WW2, The United States, and Nukes

[opensoul7]

And because of that disgusting decision you have the "freedom" to feel that way.Once again it is atrocities like that , that make war pure evil,and to be avoided at all costs.

 

[Jaymes]

Is there any "reason" in "particular" you are putting "quotes" around every few "words"?

I know we can't change it. But being unable to change it does not mean we should shy away from the realities of how thousands of people were incinerated alive and thousands more were left to die from radiation poisoning and insist that it was necessary. To dishonor them by going "it was necessary... for you all to die horribly simply because you happened to be born in the wrong country in the wrong time" is disgusting.

ANY country will fight to the last man, you say? Is Iraq any country?

 

[Thorin the Skald]

Who the blue-blazes said anything about people being born in a country having anything to do with if they die in a war????? Also, did you read my comment about learning from the past??? I hope neither of you feel that I think war is a good thing, as I do not. That being said, I know there comes a time when war will and does happen......as it is now between the US and Iraq. However, I also know that 12 or so years ago, we should have finished the job and captured Saddam Hussain......however, that did not happen. Back then, the Iraqi army fought with honor....but in this war, they are using NO honor in the way they fight......IMO. Did we fight with honor during WW II??? I feel we did. Did our enemies?? Yes, I feel they did as well......however, that is NOT to say that what Hitler did to the Jews was done with Honor. That's a whole other matter.....and perhaps cause for a new thread if anyone wants to debate it. War is something to be avioded at all costs, I agree......but, when it does happen.....it should be fought with honor. IMO. And, when it is not......well......then you do what you feel is "right".


As to why I use "quotes" around certain words.....well.....because that's what I have always done.....and how I was taught.

 

[Jaymes]

The women and children died simply because they were born in Japan. Had they been born in America or Germany or Australia, they would have lived. They were just born in the wrong place at the wrong time, and yet somehow because of this their deaths are necessary.

Learning from the past, yes. Learning from the past does not involve looking at the deaths of thousands of civilians and saying "well, it was necessary. Who's up for making sure countries get who we want elected?"

When you go into a war to begin with, IMO, all honor is lost. It means you have run out of every other possible way to solve your problems and are resorting to the might equals right strategy.

 

[Thorin the Skald]

I do not agree. War can be fought with honor....troops against troops.....and, yes, civilians do die as well. However, I do not buy into your theory that the place where people are born makes it sometimes "necessary" for them to die. That, IMO, sounds like it is their fault....or perhaps choice to be there or not. What happened happened......and we need to learn from it.....study it.....so that it does not happen again in that way. However, when all other options are played out.....the leaders of countries MUST do what they feel is "right"......and that is what happened.

 

[Jaymes]

How is troops against troops honorable? It still burns down to 'might makes right.' The ones with the biggest guns, the most planes, the best armor... there's no honor in that, just whichever side has the best technology.

You believe that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was necessary, correct? If so, you believe that killing thousands of civilians was necessary... civilians that were there due to pure, dumb (anti)luck.

 

[jeffrey]

Civilian casualities are a part of any war. Look at the mind set of the American people at that time. The Japanese people living in California at that time, even the ones born in the USA were rounded up and placed in concentration camps. And do you believe that if Japan would have bombed America, they would have not targeted large cities?

 

[Jaymes]

I'm not saying Japan wouldn't have done it. But "they started it!" or "well, they would have done it, too!" doesn't make it right or even necessary.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Civilian casualities are a part of any war. Look at the mind set of the American people at that time. The Japanese people living in California at that time, even the ones born in the USA were rounded up and placed in concentration camps. And do you believe that if Japan would have bombed America, they would have not targeted large cities?

As I recall they did bomb the US. A naval base, wasn't it?

 

[standing_alone]

I do not buy into your theory that the place where people are born makes it sometimes "necessary" for them to die.

I don't believe that Jensa is saying that because people were born in Japan made it "necessary" for them to die. I believe she is basically stating that they were "in the wrong place at the wrong time" and regardless of being civilians, had to pay with their lives.

As to my opinion on using the nukes to end the war in the Pacific: I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons. I am opposed to war and the slaughter of innocent people. However, I understand war is inevitable in this hell hole of a world we live in. I think using the nukes in WWII was unneccessary. I fail to understand why bombing legitimate military targets with non-nuclear/atomic bombs couldn't have been utilized. I think that the incineration of thousands of innocent people and the after effects of the radiation that still affects Japan to this day do little to justify the dropping of these bombs. Did they bring the war to an end sooner? Definately, but at what cost? They say that dropping the bomb saved the lives of many American soldiers, but at the expense of so many Japanese civilians. Did the bomb really save more lives than it ended? We will never know.

 

[jeffrey]

My mom was living in San Diego at that time, Japanese subs would take 'pot shots' at California. There are still some holes in a wall in Santa Barbara. They had 'brown outs' were all city lights were turned off and the cars had cardboard with slits in them over their headlights.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

My mom was living in San Diego at that time, Japanese subs would take 'pot shots' at California. There are still some holes in a wall in Santa Barbara. They had 'brown outs' were all city lights were turned off and the cars had cardboard with slits in them over their headlights.

