My grama always said it was good that we bombed Japan.

She had two sons and three brothers that she knew came home after the bomb. All five came home. Thats all that mattered to her. One of them was my dad. Context is everyting.

Isn't that context enough?

:shrug:

shit out of me when I hit my mid 20's.

They were wonderful grandparents, in many ways.

They loved their grandchildren, near and far, unconditionally and didn't screw too much with our parents as our parents tried to enlighten us, their kids.

And our parents tried.

Martin Luther King's and Bobby Kennedy's assassinations were a turning point for a lot of young parents in the 60's, I'd wager. MKJ

How could this nice old lady think annihilating thousands was a good think?

Is a whole hell of a lot more important than faceless people on the other side of the world, that's why.

So are you. The other side were not nice guys.

And I don't think it's reasonable to blame private citizens there any more than it would be to blame you or I for the actions of our own government the last 4 years.

nice people. It was to shorten the war. My father said that they figured that we saved thousands of American soldiers lives by ending the war then. I also think that we have to remember that the average citizen had no idea what the bomb would do to the people of Japan. If we had known what we know now I hope that the powers that be would have thought harder about their decision.

They were people who had no say at the ballot box, but more than a few of them were opposed to the war, and more than a few were imprisoned for saying so.

They were "not nice people" in the same way Bush supporters who thought illegally invading Iraq was a good idea are not nice people. In both cases, they have been completely mindfucked by a massive propaganda machine.

According to your logic, the Iraqis would be totally justified in nuking a US city. After all, we killed 30 thousand of them in shock and awe, many, many more than died in the Pearl Harbor attack which was strictly aimed at military targets...

out that that was not the reason that they dropped the bomb.

Some historians think the war was 'winding down' anyway and the bombs were overkill and others believe they saved thousands. I have no idea what would have happened if we hadn't devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki...and nobody else can say for sure either...so we have the history we have. Every interested party has his or her own opinion.
I don't really have one.

...definitely changes your perspective.

I had always accepted the mainstream story that the bombs were necessary, and had never really thought about the individual lives and families and what happened to them, until I actually lived here and came to regard them as friends and neighbors, rather than some distant, inscrutable, exotic race of people who happen to make better cars than we do.

It may not change anyone's mind about the justness of the decision to utilize terrorist tactics to end the war, but I would recommend the films "Black Rain" (the original black & white film, not the moronic 90s crime flick) and the animated true account of one boy's experience "Barefoot Gen". Both give a good insight into what that whole ordeal was like.

And for those who can make the trip, a day at the Hiroshima Peace Park & Museum is a very memorable experience.

We should never compare WWII with the illegal invasion of Iraq


Both A-Bombs were a necessary evil, yes to shorten the war, but also in reality and not
because the mainstream story accepts it, but because there were thousands of POW's
in captivity, and alot were dying every day, and many were being killed.
The Army was NOT going to surrender, and they were the ones in power, very bullheaded
and selfish, they would fight to the finish, only after the 'Hirohito' spoke did they
realize they would never make it.

Think of what was about to happen in July/August 1945 Admiral Spruance and others were
ordered to plan for operations Coronet and Olympic, the invasions Kyushu in November 1945
and Honshu in March 1946.
Millions would have died in those invasions.

Admiral Halsey with the 3rd fleet had Japan surrounded, and was bombing them every day almost,
The great submarine force had decimated their merchant shipping.
They could have surrendered months before, but were stubborn and did not.

What the Japanese did on Wake Island, Truk, New Guinea, Kwajalein and China was disgusting
and evil.
What President Truman did was the only thing available to him, and I applaud him for it.
Sometimes civilians are killed in war, and that is tragic, but at least the war was over
and millions were saved.

the excuses you're posting for the use of those weapons against civilians have been refuted thoroughly and repeatedly throughout this thread. I hope you'll read through it, because I'm honestly getting tired of posting the same things over, and over again.

These are NOT excuses, those that I mentioned are reality

Hiroshima was a military target, along with Nagasaki
There are civilians in both cities, and unfortunately a war was going on and yes civlians
are injured or killed.

Do you know what happened to the 'civilians' on Wake Island?, or the Marines on Wake Island?
How about the civilians on Guam?
Or the US Rangers on Kwajalein/Makin Islands
Or the USS Yorktown fliers on Chichi Jima and Truk Islands, and Fukuoka?

Not to mention the civilians in China who suffered at the hands of the brutal Japanese Army

Read that and then get back to me, and you will realize that the A-bombs were necessary

I stand by my statement that the A-Bomb was a necessary evil.

...the a-bomb apologists never cease to mention them, but they are beside the point.

By the way, I live in Fukuoka, what are you referring to here? To my knowledge, the only action this city saw was when the US firebombed it to the ground.

Have you never heard the expression 'two wrongs don't make a right'?

I am not an A-Bomb apologist, it is NOT beside the point.
How would you have liked the US to end the war then?
It was either the A-Bomb, or have Admiral Halsey continue to bomb several cities....same thing in the
end..

Like I said before, Japan had several months to surrender, they did not, they suffered the consequences.

Fukuoka had a POW camp where several USS Yorktown fliers were murdered along with other fliers.

"Fukuoka had a POW camp where several USS Yorktown fliers were murdered along with other fliers."

My great uncle died in one of those camps. They were not pretty.

"How would you have liked the US to end the war then?

It was either the A-Bomb, or have Admiral Halsey continue to bomb several cities....same thing in the end"

This has been mentioned over and over again in several threads but there were many more options open.

1. Test the first bomb on an unpopulated area where the Japanese could see the effects firsthand.

2. Use the bomb on a predominantly military target

3. Use a blockage and strategic bombing to force a surrender, saving the bomb as a last resort.

4. Mount a full-scale invasion without using the bomb at all (possibly the worst choice from the US standpoint, but the estimates of "millions of casualties" were probably greatly exaggerated. The remaining bumpkins on the mainland with their bamboo spears would not have fared well.


But seriously, I've gone through this so many times. Please read through the thread. There are a lot of good points being made both for and against, and I'm tiring of repeating myself. You don't have to change your mind, just read it and think about it. Lord knows I'm not naive enough to think I'm going to change many American's minds about anything.

I have read several posts, and through the years I remain steadfast in knowing that
the A-Bombs were necessary and the best thing.
I see both sides, but I stand with the choice that was made.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE military targets

Testing the bomb on an uninhabited island was NOT a choice
there were several things that could go wrong, and the Japanese were
stubborn and would not have surrendered if they saw the destruction.

Admiral Spruance and Admiral Halsey, Task Force 58 and Task Force 38 already had
Japan surrounded for months, and they still did not surrender.

Kamikaze's were taking a toll on the fleet everyday, so they had to do something to
make and show the Japanese that surrender was the only option.

Invasion was going to happen, but was not going to be met by people with 'bamboo' sticks
they had alot of weapons stored and hidden, it would have been extremely costly for both sides.

And I can tell you that they are "nice people". So nice, in fact that most of them harbor no ill will towards the US despite the unnecessary nature of what was done to them.

Many of them still travel around, trying to educate younger people in the hope that something like that will never happen again, to anyone.

It was in 1969. I actually had some trepidation about the visit but I never had even the slightest hint of anti_American sentiment while I was there. In all my months there I only had one reaction...from a little boy, about 7 I guess, who looked at me and said "GAIJIN!" (I can't even remember where it was but I do know it was far from any of the big cities...and I was far less offended -not at all- than his mommy was embarrassed) :-)

The only good of the unleashed bombs is that we know how destructive atomic and nuclear bombs truly are. I will not sit idly by as my government uses those weapons of mass destruction in the future, and I truly appreciate the nature of the Japanese and their friendship and goodness to us, the US. Many citizens from other countries would have harbored horrific grudges against us for much much longer.

And the Japanese culture being what it was, that war would not have ended until the last Japanese person was dead. We bombed them for good reason and they surrendered because they knew it was over, or they were over. Those naval men, a few of them my husband's relatives, did not deserve to die just because they weren't private citizens. They died horrible deaths too. The way you and others describe the dropping of those two bombs, it's as if we did it unprovoked, but it wasn't. They were doing TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE things to our POWs...that is not OK. I believe our government did what was necessary to save COUNTLESS lives on both sides. There are those who think that that war would still be being fought had it not been for those two bombs, and I wouldn't completely disagree with that.
Duckie

was the right thing to do. I'm not so sure.

and this is in no way a justification

1.- WW II WAS total war, the meaning of this is that civilians were valid targets, and this was the view by ALL sides

2.- The Japanese would have dropped an H bomb on San Francisco or any other Americana City if they had it. So would the Germans

3.- The Only reason WE did it and on Japan no-less, was because we developed it, and we tested it after VE Day... so the arguments that we would not drop it on the Germans because they were white has nothing to do with reality... we would have, if we had it.

4.- Yes, modern Japanese are very nice people, so are modern Germans, if we went to war with them tomorrow, they would magically transform themselves into the faceless enemy millions... that happens almost every war. In fact the current war in Iraq has to a point, it just didn't last enough.

So if you want the brutal answer, those same very nice Japanese would have dropped the H bomb if they had it.

Read a little history of the pacific theater. It might clarify to you the almost, well actually the religious zeal with which Japanese troops fought, and their cruel inhumanity to endless civilian populations. The people you know today were formed and grew up under very different circumstances than the people who were adults when the end of the war came.

Oh and that goes for both sides by the way.

