The droppings of the atomic bombs are justified. It was a military means of ending the war and it was not a deliberate act to kill civillians and destroy cities. In effect, the droppings saved lives.
I’m not fully read up on Sherman and his “march to the sea” to contemplate whether his actions warranted a war crimes trial.
This was idiots, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just place to show how powerfull their little toy were, no real stategic importance. Those who send those bomb get no sentence at the end of the war but they sentence Goring and other Nazi to death; like Goring said at the judgement; “we are here because we loose”. American should have send a bomb on a desolated island first, it would have save life and the japanse would have understand, or at least they would have try to save life, also the number of death was really high, i am not sure it has save life, maybe American life, but not civillian life. But like Great Brittain that throw in the melee people from their colonies in wwi; no americans were judged for their war crime because they win.
Poor Nazi’s. Just because they lost the war, they get sentanced for a little bit of genocide. Boy, it sure sucks to be them.
You have a point about THE BOMB, but of course the winner’s don’t get sentanced for using whatever means necessary to win a war. By the same token, in Afghanistan, members of the US-led coalition who needlessly killed civilians (and fellow soldiers) are facing/have faced trials - maybe not international ones yet, but these things take time.
But who is going to seek to prosecute people who freed China from the Japanese, and Europe from the Germans?
Ozone, I’m going to have to continue to disagree with you. This is not personal, I just think I’m right! :P
“Yeah, this guy was a cavalry genius, but the fact that a man of his dubious moral calibre could achieve high command in the Army of the Confederacy is a testament to that institution’s moral degeneracy.”
So how do you want to explain Bill Clinton? Don’t tell me he doesn’t have a “dubious moral calibre”! Why do we let the media continue to cover the jerk? Why did he “achieve a high command”? This crap is on both sides of the political spectrum, and I just get tired of only hearing about it on the conservative side.
Finsterni, what do you think those Jap civilians would have done to themselves anyway; if the US ended up invading the homeland? They would have either been forced to fight or commited suicide! Ever hear about Saipan?
The A bombs were COMPLETELY justified! Anyone who knows anything about how maniacal the Japs were in that war knows that they were put out of their misery, and many more, probably more Japs than Americans would have died had the invasion taken place. 'Nuff said.
Poor Nazi’s. Just because they lost the war, they get sentanced for a little bit of genocide. Boy, it sure sucks to be them.
You know that not what i said
Nevermind the Japanese had already tried surrendering to the russians twice before the bombs were droped. I believe the Japanese would have surrendered much sooner to the US if we hadn’t demanded an unconditional surrender, in which the emporer might have been removed or worse. Imagine the prospect of your god being defeated and humiliated, would you want to surrender under those conditions?
Boosk is right… When the japanese start the restructuration of their country, they take the prussian model of army and make shintoism the prime religion to reinforce patriotism, and in shintoism the emperor is the incarnation of a kami (gods), the bomb were clearly not usefull, a little bomb on an unhabited island and the emperor would have stop the war, and if america were a little more comprehensive in the first place it would never have happened.
comparing bill clintons cheating on his wife and lying about it, to beating and killing african americans (or any non whites) doesnt really work, im afraid.
I’m referring to the concept of morality. (Do you mean it’s more ok to “beat and kill” whites than non-whites? You don’t want to be accused of racism do you?) :o Don’t get me wrong: I don’t have anything against blacks (or non-whites as you say), it’s just that I get kind of ticked when people can’t find anything better to do than say that “white men” are the worst thing to happen to civilization.
“Ozone, I’m going to have to continue to disagree with you. This is not personal, I just think I’m right! ”
I always try to think I am wrong that way you are more desperate on defense.
“Finsterni, what do you think those Jap civilians would have done to themselves anyway; if the US ended up invading the homeland? They would have either been forced to fight or commited suicide! Ever hear about Saipan?”
This is true; the Japanese people were to fight to the death or risk dishonor. There’s no doubt that many more civilians lives were saved over the planned American invasion of mainland Japan. Children (both male/female) were trained to fire rifles (and charge with bayonets). Many others (esp. the elders) were trained to use sharp bamboo poles and lay in wait to ambush American soldiers. Regardless, the result wouldn’t have been pretty.
