We were entirely justified in clobbering them, war is, after all, war, bombing Japan into rapid submission undeniably saved countless thousands of Allied lives which would have been lost in a city-by-city, house-to-house land campaign, and the atrocities that they committed against their neighbors in SE Asia and especially against the Chinese and Phillipinos deserved the severest form of retribution. No, it's not the death totals that we feel guilt about, it is in ushering in the age of nuclear war, and the global insecurity under which everyone lives.
America dropped the atom bomb on Japan after they had surrendered.
I understand that people in America still celebrate Hiroshima day as a good thing. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed innocent children as well as adults. The legacy of birth defects still continues to this day. I think the US should feel guilty about it.
Yes, it is much better to sweep the whole genocide of the indigenous American population under the carpet and pretend that everything is fine.
I did no such thing, nor did I say any such thing. I stated, in essence, that it was a fact of history. A fact that no one for several generations now was involved with. And, a fact that generally describes the whole of human history, not just American history.
It's not right. It just IS.
Quote:
It's your country, you should know what is going on in it. :-)
I do.
Cordially,
Rush
elrushbo-[at]-theobviousadelphia.net
Remove the obvious...
America dropped the atom bomb on Japan after they had surrendered.
Wrong. Japan was warned that a "weapon of unimaginable power" would be used against them unless they surrendered unconditionally. They refused and the first bomb was dropped. Then they were told again to surrender unconditionally, and still they refused. The second was dropped and Japan surrendered, unconditionally. Again, neither of those bombs killed anywhere near as many people as conventional bombs.
Quote:
I understand that people in America still celebrate Hiroshima day as a good thing.
"Celebrate?" Not that I am aware of.
Quote:
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed innocent children as well as adults.
Japan slaughtered over 15 million innocents in East Asia between 1932(7?) and 1945. I wonder how those people would have felt about the use of those two nukes?
Quote:
The legacy of birth defects still continues to this day.
War sucks. And you fight it to win. You fight it to utterly dismantle any and all threads of society and civilization in order to make the other side capitulate. Which, of course, Japan refused to do.
Quote:
I think the US should feel guilty about it.
More power to you.
Cordially,
Rush
elrushbo-[at]-theobviousadelphia.net
Remove the obvious...
America dropped the atom bomb on Japan after they had surrendered.
I'm sorry, ES99, but I recall the bombs being dropped on Aug 6 and Aug 9 of 1945, and the surrender on Aug 14. If you have information to the contrary, please show me.
I've never heard of any celebration of Hiroshima Day, or even of it being dignified into "Day" status at all. The people here were greatly angered by the attack on Pearl Harbor, without a declaration of a state of war, and while peace negotiations were in-process. I would NOT say that that anger justified the interment of all Nisei, American citizens of Japanese descent.
America dropped the atom bomb on Japan after they had surrendered.
I'm sorry, ES99, but I recall the bombs being dropped on Aug 6 and Aug 9 of 1945, and the surrender on Aug 14. If you have information to the contrary, please show me.
I've never heard of any celebration of Hiroshima Day, or even of it being dignified into "Day" status at all. The people here were greatly angered by the attack on Pearl Harbor, without a declaration of a state of war, and while peace negotiations were in-process. I would NOT say that that anger justified the interment of all Nisei, American citizens of Japanese descent.
Michael, Japan had sought to surrender before that, and had in fact accepted America's terms for surrender. It is generally accepted that it was totally unnecessary to drop the bombs on Japan as they had already been defeated. There was a lobby of scientists, (among them Feynman and Einstein who worked on the Manhattan project) who tried to convince Truman not to drop the bomb. The bomb was dropped not to end the war but to show the strength of America to the world.
I have seen celebrations of the end of the war being attributed to the events of Hiroshima day and the the Enola Gay.
I've had a quick look on the net and found this which might be of interest, but there are many more sources out there. I am surprised that this is not more widely known. :-(
Es99
Various Japanese sought to end the war before the atomic bombes where dropped. The Japanese government (i.e. the different ministerial cabinets that followed the fall of Saipan and Tojo) never offered to surrender until the emperor forced the issue.