And yes, I know folks, in their 80s and 90s these days, who are alive because that bomb was dropped. They know that... and if you want to understand why, read Operation Olympic, especially the expected losses artier the first two weeks of operation, based on the experience on Iwo by the way.

Oh and as to the effects of the bomb... BDA personnel were surprised... what do you mean one bomb can do that? And radiation? Again something most folks were not expecting, some of the scientists were, but not everybody

Oh and it did end the war... just as Sherman's march to the sea ended the civil war... and if they had a nuke back then, they would have used it.

I know, what a happy thought eh.

Can you demostrate without a doubt that the only choices open to Truman were a terrorist atomic attack on civilians, or a huge invasion which your relatives would have DEFINITELY participated and died in?

Any number of ethical choices could have been made - blockades, testing the bomb on an uninhabited area or a purely military target, actually letting the Japanese surrender, since the only condition of surrender we had a problem with - keeping the Emperor - we eventually relented on anyway!


I hate these topics because they are inevitably a huge insult to the innocent victims of those bombs, who were doing nothing but going about their business and had NO SAY WHATSOEVER in the government's expansionist policies or conduct of the war.

Any number of ethical choices could have been made - blockades, testing the bomb on an uninhabited area or a purely military target, actually letting the Japanese surrender, since the only condition of surrender we had a problem with - keeping the Emperor - we eventually relented on anyway!

There are several problems with those choices.

Blockades certainly would have been successful eventually, but I fail to see how starving millions of people to death to bring about a surrender is a more ethical choice than the admittedly horrific option of dropping atomic weapons.

How would one go about demonstrating atomic weapons on an uninhabited area? Do you thing the War Council would have sailed to a predetermined location to witness a test? And even if they did, what would they have seen that would have convinced them to end the war?

There were, in fact, peace feelers put out by elements of the Japanese government prefaced on the condition that the Emperor remain in place. Those make the overtures, however, completely lacked the authority to bring about the surrender of Japan's armed forces. The War Council was *not* in favor of surrender.

"Those make the overtures, however, completely lacked the authority to bring about the surrender of Japan's armed forces. The War Council was *not* in favor of surrender"

True. But it accepted surrender after the throne's status was clarified and Hirohito insisted on the decision. That could have happened before the bombs were dropped. The bombs didn't bring about the decision: alluding to a postwar throne did.

What actions by the War Council lead you to believe they would have accepted surrender prior to August, with their one condition being retention of the Emperor?

What had changed between August 9 and 14? The throne clarification. The bombs didn't do it. The change that counted was one that could have been effected in July. But it wasn't.

I appreciate your position, but I think the meaningful debate amongst the War Council did not revolve around that issue at all. There was some passing discussion, but the real debate was between elements wishing to fight until Japan was utterly, completely exhausted, and those wishing for a negotiated armistice that would allow them to keep some conquered territories and keep the existing leadership intact (NOT just the Emperor, but the military and civilian leadership most responsible for Japan's war effort).

In the end they lived with surrender, because they couldn't defy the Emperor unless the throne was at stake. the fact that they were still willing to fight on after Nagasaki shows that the bombs didn't decide it.

In the end they lived with surrender, because they couldn't defy the Emperor unless the throne was at stake. the fact that they were still willing to fight on after Nagasaki shows that the bombs didn't decide it.

I think the much more logical, and supported, conclusion is that they lived with surrender because they were presented in no uncertain terms that they were utterly defeated. The fact that there were some elements that attempted to keep fighting after the bombs demonstrates the kind of resolve that was present in the military leadership, and shows why the peace feelers prior to August were meaningless.

They'd been utterly defeated for weeks or months, though. Any doubt about that went with the loss of Manchuria. That's the point. And yet it still wasn't enough. After Manchuria, after the bombs.

I think more relevant than the handful who couldn't surrender is the millions who did without incident once the Emperor's proclamation had been communicated. The diehards couldn't carry the day after he'd made his ruling.

Suzuki clearly considered the Byrnes note crucial, citing it as the occasion to refer the matter upward. Its importance to Hirohito is obvious enough. And his centrality is shown by the loyalty that survived the decision to surrender.

I don't agree either that the June-July feelers should be dismissed. Hirohito wasn't talking surrender yet, but there was ample reason to explore options. Omitting the throne from the Potsdam declaration just made early progress impossible.

While it is true that the offer to retain the Emperor made the eventual surrender more palatable for some, that does not logically dictate that the only thing preventing surrender was its absence. Taken as a whole, I believe the Council's actions, along with those of the military leadership, demonstrate that a surrender under acceptable terms was not possible without without a great deal of suffering. This could have come in the form of an invasion, a blockade, continued strategic bombing, or atomic weapons. Among those choices, I believe atomic weapons represented the least amount of suffering in the long run.

I want to be clear: is it your position that, had the U.S. offered to retain the Emperor in July, the Japanese would have been willing to surrender under the same terms eventually reached?

We'll never know, because the offer wasn't made. But its role in the August decision does seem decisive to me. I think you're underestimating its importance by concluding that it made surrender "more palatable": I'd say it made it possible without destruction on a far larger scale than even the two bombs could deliver. Japan's position was already collapsing with developments on the Asian mainland, and victory was out of the question. The US was clearly prepared to use more bombs, and its readiness to make the offer on August 11/12 suggests that Truman and his advisors too realised that the first two hadn't finished it. Were they wrong? Would early surrender (i.e. before a third bomb) have been accomplished without the concession?

I do not think it is at all likely that Japan would have surrendered under the same terms eventually agreed upon without a calamitous event of some kind. Whether that event came in the form of a blockade, an invasion, continued strategic bombing, expanded war with the Soviets, or atomic weapons, I believe something was necessary to bring about the Council's acceptance of U.S. terms.

Reasonable people can disagree, however, and I appreciate very much the tone of our discussion. Have a good night.

:)

you sure about that?

This was TOTAL WAR... you do know the meaning of the war, don't you?

And by the way, this is the same population that looked the other side during the killings in Nanking, and her soliders killed and bayonented tens of thousands in the philipines

Need I mention the so called trreatment of POWs?

Trust me... you really do not want to play this game about ethics in total war.

Do you suppose that If the Germans had offered to surrender in say, Jan 1945, provided Hitler retained his position in the post war German Government, that the Allies would have accepted that one stipulation. I do not think that would have been seriously considered by anyone in any of the Allied Governments. Yet, We were suppose to consider allowing Hirohito, to remain on the Japanese throne as a condition of the surrender of Japan.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

David Irving AND Stormfront!

I suggest getting rid of that shit, post-haste.

I agree that Japan was clearly open to surrender before the A-bombs, but there have to be credible, non-nazi sources out there...

None of his sources are anything new. Typical of the creep to trumpet decades-old common knowledge as his new discoveries.

70 million Japanese with a wrecked economy were about to defeat (and presumably exterminate) kill 140 million Americans with a third of the world's productuive capacity and a Soviet ally with 170m people and another tenth of war output. This is nuts.

I don't think he was saying Japan was a threat to the US mainland, but that his relatives would have been among the MILLIONS of US troops who would have CERTAINLY died in the immediate massive invasion that was the ONLY alternative to the IMMEDIATE use of atomic bombs.

... unless he was saying Japan was certain to kill everyone on the planet unless it had been thoroughly devastated from Kyushu to Hokkaido. It's difficult to keep up with the stream of nonsense. What a miracle that anyone on earth survived Tsushima.

very sad to the day she died. He died on a sub., and he was buried at sea. I never realized how horrible it was for her until I became a parent. I never met my uncle Bobby, but my father named his only son Bobby.

proposed invasion force that might disagree with your disagreement.

If my choice in 1945 is dead Japanese civilians or dead American soldiers, that's not really a hard choice you know........

Those Japanese civilians aren't American. Everyone knows American lives are worth far more than Japanese lives. :eyes:

Of course you still don't distinguish the difference that innocent unarmed civilians are not quite the same thing as armed military forces in a war, and that wiping out over 200,000 of them in the blink of an eye may be somewhat different than an armed conflict between military forces using conventional weaponry....But those Japanese have funny slanted eyes, so all is OK.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was morally wrong and completely unjustified, the same way the genocide of the Jews and the German carpet bombing campaigns were also morally wrong and completely unjustified. I don't like the way people justify atrocities simply by pointing out that the other side also committed atrocities.

You will never have the high ground in this particular debate. Those bombs should never have been dropped.

American lives are more important to me than Japanese lives....Sorry that's just me.

As for the high ground I don't really want it, the high ground counts for nothing if you lose your freedom defending it. Those 2 atomic bombs saved American lives, for me and a lot of other Americans that's really all that matters.

Funny I never mentioned race, you did. If the bombs had been ready for Nazi Germany I hope we would have used them on Frankfurt and Munich, same effect American lives saved.

>>American lives are more important to me than Japanese lives....Sorry that's just me.<<

I urge you to look deep into yourself and find the source of that sentiment. You'll be a better person when you lose it.

who did nothing wrong to anyone.

I am not saying that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "good" things, but the Japanese, on regular occasion, acted out some of the most brutal policies at that time. Their decimation of the Chinese population as well as their treatment of prisoners, and their occupation of their conquered lands were attrocious. Had you been on the receiving end of any of their brutality you would have rejoiced at the destruction of those cities. Only the years removed and the often forgettful lack of perspective allows us to look at that situation with such judgement.

The war was already lost, Russian ships were ready to close in on Tokyo.

My grandfather was there too. We were told growing up that the bomb saved lives. I now feel that our acceptance of it is a milestone in racist killing and acceptance of a false story.