“The A bombs were COMPLETELY justified! Anyone who knows anything about how maniacal the Japs were in that war knows that they were put out of their misery, and many more, probably more Japs than Americans would have died had the invasion taken place. 'Nuff said.”
I wouldn’t say that it was “completely” justified. Nothing is ever completely justified. However, you can always say, “Well those Japanese shouldn’t have bombed Pearl Harbor in the first place!” Problem is that the government still keeps a lot of this information “classified,” so we might never know “the rest of the story.”
“Nevermind the Japanese had already tried surrendering to the russians twice before the bombs were droped. I believe the Japanese would have surrendered much sooner to the US if we hadn’t demanded an unconditional surrender, in which the emporer might have been removed or worse. Imagine the prospect of your god being defeated and humiliated, would you want to surrender under those conditions?”
Correct, secret negotiations were made with the Japanese and the Russians before the dropping of the bomb prior to the Potsdam Conference convened on July 17, 1945, between Japan and the Soviet Union. From June 3-14, 1945, Koki Hirota, a Japanese envoy with Emperor Hirohito’s blessing, had met with the Russian ambassador to Tokyo to propose a new relationship between the two countries. Japan proposed to carve up Asia with the USSR . Later on July 3, 1945, Hirota told the Russian ambassador: “Japan will increase her naval strength in the future, and that, together with the Russian Army, would make a force unequaled in the world….” I
It was further revealed that throughout June and July 1945, Japan’s militarist leaders were adamantly determined that they would never surrender unconditionally to the British and the Americans.
On July 16, during the Potsdam Conference, the first A-bomb was successfully tested and US, Britain and China issued the Potsdam Declaration to Japan to surrender unconditionally. However, on July 25, Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki announced to the Japanese press that the Potsdnm declaration was to be Ignored." Meanwhile, Tokyo was demanding that Moscow accept a special envoy from Emperor Hirohito, presumably to cement the deal offering to divide Asia between Japan and Russia while Moscow brokered a Japanese surrender with the U.S. and Britain that would be acceptable to Tokyo.
This is what the Americans President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson and Gen. Marshall knew the day before the first atom bomb fell on Japan. Confronted by an enemy leadership that was self-deluded, neither prepared to surrender nor to negotiate seriously, the Americans decided that the only way to end the war quickly would be to use overwhelming force: nuclear weapons.
I can’t fully disagree/agree with the concept of unconditional surrender. On one hand it might of shortened the war with Germany and Japan, though on the other it showed that the Americans and British were faithfully in the war with the Russians (important political move).
“a little bomb on an unhabited island and the emperor would have stop the war,”
Then how come two bombs had to be dropped? But a little “secret” I like to mention. Japanese military planners thought they could “defend” against such atomic weapons with the right combination of AA guns. However, after the second bomb was dropped, the Emperor Hirohito personally called off the war and sought terms of surrender.
Excellent posts.
I’d just like to point out on the issue of “cruelty vs. inefficiency” in the conduct of peace & war that, as TG points out, the Civil War and its resulting cruel peace (and cruel prosecution) are not forgotten TO THIS DAY in the South. After WWII, the USA and her Allies, largely for cold political reasons, but also for the purpose of preventing from happening again the nightmare the world had just been through, helped rebuild the nations of their former enemies. Today they are economically 2 of the most powerful economies on Earth, both are good friends of the USA; powerful allies of the US; and one (Japan) has the world’s only Constitution renouncing War as an instrument of foreign policy. Now, I dunno about you, but considering WWII, WWI, the Franco-Prussian War, the American Civil War and countless other wars throughout history, I’d say the side of “limited cruelty” and “compassion for the vanquished” has been the better long-term choice, as well as the best preventer of future war. A great General tries not only to defeat the enemy and end the war as quickly as possible, but to prevent future war with that enemy.
As far as the use of the Bomb goes, that is an extremely difficult moral issue to tackle. I hate what happened, but I also can’t imagine being in the shoes of the Washington decision-makers at that time with a possible choice between the possible unnecessary destruction of an entire generation of young American men (which an invasion of the Home Islands might have caused), and the eternal damnation of responsibility for the unleashing of mankind’s most terrible weapon. If only there HAD been a clear-cut alternative, but at the time there just wasn’t. Speaking of course as an American; to a degree, I think USA’s mercy for her former enemies after the war partially exhonerated us of some of the ignominy for the horror of the nuclear decision–but we still did it, we are the only power that has ever done it, and we sacrificed others in order to save ourselves. I personally think it WAS justified in the circumstances, but I can totally understand the POV that disagrees. Whose “fault” it was almost doesn’t matter–at that point so much ugliness had occured it is difficult for us (younger people) to comprehend the mindset of the times.
However I know one thing which no one can deny: the Japanese & Germans in WWII also had the experience of conquering vast foreign enemies. And their record was, shall we say, somewhat less compassionate than the Western Allies…
Ozone27
“A great General tries not only to defeat the enemy and end the war as quickly as possible, but to prevent future war with that enemy.”
No, usually great generals are never satisfied with such hastily thrown “peace” as they still know there’s a war left to be fought (Patton, Macarthur being fine examples). Merely calling the game over when the “end” is within reach is not very fulfilling to them. However, fine political strategists are the category you’re looking for. It was very Bismarck of you to make that statement (though I prefer making Allies of your Enemies). “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”
“As far as the use of the Bomb goes, that is an extremely difficult moral issue to tackle. I hate what happened, but I also can’t imagine being in the shoes of the Washington decision-makers at that time with a possible choice between the possible unnecessary destruction of an entire generation of young American men (which an invasion of the Home Islands might have caused), and the eternal damnation of responsibility for the unleashing of mankind’s most terrible weapon.”
Funny, I would of thought of it that way, too. I hate to be the President responsible for making the decision on whether or not to use nuclear weapons. The resolution would’ve haunted me forever and would be the controversy of the media and scholars even today. But not in Truman’s case. When asked if he had any regrets of dropping the bomb, he merely snapped his fingers together and said he made the decision like that.
“And their record was, shall we say, somewhat less compassionate than the Western Allies…”
Let’s not forget the Russians! Lord knows what happened last time we made them angry. :wink:
Boosk is right… When the japanese start the restructuration of their country, they take the prussian model of army and make shintoism the prime religion to reinforce patriotism, and in shintoism the emperor is the incarnation of a kami (gods), the bomb were clearly not usefull, a little bomb on an unhabited island and the emperor would have stop the war, and if america were a little more comprehensive in the first place it would never have happened.
Hey guy, They dropped 2 bombs.
After the first bomb did japan surrender?
No.
How would have a bomb on an empty island made them surrender?
Japan got exactly what it desevered.
Pearl Harbour was a sucker punch.
Unconditional surender was completely justified, just like 9/11 is.
Agreed with Moses, Ozone, and to a lesser degree with Ghoul (i’d agree with you more wholeheartedly, but my heart is just a little eaten up with the shear amount of devesation that was wrought upon those too cities, in spite of their silly emperor’s naive pride.
oh, and yes FinsterniS, i know you never said that - the implication was there, however, by criticizing the nations that saved Europe from the maniacal whimsy of the Germans by the few ways that they had at their disposal.
Hey guy, They dropped 2 bombs.
After the first bomb did japan surrender?
No.
How would have a bomb on an empty island made them surrender?
I perfectly know that, but the American want something the Japanese where not ready to accept easily, the Emperor himself was not a danger, with a little more tolerance and maybe a little “show of power” maybe this could have end more easily.
Also they 2 bombs were send to kill civilians, to show how their little toy were powerfull. I am not sure it save life, american life; yes.
Japan got exactly what it desevered.
That is very cruel, there is pre-war issues you seem to forget, Japan did’nt attack just for the fun of killing peoples.
Pearl Harbour was a sucker punch.
It was far less barbarian than the 2 bombs !!! At least not directed after civilians….