While it is not widely talked about the American army was bleed nearly to death in the battle of the Bulge. This coupled with the losses suffered taking Iwa Jima and Okinawa put the Allies into a position where they had to try almost anything before an actual invasion of the home islands of Japan. It is probable that the entry into the eastren war of the USSR actually had a greater effect on the government of Japan than the A-bombs. This has lead to one theory that it was to preempt Stalin that the American government decided to take that awful step. There are others who insist that it decision was taken to justify the expense of building the A-bombs.
Personally I am inclined to accept Truman's statement that it was a no brainer. Sacrifice 2 million Allied troops while killing many times more Japanese or drop the bomb and hope for the best. Brutal? yes! but 'war is hell' and the people who run them are after all human with all the limitations that implies.
I would be very careful taking the IHR at face value. If I remember correctly, they are the number one proponents of the idea that the Nazi holocaust is a hoax. At the very least that calls their scholarship into question.
Quote:
Michael, Japan had sought to surrender before that, and had in fact accepted America's terms for surrender.
No, actually, it hadn't. In fact, the essay notes, "Further diplomatic messages indicated that the only condition asked by the Japanese was preservation of 'our form of government.' The only 'difficult point,' a July 25 message disclosed, 'is the ... formality of unconditional surrender.'" Conditional surrender is not unconditional surrender.
The article also notes: "If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives." Which could just have easily have read: If the Japanese leadership had not insisted on conditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to sacrifice one man, the Emperor -- the United States very likely would have accepted immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives. They didn't. C'est la vie.
The U.S. had made it very clear, as I said in a previous post below, that unconditional surrender was the only acceptable answer. They would not have accepted conditions from Hitler, they were not going to accept them from Japan. The Japanese gov't was willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their own to preserve the honor of the Emperor and avoid his trial for war crimes.
Geebus, they were warned, and that wasn't enough. They saw Hiroshima evaporate and that wasn't enough. They were warned again and that wasn't enough. It took Nagasaki to underscore the point.
Quote:
It is generally accepted that it was totally unnecessary to drop the bombs on Japan as they had already been defeated.
Generally accepted by who? That debate will continue eternally. Anymore, the sides taken are often ideological. To me, war is war. The bomb was dropped for a number of reasons: to decimate the last two relatively large cities, to push unconditional surrender, to show the world what the U.S. was capable of, to prevent a possible protracted land war, et cetera.
Quote:
There was a lobby of scientists, (among them Feynman and Einstein who worked on the Manhattan project) who tried to convince Truman not to drop the bomb. The bomb was dropped not to end the war but to show the strength of America to the world.
Sure, that's part of it. I mean, the Germans had been working on the bomb, and so had the Japanese. It is likely that whoever got it first, would have used it.
There are a number of after the fact quotes in there about not needing it. But that's just like Bobby Kennedy after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He spent years cultivating his image as seeking a peaceful solution. In reality, as the tapes of the meetings show, he was almost as big of a war hawk as Curtis LeMay. It's very easy to follow the signs of the times, after the fact. It isn't so easy to make those decisions in the heat of reality.
Quote:
I have seen celebrations of the end of the war being attributed to the events of Hiroshima day and the the Enola Gay.
Not that I've ever seen. Americans in general don't celebrate that stuff. They abhor it.
Quote:
I've had a quick look on the net and found this which might be of interest, but there are many more sources out there. I am surprised that this is not more widely known. :-(
There's nothing in that article that is shocking to anyone who has studied the history. But it still says some silly things. For example, "All the same, most Americans accepted, and continue to accept, the official justifications for the bombings. Accustomed to crude propagandistic portrayals of the 'Japs' as virtually subhuman beasts, most Americans in 1945 heartily welcomed any new weapon that would wipe out more of the detested Asians, and help avenge the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." Yeah. Of course they did. As I noted in a previous post, Japan slaughtered over 15 million innocents in East Asia between 1937 and 1945. I wonder how those people would have felt about the use of those two nukes?