The purpose of the bomb was to announce to Russia not to mess with us, not to minimize loss of life. It was totally unnecessary and is a blot on our nation's honor, much like the last 6 years. In light of the past few years, the propaganda we were sold about the bomb seems transparent.

I'm glad your family and mine returned, but they would have anyway. Not all of mine made it home, though that was from battle in Europe. Here's a prayer that we all take the time to reflect on what we know, what we've learned along the way, to bring our country's honor back again one day.

Hundreds of thousands. 5000 in one day. Of course we nuked them. You would have too. We didn't know if we were gonna win.

"We didn't know if we were gonna win"

How was the US going to do anything else with the USSR and Britain (and most of Europe and much of the rest of the world) as allies against an isolated Japan?

The United States lost 420,000 in World War 2. Europe lost 40,000,000. Iraq's lost 850,000 following its invasion by the US. Should Iraqis "of course" nuke the US?

Russia's entry into the war more than the bombing of Nagasaki is what prompted Japan to surrender. It took the Red Army less than a week to roll through Manchuria and reach Korea (a conquest that Japan took ten years to achieve). The Japanese already saw from Poland exactly what an occupation by Russia would have been like. Japan surrendered to the US to avoid Japan being occupied by Russians, or rather by Communists.

Don't forget that it was a fear of communism that caused a lot of Americans to support Japans conquest of China before they saw what Nanking was all about.

Stalin had plans to invade Japan proper by September 1945. That would have pushed up the US time table somewhat, but not by much, from its November '45 invasion in the far south and March '46 on the main island of Honshu.

A dual occupation of Japan might have prevented the Korean War, maybe, or it might have relocated the fighting to Japan, with all of Korea under communist occupation. Another probability is that the Japanese would have resisted communist occupation in ways the Koreans never did. Repressions like what happened in Hungary in 1956 would be pretty likely.

I would advise against singling out Hiroshima and Nagasaki as unique examples of aerial bombardment in WW2. In a single night in May, US bombers killed more civilians in Tokyo than they did in the two atomic bombings combined. The British, Germans, and Japanese had equally ruthless bombing tactics. The a-bombs were work savers, but not a huge leap foreward in killing civilians.

1. Have a huge long fight over something that happened over 60 years ago that almost none of us had anything to do with-that none of us lived through or had to deal with.

2. Or we could just realise that the nuking of Japan was bad but we have no understanding of what it was like to live through nearly six years of a horrible horrible war and instead focus on making the current world a better and better place.

While I'm not sure the context for bringing it up now, the fact that so many can advocate "nuking" our enemies in ways that are anything BUT in jest, only shows the importance of discussing this from time to time. (Per my sigline)

up all of that garbage in the ocean.

Grandma's should not be talking smack like that.

Grama talks all the smack she wants. Check out the Winnepge Rifles page some time.

I know people who were training for the invasion of Japan.

It would have been Okinawa times 5 or more.

Grama said one day one of them would walk in the door. There was no communication,she didn;t know who lived or died. They would just walk down the road from the bus stop.

many were Canadian farm kids who got captured in Hong Kong and Singapore EARLY in the war. They took them, in turns, to the radio room, to call home. They were starved and the sailors set out buffet tables for them. They were told not to eat much as their systems had forgotten how to handle foodbv, but they really wanted to, and the crew of Iowa obliged them.

My daddy is gone now, uncle Bob too. I would be honoured if you e-mailed me. Dad said he knew the war was over cause the Yanks were on our side.

It was the right thing to do. Invading Japan while they fought for every inch would have cost over a million casualties and deaths. The two a bombs killed fewer Japanese than an invasion would have. Let us not forget without a Pearl Harbor, there would have been no A bombs dropped on Japan. Dad was home on points before the A bombs fell. He was in the 25th division. I'm not a pacifist on this at all.

The uncles rolled in one by one by October. My grama loves nuclear weapons

He was serving as a Radioman aboard a US Navy ship in the South Pacific in August 1945. The experience of war helped make him an outspoken pacifist.

He too approved of the nuclear bombings, as did all four of my natural grandparents.

was finally over. The fire bombing we did just to get back at the people in Japan and Germany were way over the top I think. Germany knew it was on its last legs but I have never been sure Japan would have stopped. Still the fire bombing was way over the top on both countries. It seems to me it was killing because we could.

Hit them while down. Prove me wrong.

we would win is the drafting of soldiers. By that time we were drafting people who had larger families because we were stretching the military very tight. Less than today in Iraq but still a stretch.

We knew we would win, it was a matter of when. Truman, who was a rabid anti-Communist, was worried that the Soviets would join in the war, and that post-war Japan might have to be partitioned. The bombs were as much a signal to the Soviets as to the Japanese. In summer 1945, there was ZERO doubt that Japan would lose the war. Their industries were crippled, and they were using untrained kids to pilot their zeros in "kamikaze" flights. they had become desperate.

It was all laid out at Yalta and Potsdam. The Soviets were to get the Kurile Islands and Sakhalin in return for ending their non-aggression pact with Japan. They declared war on Japan a day after Hiroshima, and proceeded to invade the Kuriles and take all the islands that they had peacefully ceded to Japan some 70 years before. They even took Etorofu and Kunashiri, the two southernmost Kuriles which had never been claimed by Russia, and Shikotan and the Habomai islets, which weren't even part of the Kurile chain.

I'm aware of the still-ongoing dispute over Kunashiri & Etorofu. I thought the bombing was in part to scare Russia away from trying to claim parts of the main islands...

Japanese mainland, since the Kuriles were lightly defended outposts, while a mainland invasion would have required far more resources than the Soviets were willing to devote. The plan was for Russia to get all of the Japanese islands north of Hokkaido, and Russia stuck to the plan.

The bombings could have been part a way of making sure that Russia lived up to its promises. It's interesting that the bombs were dropped at exactly the time when the Soviet army was ready to start its invasion.

Huh? How were the US, USSR, Britain and various other allies not going to defeat an isolated Japan of 70 million? No, that wasn't in question.

...just thought that needed to be added.

Germany before we started the fire bombing. Cities like Dresden with no military places was a shame to all people. It was as foolish as Germany bombing the city center of London. Bombing because you could. I was in Germany about 8 years after the war and it was a mess as was parts of London still. Bombing a place off the face of the earth seems to turn people on. I do not recall how many times I have heard that is what we should do to Iraq and Iran. I guess we can say it as we have not been hit like that.

Well sure, dead people can't have emotion, eh?

What's your secret?

:hi:

:shrug:

You seem to do that a lot.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What's your malfunction this evening?

we bombed...It would have never ended.

lives lost due to the bombing, sounds like a lot doesn't it?

lets compare that to the 1 million plus Allied casualties and the 14 million estimated Japanese deaths (both military and civilian) and the exchange (not to minimize the deaths of 200K) does not seem so bad.

As to the Soviets knocking at the door of Japan? Amphibious assault (especially an opposed one) is not a skill learned overnight nor are the assets necessary to move a sufficiently large enough force to assure anything close to an even money likelihood of success, the Soviets were lacking in both cases. By the time the Soviets hit Manchuria in 1945, the Japanese Army there consisted almost entirely of unbloodied raw conscripted recruits. the bulk of the veteran imperial army had been withdrawn and redeployed in an attempt to slow down/stop the rapid american advance in the pacific.

Stalin didn't worry too much about casualities. His planned September 1945 invasion of the Niigata area would have cost him lots of lives. He would have paid that cost and done it anyway. And the Soviets would have owned half of Japan for the next 45 years.

Even before Hiroshima, Japan was looking for a way to end the fighting. They just weren't willing to surrender on our terms until they saw the alternative to surrender was Uncle Joe.

First, let's be clear that we're talking US casualties, not deaths. Your million-plus is consistent with the April JCS projection, which included 376,000 US dead in an invasion. Later estimates came up with a far lower figure for the Kyushu part of the invasion (31-49,000 total casualties rather than 109,000 dead), strongly suggesting the appropriateness of a similar revision for the main Honshu operation.

I agree that a Soviet landing was unlikely in the immediate future. But the Manchuria-Korea operation and the likelihood of collapse in China too was already destroying Japan's last source of overseas supply. The Soviet intervention also destroyed hopes of negotiating an "honorable" deal through a sympathetic (or so it was imagined) Ally. It made collapse all the more certain, and the necessity of invasion remoter.

It's been discussed before. Context is indeed everything.

Somehow, I think that if Roosevelt had not won his third term, and a republican had been responsible for those atrocities, there wouldn't be so many DUers reaching so deperately to defend Truman's legacy.

It's amazing to me how a (D) after a person's name will excuse almost anything for the partisan true believers.

I wonder if they would be so quick to rush to Johnson's defense for his unnecessary escalation and continuation of the utterly immoral and unnecessary war against Vietnam.

I daresay if the repubs had held the Presidency at the time, some of the posters who think it was necessary would be holding a different opinion. The "Democrats can do no wrong" crowd are not doing the party any favors by professing blind allegiance.

Now dont rip me to hard on this, but the Soviets would have killed alot more people if we would have just let them invade. Also, who knows how many troops Japan and the U.S. would lose and how many Japanese civilians would die up and down the entire coast during an invasion.

You're assuming there weren't alternatives. There were. Please read the rest of the discussion (and the other I linked to). There are good points from both sides that you've missed.

...who has been suffering from the effects of the bomb for 60 years, who lost half of their family instantaeously in the blast, and watched the other half die as their hair fell out and their agonizing keloid burns were eaten at by maggots over the next days and weeks.