Also CC a lots of generals made war crimes; they only go in trials when they loose…
Hey guy, They dropped 2 bombs.
After the first bomb did japan surrender?
No.
How would have a bomb on an empty island made them surrender?Quote from" FinsterinS"
I perfectly know that, but the American want something the Japanese where not ready to accept easily, the Emperor himself was not a danger, with a little more tolerance and maybe a little “show of power” maybe this could have end more easily.Well its easier to say that in hindsight.
It was a war, Japan was completely viscous with its attacks and to the prisoner they took, civilian and military.
We should have America shown tolerance? Because Japan has an honor system and the terms of surrender were unfair…Cry…its war, no mercy, especially after Pearl harbour.
They were an angry nation that was “stabbed in the back”
It so easy to take the moral high ground on things like this!Quote from FinsterinS"
Also they 2 bombs were send to kill civilians, to show how their little toy were powerfull. I am not sure it save life, american life; yes.American(ailled) lifes is all they should have been concerned with.
If they thought they could land on Japan and walk up the beaches pounding back the Jap army with minimal casualties, they would have done it. And Im sure they would not have cared how many Japan soldiers they kill along the way.Japan got exactly what it desevered.
Quote from “FinsterinS”
That is very cruel, there is pre-war issues you seem to forget, Japan did’nt attack just for the fun of killing peoples.Yes, and America was just killing Japanese for the “fun” of it.
Pearl Harbour was a sucker punch.
Quote from “FinsterinS”
It was far less barbarian than the 2 bombs !!! At least not directed after civilians….Im pretty sure civilians were killed at Pearl Harbour as well.
Also CC a lots of generals made war crimes; they only go in trials when they loose…
@Mr:
Unconditional surender was completely justified, just like 9/11 is.
As I pointed out before, there were pros and cons to unconditional surrender [“US]. For example, one con would be the war might’ve been shorter since “US” forced Hitler’s and Tojo’s many of men to fight to the death. Also, “US” made it more difficult for the underground to stage a successful coup in order to oust the dictators and secure a favorable peace or at least an armistice. One pro of unconditional surrender would be without it, there might still have been Nazi or Imperial Japanese rule in those countries. It depends on how you look at it.
@FinsterinS:
That is very cruel, there is pre-war issues you seem to forget, Japan did’nt attack just for the fun of killing peoples.
Yes, I’m sure the 369,366 Chinese that were butched by the Japanese in the Rape of Nanking was not at all out of “sadist fun.” Nor were the estimated 80,000 women and girls who were raped; many of them were then mutilated or murdered. :( Thousands of victims were beheaded, burned, bayoneted, buried alive, or disemboweled.*
And lets not forget the barbarous torture the Japanese endured on our American POWs (many of them used for “bayonet practice” or forced into hard labor in Japanese mines :evil:). Oh, I forgot, the Japanese said they never “signed” the Geneva Conventions. As for “prewar” actions, what America did with the embargos on Japan was justifiable (prevent further war with China).
@FinsterinS:
I perfectly know that, but the American want something the Japanese where not ready to accept easily, the Emperor himself was not a danger, with a little more tolerance and maybe a little “show of power” maybe this could have end more easily.
Also they 2 bombs were send to kill civilians, to show how their little toy were powerfull. I am not sure it save life, american life; yes.
Everybody is entitled to his or her opinion. But I also like to note that America’s “show of power” was not confined to atomic bombs. In terms of causalities (short term at least), the incendiary raids on Tokyo were much more devastating (in terms of lives lost and structural damage) compared to the Atomic bombers dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Each day, tens of thousands (sometimes even hundred of thousands) of Japanese died due to these bombings (and starvation, disease, fire).
American(ailled) lifes is all they should have been concerned with.
If they thought they could land on Japan and walk up the beaches pounding back the Jap army with minimal casualties, they would have done it. And Im sure they would not have cared how many Japan soldiers they kill along the way.
I’m not sure if I can agree with this. I don’t kill people after they have surrendered.