What do YOU think those people would have thought, ES? Do you think those 15M would have worried about an extry hundred thousands or two Japanese?
Besides, what does it matter whether those people were burned to death by firebombing or melted to death by the heat of 100 Suns?
Cordially,
Rush
elrushbo-[at]-theobviousadelphia.net
Remove the obvious...
I also suspect that a secondary consideration in the decision to release atomics was the fact that Stalin was rapidly developing his own atomics, and the US needed to stop the newly resurgent Russia from continuing it's aggressive, opportunistic, egregious land-grab.
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
RE: We were entirely
)
America dropped the atom bomb on Japan after they had surrendered.
I understand that people in America still celebrate Hiroshima day as a good thing. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed innocent children as well as adults. The legacy of birth defects still continues to this day. I think the US should feel guilty about it.
Physics is for gurls!
RE: Yes, it is much better
)
I did no such thing, nor did I say any such thing. I stated, in essence, that it was a fact of history. A fact that no one for several generations now was involved with. And, a fact that generally describes the whole of human history, not just American history.
It's not right. It just IS.
I do.
Cordially,
Rush
elrushbo-[at]-theobviousadelphia.net
Remove the obvious...
RE: America dropped the
)
Wrong. Japan was warned that a "weapon of unimaginable power" would be used against them unless they surrendered unconditionally. They refused and the first bomb was dropped. Then they were told again to surrender unconditionally, and still they refused. The second was dropped and Japan surrendered, unconditionally. Again, neither of those bombs killed anywhere near as many people as conventional bombs.
"Celebrate?" Not that I am aware of.
Japan slaughtered over 15 million innocents in East Asia between 1932(7?) and 1945. I wonder how those people would have felt about the use of those two nukes?
War sucks. And you fight it to win. You fight it to utterly dismantle any and all threads of society and civilization in order to make the other side capitulate. Which, of course, Japan refused to do.
More power to you.
Cordially,
Rush
elrushbo-[at]-theobviousadelphia.net
Remove the obvious...
RE: America dropped the
)
I'm sorry, ES99, but I recall the bombs being dropped on Aug 6 and Aug 9 of 1945, and the surrender on Aug 14. If you have information to the contrary, please show me.
I've never heard of any celebration of Hiroshima Day, or even of it being dignified into "Day" status at all. The people here were greatly angered by the attack on Pearl Harbor, without a declaration of a state of war, and while peace negotiations were in-process. I would NOT say that that anger justified the interment of all Nisei, American citizens of Japanese descent.
edit - Japan surrenders
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
RE: RE: America dropped
)
Michael, Japan had sought to surrender before that, and had in fact accepted America's terms for surrender. It is generally accepted that it was totally unnecessary to drop the bombs on Japan as they had already been defeated. There was a lobby of scientists, (among them Feynman and Einstein who worked on the Manhattan project) who tried to convince Truman not to drop the bomb. The bomb was dropped not to end the war but to show the strength of America to the world.
I have seen celebrations of the end of the war being attributed to the events of Hiroshima day and the the Enola Gay.
I've had a quick look on the net and found this which might be of interest, but there are many more sources out there. I am surprised that this is not more widely known. :-(
Was Hiroshima Necessary? by Mark Weber
I got the information myself from various books, it was something I found out about when I was learning about the development of the atomic bomb.
Physics is for gurls!
In the era of WWIII,when
)
In the era of WWIII,when the"post-modern Inquisition" is hyperactive, one should walk carefully.
Ariane
Es99. Thanks for the link;
)
Es99.
Thanks for the link; that was good reading, very informative.
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
Es99 Various Japanese sought
)
Es99
Various Japanese sought to end the war before the atomic bombes where dropped. The Japanese government (i.e. the different ministerial cabinets that followed the fall of Saipan and Tojo) never offered to surrender until the emperor forced the issue.