I'm sure that "context" will be great comfort to her. Maybe if I tell her it's her fault for living in a country with a dictatorship that started the war, that will make her feel better.

Oh, and I'm sure she will be delighted to know that even 60 years later, Americans who claim to be "progressive" STILL walk around slapping themselves on the back because a certain president decided to use a terrorist atomic attack on civilian targets as a first resort against Japan when it was already clearly losing the war and trying to surrender.

Is it any wonder that most of the world today sees Americans as egotistical cowards?


By the way, my great uncld didn't come back. He died at the hands of the Japanese, captured during a recon flight and held in one of the Japanese notorious POW camps. We only found out what happened to him because a kind Japanese man took it upon himself to contact my great aunt after the war to let her know, striking up a correspondence that lasted for years. Luckily the Japanese are extremely forgiving people who for the most part try to own up to their mistakes, unlike many Americans.

people think old history can be glommed over and held up w/out really caring that the fixers were working all along- bush's granpappy prescott committed actual crimes helping hitler; it's fairly well documented but it remains a non fact when looking at junyer's career, and the damage he's done..history isn't OVER YET and that's a fact...
----------
>taken from Gore Vidal’s ‘Dreaming War, Blood For Oil and the Bush-Cheney Junta pg 77/78:
“…But let me quote from a letter by the historian Kai Bird, which, to my amazement, the New York Times published (usually they suppress anything too critical of themselves or their Opinion makers):
‘Twice the reviewer dismisses as “silly’ Vidal’s assertion that Harry Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was unnecessary because Japan had been trying for some months to surrender.
Such assertions are neither silly nor….a product of Vidal’s ‘cranky politics’ Rather Vidal has cleverly drawn on a rich and scholarly literature published in the last decade to remind his readers that much of what orthodox court historians have written about the Cold War was simply wrong. With regard to Hiroshima, perhaps Vidal had in mind Truman’s July 1945 handwritten diary reference to a ‘telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace’”<
-----------------------------------
In other words, Japan tried to give up, even sending a telegram direct from Emperor to truman, but the big lie needed nudge wink ignore it....and DU'ers too believe the men who lied to us. After all, the Japanese must know the score, so the LIE was for western audience, and 65 years are gone since the lil conjob went down successfully, thank you. It the same with Saddam Hussein: he tried to give up before bush invaded- but cia/british ss had him trapped, cut off from western media and no chance to just get the hell out (russia offered refuge). All this is known, yet...yet an illegal war that has cost the US taxpayer (YOU! ME!) god knows (they say 1/2 trillion, but they lie, you know)..
Maybe had the truth about nuking of Japan been looked at, had truman been tried at nuremberg, had Eisenhower been given power to nip the MIC in the bud, had HISTORY not been doctored and fed like pablum to people who, because 200k victims at H/N were only yello n*****z, gladly believe the big lie, until it kills their own kids/grandkids future, when it's too fukking late, maybe had adults acted like adults then instead of dewy eyed punk assholes, maybe then bush2 never get the job as our leader....

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/ferrell_book/ferrell_book_chap5.htm

From Truman's diary, with relevant footnotes:

"JULY 18

"Ate breakfast with nephew Harry, a sergeant in the field artillery. He is a good soldier and a nice boy. They took him off Queen Elizabeth at Glasgow and flew him here. Sending him home Friday.(4 ) Went to lunch with F.M. at 1:30, walked around to British headquarters. Met at the gate by Mr. Churchill. Guard of honor drawn up. Fine body of men - Scottish Guards. Band played "Star Spangled Banner." Inspected guard and went in for lunch. P.M. and I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told F.M. of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace.(5) Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time."

4. This Harry Truman was the son of the president's brother, John Vivian Truman.

5. The cable "asking for peace" was not that but an inquiry asking permission to send a personal representative, a former Japanese premier, Prince Fumimaro Konoye, who would negotiate presumably to keep the Soviet Union from entering the war against Japan or perhaps to seek the USSR's good offices in negotiating with the United States. The cable was not news to President Truman, who because of the interception by American intelligence of Japan's diplomatic radio traffic and its translation (an operation known as Magic), already knew about it. Stalin's relation of the cable doubtless was a relief to the president who thereby knew that the Soviet leader was not withholding information from him.

"5. The cable "asking for peace" was not that but an inquiry asking permission to send a personal representative, a former Japanese premier, Prince Fumimaro Konoye, who would negotiate presumably to keep the Soviet Union from entering the war against Japan or perhaps to seek the USSR's good offices in negotiating with the United States."

Japan had no reason to expect Soviet intervention, and Sato was quite capable of communicating Tokyo's desire for Moscow's continued neutrality. I think you're wrong to assume that Konoye's mission would be for anything less than peace with Japan's existing enemies; that's the primary concern stated in the July 11 intercept.

And it's difficult to believe that even after his departure for Potsdam Truman wasn't notified of subsequent intercepts showing the Japanese government's increasing willingness to end the war and even identifying the position of the throne as the principal obstacle to surrender.

late, but it did intervene. So perhaps we can say they had no reason to suspect they were ignorant, or perhaps they did. But the request was to meet with the Soviets, not Truman. Why the Japanese would think the Russians--who came off the worse against the Japanese just 40 years before--would help the Japanese, I can't imagine.

A telegram direct to Truman would have been more efficient.

Oddly, while the military apparently wanted to end the war, they were also working on prototype aircraft--some near production--that would have given them a decent advantage in the air. Want peace, arm to keep fighting, sue for peace knowing that you've killed lots of the enemy in camps and through starvation ... strange tactics. Now, I believe some wanted peace, and it's easy to exaggerate their importance. But a simple telegram would have been sufficient.

the atomic bombs. Nobody ever demands a national apology for those. Nobody brings those up or asks if those were necessary. It seems your life is only worthwhile if it is ended in a flashy manner.

Aside from the fact that they were not instantaneous like the a-bomb, and at least afforded more people the chance to escape into underground shelters, the fact is that the firebombings were not a surprise. Many families in Tokyo, Kawasaki, other heavy-industrial areas sent their children off to stay with relatives in the country.

But Hiroshima was spared from any bombing (because there were almost no military targets there, and the US military wanted a target where the full force of the bomb could be seen), so people were not prepared, and the city had not been emptied like the others. The people thought they had little to fear.

But in answer to your comment, I don't think bombings of civilian neighborhoods should EVER be condoned, unless it is accidental damage ancillary to an attack on an actual strategic target.

And you're wrong that "nobody brings those up". Truman's apologists bring them up ALL THE TIME, along with Pearl Harbor, Nanking, Dresden and any number of other unrelated issues.

during the war was also horrific and, in the minds of many, not defensible. Atrocities were committed by both the Axis and the Allies. Hindsight gives us the luxury of judging events dispassionately. How would I have felt if I were alive during the war? I honestly do not know. But I will stand by my beliefs in the here and now, the firebombings and the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incidents that will forever stain our national conscience.

Until mid-1945 there was no reason to expect a Japanese surrender short of costly invasion. By mid-July that had changed.

I'm against indiscriminate bombing. So is most of the world: the US is one of the few countries refusing to ratify its 1977 prohibition. But in 1939-45 most belligerents accepted it.

The issue here isn't mass bombing as such, it's the appropriateness of the means under the circumstances according to contemporary norms. The norms clearly accepted massive civilian damage.

But the incendiary raids were mostly conducted against a strategically defeated but viable enemy. I contend that the August bombings weren't.

I weep no tears, real or crocodile for those people who were killed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The Japanese started the War by invading Manchuria in 1931. Estimates are that 20-35 million Chinese were casualties in the war between1931-1945. Nowhere near that many Japanese became casualties. The Japanese simply reaped what they sowed.

Further, I find all this hand-wringing about the Japanese to be hypocritical. The bomb was originally developed to be used on Germany. There were no compunctions among the Manhattan project scientists (many Jewish) when the bomb was targeted toward Germany. But they suddenly discovered scruples when Germany was no longer the target. If the bomb had been available 6 months or a year sooner it would have been dropped on Berlin, and no one would have said a damn thing because the attitude would have been the dirty Fascists got what they deserved.

Furthermore IF the bomb had been used on Germany, there is no doubt that many victims of the Holocaust would have been saved. And for that reason alone I would have supported its use on Germany.

If I had been President January 1,1942 and would have 1,000 atomic bombs and means to deliver them anywhere in the world, I would not have hesitated to use as many of them as necessary to end the war as quickly as possible, even if that meant reducing Germany, Japan and Italy to radioactive wastelands.

There are soem things that are just beyond the pale.

And citing atrocities committed by the Japanese military against the Chinese does not justify the slaughter of civilians in retaliation.

"The Japanese simply reaped what they sowed."

So the entire Japanese populace is culpable for atrocities that were committed WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE? They thought their boys were over there LIBERATING Manchuria from the western devils. Do you think they had an internet? A free press? A freaking VOTE?


And how in God's name would dropping nukes on Germany have saved Holocaust victims? And besides, the Allies didn't even know there was a holocaust going on until Germany was liberated.

By that logic, we should drop nukes on Pyongyang. After all, their government is belligerent, and FOR ALL WE KNOW, they may be secretly gassing thousands!


Astounding leaps of logic to defend the indefensible.

And citing atrocities committed by the Japanese military against the Chinese does not justify the slaughter of civilians in retaliation.

Certainly it does, the civilians were supporting war effort.

So the entire Japanese populace is culpable for atrocities that were committed WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE?

Certainly they were. The entire German people were blamed for the atrocities THEIR government committed.

And how in God's name would dropping nukes on Germany have saved Holocaust victims?

Becacause it would have STOPPED the machinery of death in it’s tracks.

And besides, the Allies didn't even know there was a Holocaust going on until Germany was liberated.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! You obviously are IGNORANT of history. I suggest you do some research. There was plenty of evidence, the problem is no one in power wanted to pay attention.

http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=5395

ANGLE: One of the other interesting things about this was the failure of Roosevelt to really confront the issue of what was happening to the Jews in Germany.

BESCHLOSS: That disappointed me most of all. Beginning in '42, Roosevelt began learning a lot about the murder of the Jews by Hitler and Jewish leaders went to him and pleaded and said, "Please give a speech in public, tell the world what's going on," because Hitler was trying to keep it a secret. For 18 months, Roosevelt refused. People would beg him to help get Jewish refugees out of Europe, relax the immigration quotas. Roosevelt wouldn't do it. And I found that early in the war, Roosevelt had had lunch with Henry Morganthal, his treasury secretary, who was Jewish; and a Catholic official, Leo Crawley. And he said, "You Jews and Catholics have to understand that you Jews and Catholics are in America only under sufferance because this is a Protestant country. And, therefore, you have to go along with everything I ask you to." And Morganthal went back to his office and said, "What am I working 24 hours a day for if America is not for me?

ANGLE: One of the most difficult and most agonizing issues was a proposal that Auschwitz be bombed by Allied planes.

BESCHLOSS: And Roosevelt flatly refused. We had thought before my book that the decision did not even get up to Roosevelt. Turns out it did from research I found. And you know, when you look at presidents, I mean, you study them for a living; you know, you always want to make sure that if a big decision comes up to a president he deals with it seriously, convenes his advisers even if in the end he doesn't make the right decision. This was one of the big decisions to face a president, which was if you bomb the death camps, is that going to save more Jews and others than it will kill? As it turns out, this went to Roosevelt and he dispensed with this almost like a fly on his lapel. He said, "I just don't want to do that. Next question."

ANGLE: It was a very tough issue and there were actually some Jewish leaders saying, "Yes, do it."

BESCHLOSS: Absolutely. It is an honorable position for others to have said it might have killed more people because you would be killing the inmates in the camps. But the point is that for some reason Roosevelt had a disconnect on this subject. He once said to Joe Kennedy, I've got it in the book; "Privately I've always worried that if an American demagogue took up anti-Semitism there would be more blood running through the streets of New York City than in the streets of Berlin." This was an issue that he was always a little bit strange about and I think it caused perhaps his greatest failure during World War II; which was unlike Churchill, Roosevelt did not understand that the holocaust was the most monstrous crime in human history.

http://www.ushmm.org/lectures/kalb.htm

News of the Nazi atrocities was published. On June 30, 1942, and again on July 2, The New York Times ran reports, first published by the Daily Telegraph in London, that more than 1,000,000 Jews had already been killed by the Germans. The reports were mind blowing, but The Times again placed them on an inside page.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2001/442/26408

When the mass killings started, Allied governments clung to the claim that they couldn't be certain of what was happening. This was a convenient lie. The code-breakers working for British intelligence had in 1939 cracked the German police radio codes which later revealed large-scale massacres of Polish and Soviet Jews after the German Army invaded Eastern Europe. Allied agents inside German military intelligence were also reporting massacres. The chauffeur of the Gestapo head in Prague, for example, reported thousands of Ukrainian Jews being forced to dig trenches and then being shot and falling into them. British military intelligence concluded that there was “evidence of a policy of savage intimidation if not ultimate extermination” and that the German police “were killing all Jews who fell into their hands”. These radio decrypts and intelligence assessments were included in frequent briefings to Churchill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

The BBC and The New York Times published material from the Vrba-Wetzler report on June 15<121> and June 20, 1944. The subsequent pressure from world leaders persuaded Miklos Horthy to bring the mass deportations of Jews from Hungary to Auschwitz to a halt on July 9, saving up to 200,000 Jews from the extermination camps.

...even when they had no knowledge of the actions, or any say in the formation of said government.

Such a viewpoint is so far-out, so anti-human rights and deplorable, I don't see where we have any common ground to stand on.

The United States has produced millions of corpses in its short 200 years. I hope for your sake that you're not around the next time some of them decide to avenge themselves on American civilians.


I appreciate the background info about the holocaust, but your assertions about killing civilians are astounding.

Oh, and I really resent your saying I'm defending axis atrocities. I never have and I never will. We're supposed to be the good guys, and make an effort to be better than them, at least when possible.

If you don’t like me accusing you of being an apologist, then stop apologizing for Japanese civilians.

Implicit in your posts is the tired old notion that the Japanese were somehow “victims” of Allied atrocities with the atomic bomb being the biggest ones of all. I’m surprised you didn’t bring up the tired old rhetoric that Japan was somehow “forced” into the war. Utter, total and complete rubbish. The Germans and Japanese STARTED the war. Britain, Poland, Canada, America, Australia, China DID NOT. When you start a war of aggression you have no right to go complaining when you country gets nearly obliterated.

Your attitude (and yes I see you are in Japan) is still endemic of people in Japan these days and is why Japan still has problems with its Asian neighbors because it REFUSES to admit its past mistakes.

For instance:
“Oh no, we didn’t do experiments on human subjects!”
Oh no, we didn’t engage in biological warfare!” Unit 731
“Oh no we didn’t force women into sexual slavery!” aka the Comfort Women

Japan and the Japanese people still want to play the VICTIM card every chance they get. This is precisely what YOU are doing. At least the German people have had the moral courage to admit their mistakes. When are the Japanese going to do so? Probably never, IMO.

Finally, this war was a war to the knife. There was not going to be any “accommodation” One side was going to completely defeat the other. When you have a war like that atrocities happen. No doubt if the Axis had won the Allies would have prosecuted as War Criminals.

You are attempting to apply morality that is 60 years after the fact, in a time of peace. The world was much different place then. And I DO NOT have any common ground with ANYONE, no matter whom they are, who applies today’s standards to history, just so they can tout their moral superiority.

“Oooh I’m such a good person because I care SOOOO much.” :puke:

"I’m surprised you didn’t bring up the tired old rhetoric that Japan was somehow “forced” into the war."

Uhhh, that would be because I don't think that. The fact that Japan was an expansionist empire which committed horrible atrocities against the Chinese and Koreans is a matter of record. That DOESN'T excuse us murdering civilians. The same goes for Dresden, or Baghdad.

"The Germans and Japanese STARTED the war. Britain, Poland, Canada, America, Australia, China DID NOT. "

Nobody's arguing that point. You sound like a little kid in the playground who got caught beating a classmate to a bloody pulp who screams "but he started it!" I don't recall any provision in the Geneva conventions that allow for murder of civilians "so long as their side started it".

"Your attitude (and yes I see you are in Japan) is still endemic of people in Japan these days and is why Japan still has problems with its Asian neighbors because it REFUSES to admit its past mistakes."

Japan has apologized for many of its misdeeds as it concerns attacking the US and Korea and China. The problems arise because present Japanese leaders continue to provoke their neighbors by honoring the war dead at Yasukuni Shrine, and glossing over much of Japan's war atrocities in school textbooks. True they have a ways to go on some points, and there are many JAPANESE in Japan trying to pressure the government to improve its attitude on these subjects, but unfortunately the present government is a controlled by Bush-loving conservatives who are gradually trying to re-militarize Japan and lower taxes on the rich, against the objections of many Japanese. Anyway, all of these are very interesting topics but they have no bearing on the fact that Hiroshima & Nagasaki were terrorist atrocities!

"Japan and the Japanese people still want to play the VICTIM card every chance they get. This is precisely what YOU are doing. At least the German people have had the moral courage to admit their mistakes. When are the Japanese going to do so? Probably never, IMO. "

Wrong again. Japanese people are very forgiving of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, for the most part, but consistently plead for nuclear weapons to never be used again. But not being a Japanese, I don't feel as cowed by guilt for the war that I can't call a spade a spade.

And just because the Germans have owned up to their Nazi past doesn't mean they would agree that the Dresden bombings were correct or necessary.

"You are attempting to apply morality that is 60 years after the fact, in a time of peace. "

No. Several of Truman's advisors raised the same ethical questions I have been raising, but he swept them aside. America had spent its wad on the bomb, and he was going to try out his no playtoy and scare the Russians in the process. The lives of those funny little yellow people were of little concern.


"...who applies today’s standards to history, just so they can tout their moral superiority.

“Oooh I’m such a good person because I care SOOOO much.”

WTF? Calling a terrorist attack a terrorist attack is not about proving MY moral superiority.


When you take on holocaust deniers, is that what you're doing? Showing off your moral superiority? Or is it that you want the historical record to show the TRUTH?


Well, that's how I feel about Hiroshima & Nagasaki. We've gotten a whitewashed, revisionist history of that event for the last 60 years, because the winners get to write the history books, but that version is incomplete, and certainly not the truth.

I don't think Truman's decision to kill those people puts him in the same class with Hitler or Stalin, but it sure as hell disqualifies him from being worthy of the pedestal so many democrats place him on.

I don't think Truman's decision to kill those people puts him in the same class with Hitler or Stalin, but it sure as hell disqualifies him from being worthy of the pedestal so many democrats place him on.