@Mr:
We should have America shown tolerance? Because Japan has an honor system and the terms of surrender were unfair…Cry…its war, no mercy, especially after Pearl harbour.
They were an angry nation that was “stabbed in the back”
It so easy to take the moral high ground on things like this!
Even being “stabbed in the back” does not always justify the killing of millions of Japanese civilians. What did they have to do about it? There is no “moral high ground,” only how we see fit.
It really annoys me when Americans talk about how after Pearl Harbor, America should have shyown no mercy. It’s alway Pearl Harbor this or Pearl Harbor that! enough is enough! Pearl Harbor wasn’t such a devastating attack in terms of casualties. Military personnel did die, but not that many! The deaths in Pearl Harbor number in the hundereds, I believe, and people make it out to have been a horrible masacre, which it wasn’t. America makes a big deal out of it because it got caught with its pants down by the Japanese.
America should not have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima had some military value but Nagasaki had NO MILITARY VALUE whatsoever. It was pure revenge. About the number of deaths there, it depends on whose records you look at. Official Japanese records claim that 300,000 people died at hiroshima and another 100,000 at Nagasaki.
As for the crimes that Japan did, why dont we talk about America’s crimes? You won’t find this in official American government documents, but the Us government’s policy toward natives was to force them onto reserves and starve them into submission. Read an old Soviet document and you will find it.
The winners in history write history, and that’s why our view of it is sometimes distorted. Winston Churchill himself once said that history would not look badly upon him, because he would be the one writing it.
“It really annoys me when Americans talk about how after Pearl Harbor, America should have shyown no mercy. It’s alway Pearl Harbor this or Pearl Harbor that! enough is enough! Pearl Harbor wasn’t such a devastating attack in terms of casualties. Military personnel did die, but not that many! The deaths in Pearl Harbor number in the hundereds, I believe, and people make it out to have been a horrible masacre, which it wasn’t. America makes a big deal out of it because it got caught with its pants down by the Japanese.”
Americans do show mercy. If it were otherwise, we would’ve never taken any prisoners and would not have helped rebuild the countries we shattered. Would any other not country do otherwise for its former “enemy?” Also, I’m interested in seeing what you define “horrible massacre” as. Maybe we should throw in a few thousand Americans– a few hundred thousand Americans – maybe even a million Americans – would that satisfy your need for a “horrible massacre?”* We did get caught with our pants down – so did Poland, so did France, so did China, so did many countries overrun by the Axis warmachine. Tell me, should they not have made such a “big deal” out of this? Amusing how we were still making negotiations with the Japanese diplomats when the attack happened.
“America should not have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima had some military value but Nagasaki had NO MILITARY VALUE whatsoever. It was pure revenge. About the number of deaths there, it depends on whose records you look at. Official Japanese records claim that 300,000 people died at hiroshima and another 100,000 at Nagasaki.”
Although many figures are quoted, it’s generally agreed that some 70,000 to 80,000 people died in the attack on Hiroshima with a like number injured (140,000 casualties). At Nagasaki 40,000 died with another 60,000 injured (100,000 casualties). [Make sure not to confuse deaths with casualties] These figures are the immediate deaths and don’t include subsequent deaths. By years end 140,000 people had died in Hiroshima from the bomb. The on Tokyo by B-29 bombers on the night of March 9/10, 1945 released 1660 tons of incendiaries. The official Japanese count found 83,793 dead and 40,918 injured. A total of 267,171 buildings were destroyed leaving one million people homeless. 15.8 square miles of the city had been burned to the ground, including 18% of the industrial area, and 63% of the commercial center. [My sources do not go into how many Japanese died of after-immediate causes].
The bombings on the cities is still a hotly debated subject even today. I think the attacks on industrial or military centers would be a much more “justifiable” target. However, many experts say that the attacks would’ve left a much more lasting impression of the Japanese (forcing them with no other alternative but to end the war) if the attack had occurred on cities that were virtually unscathed by the war. However, since much “logical” targets were already bombed out ruins by the US Airforce, the list of “bombable” cities was relatively shorts. It’s too bad that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be ones chosen.