Everyone was living like that, Jeff.
The Japanese staged 97 bombing raids on Northern Australia. 900 people died. Not to mention the midget subs that entered Sydney Harbour. 19 dead and 10 wounded. My grandfather spent his time after the Fall of Singapore working on the Burma Rail Link, for the princely wage of a bit of manky rice and all the eggs you could steal from the Commandants chicken coop without losing your head.
I'm afraid I'm missing your point.

They say that dropping the bomb saved the lives of many American soldiers, but at the expense of so many Japanese civilians. Did the bomb really save more lives than it ended? We will never know.

Don't you get it? It doesn't matter. What matters is that the lives of Allied servicemen are worth so much more than the lives of Japanese civilians.How do I know this? Because the lives saved were us, the fact that so many more died who were them is of little consequence. Anyway, all the figures I can find indicate in a best case scenario, there were more than twice as many civilian Japanese deaths than total US military deaths - combat and non combat combined. At a worst case scenario it's more like 3 times as many. Going by that, a US soldiers life is worth somewhere between 2 and 3 Japanese babies. That should comfort us all.
The fact that a team of analysts - working for the US government and in full possession of the facts - decided that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't actually make one bit of difference doesn't seem to concern anyone too much. I find that sad. I would find it sad enough if people said,'We did what we thought was the thing at the time and in hindsight we found out it wasn't and that's tragic and we're sorry we made a mistake.' But at least that would mean they're prepared to own the errors of the past and learn from them.
I find it infinitely sadder that people are still so determined to believe that it was the only way to end a conflict against an enemy that would never give up, despite the fact they were already trying to work out how to do so.

 

[ChrisP]

Chris P ,
first that is a big assumption , I love history and try to read from as many perspectives as possible." Opensoul, please read some Japanese Historic accounts. My main beef with American education is that it fails to include outside perspectives."
and to talk about not generalizing a group of people and then to turn right around and do it yourself by generalizing me and Americans.

Not generalising Americans. Just the Histories that are set as syllabus and studied in your education system. I've met many American's who have stayed with my family as part of Christian groups travelling through our country, and like most peoples of this planet, most of you are wonderful. It's the propaganda that is shoved down your throats by your poo-liticians and Businesses that disgusts me.

From your posts it is plain you don't understand what was happening internally within Japan at the time.

Everyone was living like that, Jeff.
The Japanese staged 97 bombing raids on Northern Australia. 900 people died. Not to mention the midget subs that entered Sydney Harbour. 19 dead and 10 wounded. My grandfather spent his time after the Fall of Singapore working on the Burma Rail Link, for the princely wage of a bit of manky rice and all the eggs you could steal from the Commandants chicken coop without losing your head.

Ditto here. I certainly have no love for Axis forces.

Opensoul - what troops and leaders did has nothing to do with a populace who through the nature of their culture were easily subjugated and forced into actions that would be considered insane by most of Western birth.

Asian cultures are far different from Western, and I don't think that has ever been properly considered within mainstream America.

 

[jeffrey]

I was answering your question, raven. That was my point. You asked if a base in California was hit. That was my response.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I was answering your question, raven. That was my point. You asked if a base in California was hit. That was my response.

I was talking about Pearl Harbour.

 

[jeffrey]

Since I was talking about California, I thought you meant California. Hawaii is almost 2,400 miles away from California. Hawaii wasn't even a State during WW2. That didn't happen until 1959.

 

[opensoul7]

Chris P ,
No it has not been considered by some people.People in America have a heavy tendency not to care about history and other cultures. But that does not represent all Americans by a long shot, I love history and love to learn.I have studied Japanese history it's people ,and continue to do so .I have also read multiple books wich interview japanese vetrans and they say America did the right thing , and ended up saving lives. you may have your opinion and assume away .The bottom line is this , before the bomb was dropped there were examples of what Americans felt they would run into during a mainland invasion. Iwo Jima ,Saipan, okinawa ,(a few good ones) Were factual history where the civilians commited mass suicide or served in civilian militia and fought against the Americans to the death.That was a living example ,not a opinion .wether they were easily subjugated or not from a military perspective it was something that neede serious consideration. I have given links, can give more.If you feel I should be enlightened please leave some links , I would be happy to read them .

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I know we can't change it. But being unable to change it does not mean we should shy away from the realities of how thousands of people were incinerated alive and thousands more were left to die from radiation poisoning and insist that it was necessary. To dishonor them by going "it was necessary... for you all to die horribly simply because you happened to be born in the wrong country in the wrong time" is disgusting.

I agree that killing innocent civilians is disgusting. The US did it, Germany did it, the UK did it, and Japan did it. Few nations emerged from WWII without innocent blood on their hands.

But imagine how many more innocent civilians would have died in an invasion of Japan....imagine how many soldiers would have died, how many Japanese men, women, and children would have killed themselves rather than be defeated, as they did on Okinawa?

I don't think it was unreasonable for us to insist on unconditional surrender.

 

[mr.guy]

But imagine how many more innocent civilians would have died in an invasion of Japan....imagine how many soldiers would have died, how many Japanese men, women, and children would have killed themselves rather than be defeated, as they did on Okinawa?

I don't think it was unreasonable for us to insist on unconditional surrender.

Are the above imaginings really the likely consequence had the U.S. accepted a conditional surrender from Japan? How ought one factor in a nuclear strike when considering a contemporary invasion?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

United States Strategic Bombing Survey

Summary Report

(Pacific War)

July 1 1946. (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/)

:banghead3