You seem to forget that Truman was President of the United States, and his job was to defend America and save AMERICAN lives, not Japanese lives. If Truman hadn't dropped the bomb and millions of AMERICANS had died during Operation Downfall, the truth would have come out later we had a weapon that could have ended the war sooner. At the very least Truman would have been impeached, if not lynched. And he would have deserved exactly that, or maybe a firing squad. I often wonder if people with your attitude who are SO morally outraged about the bomb, and who happen to be progressives, would really have wanted the destruction of the Democratic Party that would have followed Truman's impeachment or execution, just so they be can be so fucking morally superior. I despise people with your attitude. :grr:

And you can take your terrorist atrocities attack horseshit and .... :puke: :nopity: :thumbsdown:

"If Truman hadn't dropped the bomb and millions of AMERICANS had died during Operation Downfall..."


(sigh) Immediate massive invasion and dropping the bomb on civilians were not the only two options open to Mr. Truman. He would not have been lynched or any of those other things had he tried a blockade or using the first bomb on an unpopulated or purely military target.

You can despise me and fling all the smileys you want but it doesn't change the fact that your argument is deeply flawed, and you seem to realize it, and it's making you that much angrier.

And why should it make you angry? All the history books tell it YOUR WAY. The media certainly doesn't show us much about what that day was like for Hiroshima or Nagasaki residents.

Why should it irk you so much that a few Americans refuse to toe the line and bleat "We were right, we were right". I couldn't disagree more emphatically with your grisly and cynical "whatever it takes" approach to war, but I don't despise you, or any of the other millions of Americans who think the same way. But I do hope I can reach a few of you, in the hopes that it will help prevent the next unnecessary "Shock and Awe". The awakening I had at Ground Zero in Nagasaki was PIVOTAL in my becoming a pacifist. It turned me from an American who saw people in other countries as an "other" to seeing them as my friends and neighbors. It's the reason I went out and marched in February 2003, and why I wept when Bush unleashed his bombs on the citizens of Baghdad. Hearing those bombs go off, I could imagine myself in one of those houses with the power out, huddled under a table with my kids, praying that the next one would not his US.

It's not about moral superiority, really, it's about fucking empathy and humanity.

"terrorist attack horseshit"

From the Princeton University Wordnet Dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=terrorism&ia=wn

ter·ror·ism (t?r'?-r?z'?m) Pronunciation Key
n. the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

I'd say those attacks qualified.


:web:

Is for the those people tortured, raped and murdered by Japan.

The entire nation did not collectively do those things. The military did under the orders of people who were later executed for war crimes.

I feel empathy for the innocents killed by both the Axis and the allies.

Must be nice in your black/white smug little world, where people can be neatly divided into guilty and innocent based solely on their nation of citizenship.

Nice talking to you.

I think you've already tiold us all we need to know.

I don't. Too fucking bad. Boo-fucking-hoo. :nuke:

"If Truman hadn't dropped the bomb and millions of AMERICANS had died during Operation Downfall"

Oh, it's "millions" of dead Americans now, is it? Tell me, what's your source for this absurd speculation?

... not your critics.

As for your odd speculations about 1940s ethics, it was because the moral issues surrounding the bomb were appreciated that Truman impose a pause on Bomb #3 while surrender details were worked out, including conditionality on retention of the throne. There's no moral case being put forward here that wasn't understood at the time.

"And citing atrocities committed by the Japanese military against the Chinese does not justify the slaughter of civilians in retaliation."

So atrocities committed by US forces (My Lai, Abu Ghraib, Haditha) would justify slaughter of US civilians?

"Because it would have STOPPED the machinery of death in it’s tracks"

And turning Germany to a "radioactive wasteland" as you proposed would have exterminated the Holocaust survivors too, as well as nazism's other victims.

Sleep well at night with your world view.

Pot kettle black.

What makes an atrocity any less of an atrocity because it was committed by Americans?

got it?

And all combatants believed in it

You think the Japanese (with Manchuria as an example) would NOT have dropped then on San Fran?

Or the Germans on oh I don't know Moscow?

Your knowledge of history is amusingly lacking

By the way the allies knew of the holocaust as early as 1942... but I am sure you DIDN'T know that

And Hap Armload, among others, nixed the bombing of Auschwitz

Here is another shocking reality

TOTAL WAR is not new, nor a particular effect of the 20th century... and if you were alive back then you might have been the pilot of one of those bombers that I don't dropped their incendiary load on Dresden.

For example

It is easy to say almost seventy years from the events that you would not have participated in them... espeicially when you have such a romantic view of the little history you know.

"even if that meant reducing Germany, Japan and Italy to radioactive wastelands"

OK, so you've exterminated 180 million people, about 8% of humanity, including a country that's going to surrender in 20 months and become an ally boasting one of Europe's strongest anti-nazi partisan movements. Now do you feel better?

Just what makes you think you're in a position to accuse others of hypocrisy?

How would nuking Germany have saved the Holocaust victims? They would have been nuked too! An atomic bomb does not distinguish between innocent and guilty, or between German or Jewish. It doesn't even distinguish between national boundaries. Turning Germany and Italy into 'radioactive wastelands' would almost certainly have killed people and made life unlivable in neighbouring parts of Europe.

In any case, state terrorism against civilians, especially on that scale, could not have been justified. There is a difference between atom bombs and other forms of warfare. With an atom bomb, the people who are immediately killed by the bomb are not the only victims. People who are apparently unharmed can succumb to cancer and other diseases many years later. Even those yet unborn suffer from genetic damage. The environment may be dangerous to all who enter it for many years to come. (I realize that all this may not have been fully known at the time; but it is something that we know now.)

With regard to the bombing of Japan, I agree that Japan was isolated and likely to surrender in any case; and I also agree with those who say that the bomb could at least first have been demonstrated in an uninhabited area. Also, while the bombing of Hiroshima was terrible enough in itself, WHY did they have to also then bomb Nagasaki - surely Hiroshima on its own would have led to surrender?

My grandfather was a big fan of that decision too, as he was on a ship from Europe to the Pacific theater when this occured.

The mentality that reduced it to an either/or choice represented a HUGE failure of imagination, or a triumphant leap of cynical expediency.

But two of my uncles Served in the Navy in the PTO. My father served stateside in the Army Air Corp as a crew chief on B-17s because he was an only son. BUT he had been told that if the invasion went ahead as planned he would be headed to the Pacific, only son or not. If it weren't for the bomb I might not be here today, so I have a very personal stake in this argument.

Read the discussion.

:sarcasm:

had been in the military in World War II.

He said that as a young GI, he cheered at the news of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At the time of the sermon (1970s), he said that he was ashamed of his youthful jubilation, because he now believed that there was no justification for bombing civilian targets, whether by conventional or nuclear weapons, and he also believed that American lives are not more precious than those of any other nationality.

responsible for the actions or our government that the Japanese people were for theirs. Governments do not consult citizens before making decisions, so we shouldn't try to hold citizens responsible for those decisions. Are you responsible for arbusto's_® crimes against humanity?

2. All wars are crimes, filled with horror beyond the imagination of any who've never been in one.

3. The method of killing matters very little to the dead.

4. Attempting to ascribe today's understanding, right or wrong, to historical actions is disingenuous and futile at best.

4. Attempting to ascribe today's understanding, right or wrong, to historical actions is disingenuous and futile at best.



If we were talking about the middle ages, you might have a point here, but the fact is that the ethical ramifications were raised to Truman by his advisors, many of whom were opposed to using the A-bomb on civilians. So this stuff was not beyond the comprehension of the people at the time. Saying that it was would be disingenuous.

at least for the time-being, and that we would prevail. Not so clear then, we were broke and exhausted and the prospect of dragging this war on for another year or more to thoroughly beat the bastards that dragged us into it in the first place was politically untenable. There was no way the American public would ever accept anything less than the total annihilation of the Japanese, we hated them with a passion I think few of us born afterward can understand.

Remember that prior to the "sneak" attack on Pearl Harbor there was no will among the people to enter "Europe's war". We built the "liberty fleet" and sent millions of tons of aid, but that was as far as we were willing to go. Of course, decades after the fact we have uncovered all types of machinations, motives, and strategies, that were used to manipulate us into the war, but at the time all that was known by the people was that those "dirty, stinking, Japanese attacked us without warning", killed our boys, and sunk our entire fleet in the harbor.

I agree that bombing civilian targets is a terrible crime, but see #2. If memory serves Nagasaki was a military production site and given the technology of the day it was a valid target.

As for the use of nukes, I really don't understand why this is considered by many to be different than what we did all over Europe, see #3, we burned over 100,000 Germans in Dresden alone, again see #2.

The use of our new "super weapon", in addition to making it clear to the the Japanese that they had no chance, it was a clear message to Stalin that we could, and would, do the same to him if he continued his behavior. He backed off, at least for a while.

It also seems clear, with the benefit of hindsight, that we should have listened to Patton and moved right through the rest of Europe and into Russia, killed Stalin, dismantled his government, and imposed a "Marshall plan" on the whole continent, but the ruling class is always ready to leave themselves in power.

In the end, as is usually the case, there were no good guys and the people paid the price for their leaders folly.

And Truman himself understood the ethical implications. That's why he but Bomb #3 on hold.

Churchill had already (uncharacteristically) criticized the barbarity of indiscriminate bombing.

This was a world at war. But all these concerns were known.

if you knew me- you would know that, as the daughter of a WWII Vet (Battle of the Bulge), who has been to Dachau, who is a stalwart ZIONIST, I never would have linked to a reprehensible site if I had done my homework instead of speed-reading and latching onto a statistic.

I am truly sorry.

I kinda figured you just googled something, hit on that, and posted it without realizing who was behind it. The scary thing is how legit some nazi groups are managing to make themselves look these days.