While it is not widely talked about the American army was bleed nearly to death in the battle of the Bulge. This coupled with the losses suffered taking Iwa Jima and Okinawa put the Allies into a position where they had to try almost anything before an actual invasion of the home islands of Japan. It is probable that the entry into the eastren war of the USSR actually had a greater effect on the government of Japan than the A-bombs. This has lead to one theory that it was to preempt Stalin that the American government decided to take that awful step. There are others who insist that it decision was taken to justify the expense of building the A-bombs.
Personally I am inclined to accept Truman's statement that it was a no brainer. Sacrifice 2 million Allied troops while killing many times more Japanese or drop the bomb and hope for the best. Brutal? yes! but 'war is hell' and the people who run them are after all human with all the limitations that implies.
I would be very careful
)
I would be very careful taking the IHR at face value. If I remember correctly, they are the number one proponents of the idea that the Nazi holocaust is a hoax. At the very least that calls their scholarship into question.
No, actually, it hadn't. In fact, the essay notes, "Further diplomatic messages indicated that the only condition asked by the Japanese was preservation of 'our form of government.' The only 'difficult point,' a July 25 message disclosed, 'is the ... formality of unconditional surrender.'" Conditional surrender is not unconditional surrender.
The article also notes: "If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives." Which could just have easily have read: If the Japanese leadership had not insisted on conditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to sacrifice one man, the Emperor -- the United States very likely would have accepted immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives. They didn't. C'est la vie.
The U.S. had made it very clear, as I said in a previous post below, that unconditional surrender was the only acceptable answer. They would not have accepted conditions from Hitler, they were not going to accept them from Japan. The Japanese gov't was willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their own to preserve the honor of the Emperor and avoid his trial for war crimes.
Geebus, they were warned, and that wasn't enough. They saw Hiroshima evaporate and that wasn't enough. They were warned again and that wasn't enough. It took Nagasaki to underscore the point.
Generally accepted by who? That debate will continue eternally. Anymore, the sides taken are often ideological. To me, war is war. The bomb was dropped for a number of reasons: to decimate the last two relatively large cities, to push unconditional surrender, to show the world what the U.S. was capable of, to prevent a possible protracted land war, et cetera.
Sure, that's part of it. I mean, the Germans had been working on the bomb, and so had the Japanese. It is likely that whoever got it first, would have used it.
There are a number of after the fact quotes in there about not needing it. But that's just like Bobby Kennedy after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He spent years cultivating his image as seeking a peaceful solution. In reality, as the tapes of the meetings show, he was almost as big of a war hawk as Curtis LeMay. It's very easy to follow the signs of the times, after the fact. It isn't so easy to make those decisions in the heat of reality.
Not that I've ever seen. Americans in general don't celebrate that stuff. They abhor it.
There's nothing in that article that is shocking to anyone who has studied the history. But it still says some silly things. For example, "All the same, most Americans accepted, and continue to accept, the official justifications for the bombings. Accustomed to crude propagandistic portrayals of the 'Japs' as virtually subhuman beasts, most Americans in 1945 heartily welcomed any new weapon that would wipe out more of the detested Asians, and help avenge the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." Yeah. Of course they did. As I noted in a previous post, Japan slaughtered over 15 million innocents in East Asia between 1937 and 1945. I wonder how those people would have felt about the use of those two nukes?
What do YOU think those people would have thought, ES? Do you think those 15M would have worried about an extry hundred thousands or two Japanese?
Besides, what does it matter whether those people were burned to death by firebombing or melted to death by the heat of 100 Suns?
Cordially,
Rush
elrushbo-[at]-theobviousadelphia.net
Remove the obvious...
Mark, I also suspect that
)
Mark,
I also suspect that a secondary consideration in the decision to release atomics was the fact that Stalin was rapidly developing his own atomics, and the US needed to stop the newly resurgent Russia from continuing it's aggressive, opportunistic, egregious land-grab.
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK