but you have the power to probably end the war quickly, with limited casualties for your people and allies.

Do you know if the Japanese government had tried to contact the Americans and give terms of surrender, or the Americans tried to contact them and give acceptable terms? I wonder would the Japanese have believed them? The thing is you have this information over 60 years later, but the real question is…did the people at the time have it, and did they believe it? If they had this information and they believed it were both parties willing to act on it?

ModernLogic

08-08-2003, 12:48 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Aug 7 2003, 10:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Xiao Rong Ji, have the maturity to recognise the tragedy of millions of deaths caused by the atomic bombs. that the Japanese military caused deaths in Asia does not mean that Japanese deaths should be celebrated. tone down your rhetoric, or your posting privileges will be limited.

this is your only warning. [/b][/quote]
Nobody's celebrating.

Look, it's easy in a time of peace to distinguish the government from the civilians. But in the 1940s Japan, the people and the government are one. The soldiers and generals were coming from the people. The guns, tanks and bombs were being manufactured by the people.

All I've said is that nations who committed crimes against other nations should be punished.

kitty

08-08-2003, 12:52 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Xiao Rong Ji @ Aug 8 2003, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Aug 7 2003, 10:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Xiao Rong Ji, have the maturity to recognise the tragedy of millions of deaths caused by the atomic bombs.  that the Japanese military caused deaths in Asia does not mean that Japanese deaths should be celebrated.  tone down your rhetoric, or your posting privileges will be limited.

this is your only warning. [/b][/quote]
Nobody's celebrating.

Look, it's easy in a time of peace to distinguish the government from the civilians. But in the 1940s Japan, the people and the government are one. The soldiers and generals were coming from the people. The guns, tanks and bombs were being manufactured by the people.

All I've said is that nations who committed crimes against other nations should be punished. [/b][/quote]
Then all nations should be punished. Give me one nation that, according to this logic, doesn't deserve fiery painful death?

Ogumo

08-08-2003, 12:56 PM

Ok then. America should be hit with nukes 10 times. china 2. Then vietnam 1. With your form of thinking the world would be a radiation wonderland.

Faithless

08-08-2003, 01:00 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Aug 8 2003, 05:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ogumo @ Aug 8 2003, 08:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Indeed. They didnt care what they did because americans are terrible doglike people.

achtungbaby: Do you seriously think they would have used it? Hell no. The germans didnt have the bomb so they would have warned them and asked them to surrender. Even so I still doubt that they would have used it because the germans were white people. [/b][/quote]
well the difference is that Japan directly attacked a base in American territory. i think if Germany did the same thing, the US would have dropped the bombs on Germany. the war-time propaganda back then knew no racial lines. the Germans were hated just as much as the Japanese were hated.

and the idea that they wouldn't drop the bomb on Germany because Germans are white, that's a little uninformed of you. after WW2, the US and the USSR went through decades of the Cold War where the whole point was building up nuclear warheads in case they have to fire them at each other. [/b][/quote]
I can understand that sort of rational.

But the British were sure getting the shit bombed out of them by the Germans. You'd think there would have been some sort for the American Allied brothers in tattered arms.

kitty

08-08-2003, 01:01 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 8 2003, 06:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I disagree. If Russia had troops on the ground and did the foot combat, you can bet they will not just say…”Okay, you Americans just come on in here and administrate things…” NO way, Stalin’s goal was the spread of communism…it proved that in Mongolia, North Korea, and Eastern Europe. He would not have left, and that would have put America in a serious predicament. We would lose another country to the Communist (have to think from a Cold War mentality), or we will have to start a new war with the USSR. I don’t think any President who has half a brain will risk that much.

[/b][/quote]
long... response... eyes... glazing...

We partnered with Saddam for a common goal, and we knew what he was capable of. Hell, we supplied him with many of the WMD that Bush now is trying to take back. We put the Taliban in power. It's not as if there isn't precedent of partnering with the 'lesser of two evils'...

Kitty:

One thing you seem to be doing is thinking about what is best for both sides in order to prevent an atomic bomb being dropped.  Unfortunately, when you are at war, you don’t think about what is best for the enemy.  You think about what is best for you and what is good enough for your allies to keep them your allies.

A blockade is nice, but what about all the Japanese troops still in China?  When Japan gave up, those troops stopped fighting and went home, but if Japan did not give up the fighting would have continued, there would also still be a lot of fighting in South East Asia and the Pacific, the Japanese were not totally defeated, and yes we could have eventually beat them, but how many more American and allied troops would have died fighting suicide attacks?

I admit that kamikaze pilots are a problem with the blockade scenario. But who's to say how many would