“As for the crimes that Japan did, why dont we talk about America’s crimes? You won’t find this in official American government documents, but the Us government’s policy toward natives was to force them onto reserves and starve them into submission. Read an old Soviet document and you will find it.”
It is foolish to think that America was innocent. However, it is just as foolish to make the level and intensity of American war crimes comparable to Nazi and Imperial Japanese war crimes. Also, natives on the islands (and SE Asia) America “liberated” were also subject to brutality (it is hard to find the correct “word) by the Americans (though this was mainly associated with the firefights their villages were caught up in). But if it makes you happy, why don’t we round up all the countries that served in WWIII (assuming there will be any left) and all put them on trial for war crimes? Who would be presumed fit to judge? We might need the ICC for this.
It really annoys me when Americans talk about how after Pearl Harbor, America should have shyown no mercy. It’s alway Pearl Harbor this or Pearl Harbor that! enough is enough! Pearl Harbor wasn’t such a devastating attack in terms of casualties. Military personnel did die, but not that many! The deaths in Pearl Harbor number in the hundereds, I believe, and people make it out to have been a horrible masacre, which it wasn’t. America makes a big deal out of it because it got caught with its pants down by the Japanese.
.
i disagree with you my fellow canuck. I highly doubt that the Pearl Harbor American naval and army personnel were there as an offensive military force, but rather a way to protect American (civilian) lives. A surprise attack in the vein that was committed is less than one that was committed under the auspices of war against a military aggressor? Those American “military” lives were worth less than those of civilians?
Although i can not come out and say that the bombings on H and N were justifiable, if my father, brother or son was in Hawaii that fateful day, i am guessing that my ability to justify the bombings would be much easier than sitting in the comforts of Canada, a million years and miles from the events of that day and time. I believe that outside of declared hostilities war-time, a military action against military personnel is no less “rude” for lack of a more appropriate word, than a terrorist act against a civilian population.
Quote from TG "Even being “stabbed in the back” does not always justify the killing of millions of Japanese civilians. What did they have to do about it? There is no “moral high ground,” only how we see fit.
What I’m saying is, its easy to say what a horrible thing the bombing was today.
If you lived back then, your perspective would have been much different.
It was a military decision that made sense and saved American lifes.
Civilians casualties are part of war.
How many Nations during WW2 carpet bombed a city? Just because it wasn’t an A-bomb, dosen’t make it any less “terrible”.
A Nation, any Nation will do what it has to, to win a war.
Maybe the Americans did drop the A-bomb for revenge.
So what if that was the reason?
Why did Japanese pilots slam themselves into America ships?
@Mr:
Quote from TG "Even being “stabbed in the back” does not always justify the killing of millions of Japanese civilians. What did they have to do about it? There is no “moral high ground,” only how we see fit.
What I’m saying is, its easy to say what a horrible thing the bombing was today.
If you lived back then, your perspective would have been much different.
It was a military decision that made sense and saved American lifes.
Civilians casualties are part of war.
How many Nations during WW2 carpet bombed a city? Just because it wasn’t an A-bomb, dosen’t make it any less “terrible”.A Nation, any Nation will do what it has to, to win a war.
Maybe the Americans did drop the A-bomb for revenge.
So what if that was the reason?Why did Japanese pilots slam themselves into America ships?
i’m agreeing with you more and more Ghoul.
Germany got bombed something fierce. Poor poor German civilians . . . that’ll learn them to follow a madman into the depths of depravity and EVILHOOD (yes FinsterniS, i said evil). True, if we lost the war, i suppose even having opposed Germany and Japan would not have boded well for our countries, and our grandparents would likely be living in concentration camps. This would not have made what they did wrong though. I think many Germans and Japanese people today would have difficulty arguing with that (with the obvious exceptions of the right-winged racist ones, etc.).
Curiously, did those who bombed Coventry into desolation ever get tried for war-crimes? If they did, then i could see the engineers for the bombings in Japan and Germany being tried as well (which indeed would be hypocritical of us). If those responsible for Coventry bombing did not get tried, then this whole discussion becomes moot on the point of civilian bombing.