And now for our next song, "We hate n***ers and Jews!" Ain't we cute!

There are probably some truths mixed in with the hate and lies at stormfront. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

By many historical accounts, Japan tried to surrender before the bombs were dropped. They were sending a message to others and the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki paid the price.

What's your point?

May the ask whatever "god" they believe in for forgiveness.

I'm not arguing the merits of the bombing or not, but just pointing out that the Nation was engaged in the effort beyond bumper stickers and Support Our Troops magnets.

Seriously, people act like Hiroshimma and Nagasaki were the first two cities that had been bombed in WWII or something.

wake me when we reach an agreement.

on Japan. She is Taiwanese, and a lot of other Chinese/Taiwanese people said the same thing to me. And they weren't even alive during the war.

if you use the same justifications that people use for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then Iraqis nuking New York City would be justified.

:shrug:

And I suspect you know it.

We slaughtered tens of thousands of THEM in an illegal and unprovoked invasion.
WE started it.

If they were actually capable of mounting an invasion of the US, using nukes would probably save many Iraqi lives.

Those ARE the justifications used for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The only difference between now and then is that Iraq does not have the capability of invading (in fact it never even had the capacity to attack us) and is losing the war, every single day it continues to lose.

So guess that's it. If you're the richest, most powerful country in the world, it's okay to use nukes on whoever you like, because you get to write the rules, and the history books after the fact.

When will Americans understand that citizens of other countries, no matter how different they act or look, are still equally human, and that one American life is worth one of theirs, not thousands?

Unless I've missed it, I don't know that you've answered my question from earlier in the thread. You've mentioned several times that numerous preferable alternatives to using atomic weapons existed at the time, but I don't know that you've actually stated why those alternatives were more ethical than using atomic weapons.

Strategic bombing would have claimed many hundreds of thousands of casualties if continued, blockades would have starved millions before surrender, invasion would have resulted in millions of casualties (no matter whose estimates you use), the Red Army was not known for its benevolence, and Japan's wartime leadership was not going to surrender themselves to Allied forces willingly.

The devil is in the details in this issue, and I would be interested in hearing what you think the U.S. should have done in August?

Explain.

if you use the same justifications that people use for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then Iraqis nuking New York City would be justified.

First we need to clarify the justifications at issue. Since you were a bit vague, we'll go with the justifications that *I* use, namely that it was the best option available to bring about a relatively swift satisfactory conclusion to the 2nd World War with a minimum of casualties.

The war in Iraq, as unquestionably wrong as it is, does not even begin to approach either the scale or the stakes of WWII.

Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people have lost their lives in Iraq, while tens of millions died as a direct result of the war in the Pacific. The hundreds of thousands of casualties in Nagasaki and Hiroshima can only be viewed in the context of what had come before, and what would likely have happened had the bombs not been used (starving Japan through blockade, continued strategic bombing, amphibious invasion, etc). Neither of those situations are comparable to the current occupation of Iraq.

I know it sounds callous, but the stakes in the Iraq war pale in comparison to what was at issue in WWII. The bombs weren't used to bring about an end to a conventional war--they were used to bring about the end of the biggest war the planet had ever seen, or will ever see again. It sounds hokey to modern ears, but this wasn't about the occupation of one nation, it was about the future of an entire hemisphere--it was a conflict to decide what the modern world would look like. That's just not the case in Iraq.

...the scale and stakes look pretty much the same. This is the problem, and the reason we as a nation are so quick to go in to armed conflict. We look at a calculator and see the unnecessary deaths of 10 as being somehow different than the unnecessary deaths of 10,000, so long as it achieves some sort of geopolitical/economic aim.

I'm opposed to even ONE unnecessary death of an innocent at the hands of my government, even if it does mean significant gain to our nation. Kill one person and you kill the whole world.

It's time to stop looking at the world as one big freaking chess game and put a LOT more thought into the BILLIONS of individual lives that are at stake. And for chrissakes, stop weighing one of "ours" as being worth ten of "theirs".

Whether your family and home are detroyed by "Shock and Awe", or a "Blitzkrieg" the scale and stakes look pretty much the same.

I'm sure they do, but that does not change the reality that WWII and Iraq are fundamentally different wars. I would agree that each innocent death is a tragedy, but I don't think its at all reasonable to argue that a war claiming 70 million lives is of the same type as a war claiming 70 thousand.

I'm opposed to even ONE unnecessary death of an innocent at the hands of my government, even if it does mean significant gain to our nation.

Ok, but you still have not answered my question about why the other available choices were somehow more "ethical" than using atomic weapons. What would you have done in August 1945? Continued blockade? More strategic bombing? Invasion? Sail home and leave Japan's leadership in place? You can't decry the choice of one option w/out making some argument why another option was preferable.

And for chrissakes, stop weighing one of "ours" as being worth ten of "theirs".

I've never used that calculus, so I'm not sure why you directed that to me. I don't have a precise conversion chart handy to figure the exchange rate for combatants' lives, but I do know that all things being equal, a state will always value the lives of its own citizens over those of other states. That's just the way the world works.

Scale is irrelevant to the question of whether killing innocent civilian for the sake of expediency. It reduces human lives to mere statistics and the mere act doing such calculations diminishes our humanity.

The bit about the relative value of one of our lives vs. one of theirs was general, not directed at you. I agree that one of our SOLDIERS should be worht more than one of theirs but all civilian lives should be treated equally. They are women and children, and are not even necessarily sympathetic with one side or the other. Besides, needless killing would only make an occupied populace that much more resentful later on.

Blockade would have been preferable because it would have given Japan more time to surrender. A few more weeks would NOT have cost "millions" more lives. It might have saved all the lives in Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and if Japan didn't surrender, we could have still used the bombs, but no, the minute the bombs were ready to be used, they were used, as a first resort. As I have said, an utter failure of imagination and humanity on the part of Truman.

...was only a matter of a "few more weeks". The most reasonable estimates I've seen place it at several months at a minimum, with most placing it longer than that. Given that Japan was already facing severe food shortages, such a continued blockade would have been devastating.

What leads you to believe Japan would have surrendered under acceptable terms within a matter of weeks, particularly given their defense of Okinawa long after all hope had been lost?

And I don't think you're being serious when you maintain the only meaningful difference between WWII and the Iraq war is our 'good guy' status. A relatively localized conflict involving a handful of nations and costing tens of thousands of lives is a tragedy. A world war involving dozens of states, involving the mobilization of hundreds of millions into the war effort, spanning millions of square miles, costing tens of millions of lives is something for which our language lacks an adequate descriptor.

Wouldn't a simple nuking of a couple of our major cities result in fewer fatalities than if Iraqis invaded America?

The answer to your question is 'all of them', but I don't follow your logic.

I don't believe your question addresses the differences between WWII and the Iraq war.

because it prevented a million GIs from being killed in an invasion of Japan, than the nuking of New York and Washington must be good, because it will prevent a million Iraqi GIs from being killed in the inevitable invasion of the United States.

First: it wasn't "good"--it was a horrible act that was, unfortunately, the least horrible option available at the time.

Second: unless I missed something, Iraqi forces are not planning on invading, nor are they in any position to invade the continental U.S., nor are we currently involved in the type of world war that would justify the use of such weapons on either side.

Third: the use of atomic weapons is not justified solely by saving U.S. lives. I believe the other options available in 1945 would have resulted in greater (and in some cases, much greater) loss of Japanese life.

"Second: unless I missed something, Iraqi forces are not planning on invading, nor are they in any position to invade the continental U.S., nor are we currently involved in the type of world war that would justify the use of such weapons on either side."

You mean an invasion of the United States isn't inevitable? You mean there's some alternative between nuking, and invading?

Now you're talking crazy.

I've explained why both the scale and the stakes involved in WWII make it a very poor comparison to the Iraq war. Do you disagree with my reasoning, or are you ignoring the issue?

There were certainly more options available in 1945 than invasion or atomic weapons. We could have continued the blockade and starved the population for several months, likely killing millions. We could have continued strategic bombing, likely killing many hundreds of thousands. We could have allowed Japan to retain its wartime leadership, likely leading to a resumption of hostilities when Japan had rebuilt its industrial capacity.

The war was indeed winding down. A 1 million man invasion force was getting ready. Two of my uncles would have been involved.

But the obvious reason as pointed out by several historians has nothing to do with bringing Japan to it's knees, it had everything to do with the ending of the war in the European theater of operations.

Russia looking for a piece Asia, stated quite clearly that they were now (1945) shifting forces and support to the east.

Churchill already making his opinion known regarding Stalin made it clear in no uncertain terms that a "demonstration" needed to be done in order to keep the Communists in line. By late July, the Russian Army had amassed troops in the forward regions close to Manchuria, with the intent of all out invasion of that area.

Chang Kai-Shek was screaming to Truman that something had to be done, otherwise there will be a war between China and Russia.

It was well known up to this point that not only were the Germans working on a bomb, but so were the Japanese and certainly the Russians.

The US and the Russians having "scooped" up each their share of German scientists put them to work overnight in hopes of beating one or the other to the A-bomb. Because of the Soviets devastating losses during the war, their bomb production was far behind the US.

Japanese never really got out of the heavy water theory of bomb production. Russia was very eager to get it's hands on some of the Japanese research as were the Americans, but by the time the war in Europe was over, that prospect for the US was no moot.

The dropping of the bomb did two things. It showed the world and the Russians that we had a bomb and to back off. And it also paved the way for an unconditional surrender from Japan.

The reality is, Japan was already sending communications via it's foreign ministers to the US for terms of surrender, but balked at ever instance for unconditional surrender and for the emperor to admit he was human and not a god.

Curtis LaMay had squadrons of bombers ready with incendiary canisters loaded for take off in the event that Japan still balked.

Prior to any ground invasion, the US was to fire bomb the mainland for 3 weeks, the offshore bombardment to an additional week while traditional ordinance pounded the mainland.

then and only then was the ground invasion to begin.

Considering the horror of the Tokyo firebombing where over 80% of the dwellings at the time were built of wood based construction, not much would have been left this time around with all our forces being committed to a single goal.

After Nagasaki, which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to Russia of our capabilities.

After a brief power struggle in the Japanese government, they capitulated. Wanting to spare the nation further destruction.

It was a war and Truman felt it was the quickest way to end it.

it's gets pretty easy to drop a bomb on their women and children.Just a bunch of slant eyes...who cares?

War is fun...glad we're still having them! :eyes:

the usual hashed over stuff from the comfort of 20/20 hindsight, but history of the time shows us some relative certainties.

1. Although not intended to be, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a 'sneak attack'. Tactically, it was brilliant, strategically, it was a disaster for the Japanese.

2. Japan, as an occupying power, had a deserved reputation as being brutal occupiers, and hundreds of thousands died under the banner of the Rising Sun. While we were indoctrinated as to those horrors, the Japanese were indoctrinated to believe they were a superior race, and the world was theirs for the taking.

3. US, British, Filipino and other POW's were treated brutally. Filipino's bore the brunt of the Bataan Death March, slaughtered on the side of the road, with exceptionally few cases where mercy was shown.

4. Prisoners were transferred to Japan to do heavy labor on ships that were unmarked as carrying POW's, many of which were sunk, w/all prisoners going down w/the ship, by allied aircraft and submarines.

5. As the war progressed, the Japanese forces showed no sign of surrendering, preferring often to commit themselves to massive suicidal charges, and ritual suicide, rather than be taken prisoner. Civilians had been indoctrinated on several of the islands to the point of so much fear of Americans, they tossed themselves off cliffs, or waded out to into the sea to drown.

6. Iwo Jima showed us that the the Japanese were not thinking of losing the war easily, other islands were just as brutal, and the Imperial Army was still a great military force to that point, and had to be reckoned with.

7. The Japanese were publicly adamant about not surrendering. Although feelers were sent out, most popularly known to the Russians, the refusal to come up to anything nearing surrender ensured peace was a way off. The Imperial High Command adamantly refused to surrender under any circumstances, and increased attacks where possible, ie, kamikaze, suicidal "Banzai" attacks, etc.

8. The US/British forces had bombed Dresden, a city of little military importance, killing tens of thousands of civilians, the world did not cry out in anguish. This set the stage for "total annihilation of 'enemy' forces, military or civilian.

9. Film archives show Japanese films of arming civilians to fight at the beaches and in the countryside. Plans were enacted to defend what was left of the cities of Japan, (massive firebombing had reduced many cities to ash, including large parts of Tokyo). The Emperor's palace was not a target, most likely for one of two reasons, a. The intent was to try the Emperor as a war criminal; b. the "peace feelers" had made a point of saving the Emperor as a way to peace.

10. Citizens of Hiroshima were notified to leave the city, as it was a legitimate target. Many left, many lore stayed. The notification, of course, mentioned nothing about a nuclear bomb, but they were warned they were a target.

11. After hiroshima, there was a 2 day lull, giving the Japanese High Command a chance to surrender, something they rejected w/great fervor. Nagasaki was the final blow, and the Emperor told the still steadfast to war High Command accept defeat.

12. Both Japanese and Germans were working on a nuclear device, if they would have come up w/one first, they would have used it on allied forces. London, NYC, San Francisco, LA, Seattle, DC, were all prime targets, and if there would have been enough bombs, they would have been used to level European, American and Asian cities.

13. Millions would have died in the invasion of Japan; Japanese, American, British, Canadian, Indian, Russian, Chinese, all would have been involved at some point. While it can be argued that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was morally reprehensible, the millions that most likely would have died w/o the dropping of the bombs would have been more of a travesty. the japanese High Command, just as Hitler in Europe, even with the knowledge the war was lost, are of equal blame in the 6Aug45-12Aug45 bombings; with particular responsibility for the Nagasaki bombing. There was time to end it, they refused to do so...just as Hitler refused to end the war as the Russians were in the Reichstag, just next to and over the bunkers he was in.

Plenty of blame to go around, but in the context of the time, it was a swift way to end the war. Without the nuclear intervention, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been firebombed, with an horrendous body count, and the war would have dragged on, taking many more lives.

Just wanted to address a couple of points you made. Most of what you said was valid, but:

"2. Japan, as an occupying power, had a deserved reputation as being brutal occupiers, and hundreds of thousands died under the banner of the Rising Sun. While we were indoctrinated as to those horrors, the Japanese were indoctrinated to believe they were a superior race, and the world was theirs for the taking."

True about the Japanese brutality. But Japanese were not som much convinced that they were a superior race, but that theirs was a superior culture. And from the standpoint of the civilians at home, all they knew about the war was that they were sending their young, handsome boys off to fight to "liberate" the poor Manchurians from the greedy white devil, as cherry blossoms scattered in the breeze. They had no possible way of knowing what was actually being done in their names, and free elections, IE no say in the matter. I think the reality of what they did came as a pretty huge shock to most Japanese civilians after the war.

8. The US/British forces had bombed Dresden, a city of little military importance, killing tens of thousands of civilians, the world did not cry out in anguish. This set the stage for "total annihilation of 'enemy' forces, military or civilian.

That is not accurate. There was a great deal of criticism of the bombings of Dresden at the time. I don't know it it qualified as "a cry of anguish", but it was controversial then, and is still regarded as a war crime by many today.


10. Citizens of Hiroshima were notified to leave the city, as it was a legitimate target. Many left, many lore stayed. The notification, of course, mentioned nothing about a nuclear bomb, but they were warned they were a target.

Yes, but they were told to ignore the leaflets that were dropped and they trusted their governement implicitly. They probably assumed a conventional bombing, IE, there would probably be time to run to an underground shelter if need be.


12. Both Japanese and Germans were working on a nuclear device, if they would have come up w/one first, they would have used it on allied forces. London, NYC, San Francisco, LA, Seattle, DC, were all prime targets, and if there would have been enough bombs, they would have been used to level European, American and Asian cities.

If you have some reference showing that the Germans & Japanese actually had plans to A-bomb allied cities, I would like to see it. I knew they were working on bombs (the Japanese were nowhere near that level of technology, though), but that they would have targeted cities seems to be a matter of pure speculation.

13. Millions would have died in the invasion of Japan; Japanese, American, British, Canadian, Indian, Russian, Chinese, all would have been involved at some point.

Again, this is a matter of speculation, based on casualty estimates that were exaggerated after the attack to bolster the belief that they were just. Nobody can say with any degree of certainly how many would have died in an invasion, but again, it was not just a binary either/or choice between immediate invasion and immediate a-bombing of cities. There were many other options.

There was a brief outrage over Dresden, and Churchill had pushed for the attack, even when asked "why". I think of it as a war crime, but those that decide such things are the winners of the conflict. To be sure, the Allies made quite a few poor decisions, but after Dresden, a lot came out about the Death Camps, and now they were proven to be just what they were rumored to be, but people were truly galled at the immensity of the situation.

I concur that the Japanese citizens in the Home Islands heard little of the horrors of war. Like most societies, atrocities are certainly not discussed openly over dinner. I am not sure how the Japanese government explained the loss of their Navy and ground forces, but once again, societal mores would rule what information got out.

I have read on several levels that the Japanese and Germans were working on nuclear devices. I concur that they were far from completing one, but the technology was being worked on. With some of the technological advances in other areas, such as next generation fighters and bombers, to include jet aircraft, the Allies were pretty scared at what might be around the corner. Super-secrecy is mandatory, and conjecture is the norm.

I concur that "millions dying" is indeed speculation, but in the time frame we are discussing, the Allies had seen just how far the Japanese would go, literally till the death of all, to protect their outposts. Imagine what was going through the minds of the Allied leaders comparing the Island war to what attacking the Japanese Home Islands would incur. The thought of millions fighting to the death was something the Japanese had advanced as a situation. This is a terrifying scenario, not just for the attackers, but the defenders as well.

In the context of the day, I can see where a nuclear option was preferable to a full scale invasion. It must also be remembered that worldwide, some 40 million people died in that conflict, when one adds what Stalin did to his own people. I think, that if I were in the position Truman was in, with what he knew at the time, I would have given the order as well. I'm certain i would have regretted it alter, especially when I found out feelers for a peace were out there in some #'s. But to be honest, looking at it from the time frame that we're talking about, and the Japanese being a formidable enemy at the time, I would have given the mission a "go"; the last proposal had been rejected by the Japanese High Command the next option was the one used....:(

I disagree vehemently with the decision, and consider the bombings to be an atrocity and a war crime, but I think Truman was doing what he thought would result in few net lives lost, but there was also his desire to show up the commies...

I'm not an admirer of Truman by any stretch, but he certainly does not fall into the category of villains like Hitler, Mussolini, or even Stalin.

opinion, and I have no dog in this fight. I guess it all comes down to, history happened, and if we learn from that, it need never happen again. Chances are though, we, as a species, won't learn anything about the horros of nuclear war until it is too late...:(

There will always be someone out there willing to do something incredibly stupid.

Damn I love this place. GOOD times, heh?