The most tasteless and insensitive museum exhibit ever.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Nothing the Japanese did during the war, not even Pearl Harbor, justified those actions. Nothing.

so nothing "justifies" those explosions? not even the systematic destruction of the korean culture. or the theft and rape of thousands of korean women to be used as "comfort women" for the troops. or the theft and destruction of innumerable historical treasures in korea. or the slave labor factories populated with koreans. or the women gang raped to death in nanjing. or the use of poison gas and bacteria in manchuria. or the use of young korean and chinese males as cannon fodder against the allies. or the near-starvation conditions koreans and chinese were put in after being forced to send every single bit of produce to japan.

and somehow, compared to all that... you want me to act as if those who died in the atomic blast are somehow more worthy of pity than those the japanese murdered?

no, two wrongs don't make a right. but remembering and greiving over one wrong while trying to ignore every last trace of the other is a third wrong. and unlike lefts, those don't make a right either.

Q-Cubed, placing the war criminals on trial and executing them (I am sure that you would prefer that penalty in the case of the Japanese) is quite a bit different that mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children in revenge.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Osweld



Actually, I think there should be more focus on the atomic bombs from the west, because we where responsible for that atrocity. Would you rather we focus on atrocities done by other cultures over the ones we do ourselves?

Finally! Maybe I am making a little headway here.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You'll note the American offer was unconditional surrender. Case rested.

Boris, we do NOT agree on this.

[Japher]

Fat Man and Little Boy, they sure did put the fear of science into everyone... Behold the destructive abilities of man, we surely will be our own ruin.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom

There was no equivalent of glasnost in Japan post WWII, no truth and reconciliation commission to weed out unrepentant militarists and those who took part in atrocities. What is worse is that scientific research into germ warfare by the Japanese was used by the Americans, and in the post WWII Red scare climate, Japanese troops were used to police the European colonies they had previously been occupying, and Korean collaborators were 'reinstalled' in positions of power.

Molly, I think MacArthur did root out the militarists from positions of power. War criminals were arrested, tried and hanged. They were given a new constitution banning a military.

Perphaps you objection might be that this was not "thorough" because we left the Emperor and his government largely in place. This allowed the Japanese some dignity, but it also allowed them to believe that what they did was "not wrong" to the extent that the government did not apologize.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Now this is a good argument against the necessity of dropping the atomic bombs. The primary defense of dropping them is that they saved lives, not vengence. But that argument is based on the Allies analysis of their casualties in taking the mainland.

I think before the bombs were dropped an invasion of the mainland was inevitable for victory and to humble the Japanese mentality. If they were not resoundly defeated they would probably have kept their arrogance and racial superiority concepts, just setting asia up for another great war.

Once the bombs were dropped and Russia declared war on Japan out of fear it would be over and Russia wouldn't be in a position to bargain for holdings, an invasion of the mainland wouldn't seem to be warranted. But, then that all developed from the dropping of the bombs in the first place.

G, the invasion plans had largely been developed prior to the Japanese offers to enter into surrender negotiations. Thereafter, everyone knew that an invasion was NOT necessary to get Japan to surrender. Many, if not most, of the top command favored an immediate surrender so as to FOESTALL a Soviet entry into the war - primarily because of all the difficulties they were causing in Europe.

(Perhaps some Truman advisors were working for Stalin and were trying to get him to not end the war before Russia entered it.)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It wasn't accepted, it was denied and they surrendered with out it and later, out of the goodness of our hearts, we decided to let them have it. -Pat

Pat, please get a link or post to the actual document signed on August 14. It is clear that continuity of the Emperor was not optional.

[Ned]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I like this comment

""They (Japan) started the war by bombing our servicemen in Pearl Harbor. They should go and stand on the deck of the Arizona," said one man referring to a US ship sunk in the raid, now a memorial. "

I wonder if he understood exactly what he was saying?

There was no military necessity to use the atomic bombs. Obviously we could have destroyed the Japanese cities the same way we did Tokyo and Dresden. It probably would have killed more people that way and allowed the war to drag on so that the Soviets would have claimed more Japanese islands (possibly the mainlands).

Or possibly we could have ended the war in June when the Japanese offered to surrender.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Ned
G, the invasion plans had largely been developed prior to the Japanese offers to enter into surrender negotiations.

I'm glad we agree.

[Cyclotron]

Ned, what the civilians of the USA may or may not mave been revolted by does not change the nature of the war. Governments on every side were perfectly willing to bomb the crap out of civilians when they thought it suited their purpose or if they beleived it was neccessary. Again, moral judgements have to be made in those circumstances, but it doesn't make sense to complain that the blows were out of proportion to one another, given that the whole point of war is to overpower your enemy.

Even Truman began to understand and be revolted by the horror he was imposing on Japan. He called a halt and accepted the conditional surrender that Japan had been offering for some time...

What you fail to understand, C, is that Japan was prepared to surrender in June and perhaps even by April. They had had enough. IIRC, the Emperor had fired Tojo in April, replaced him with a new PM and given him directions to negotiate a surrender. The government communicated the offer to enter into surrender negotiations to the Russians who passed it on to Truman. Truman ignore the offer.

I already told you, that question is way overdone. I shouldn't have to remind you of all the massive threads full of arguing over whether these bombs were justified. I'm not apologizing for Truman or anyone else, I'm just pointing out that using Japanese actions to "justify" or not justify the bombs misses the basic point of a war.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ned


Or possibly we could have ended the war in June when the Japanese offered to surrender.

So you feel (60 years on) that we should have accepted a conditional surrender from Japan but unconditional surrender from Germany?

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Ned, what the civilians of the USA may or may not mave been revolted by does not change the nature of the war. Governments on every side were perfectly willing to bomb the crap out of civilians when they thought it suited their purpose or if they beleived it was neccessary. Again, moral judgements have to be made in those circumstances, but it doesn't make sense to complain that the blows were out of proportion to one another, given that the whole point of war is to overpower your enemy.



I already told you, that question is way overdone. I shouldn't have to remind you of all the massive threads full of arguing over whether these bombs were justified. I'm not apologizing for Truman or anyone else, I'm just pointing out that using Japanese actions to "justify" or not justify the bombs misses the basic point of a war.

The decision to bomb Japan with the A bomb is considered one of the best examples of applied anthropology, even though it had grave effects. The Japanese were not prepared to surrender, and Anthropologists at the time (something like 2/3 of all anthropologists in the world at that time were employed by the US War Department), through enthographic research, realized that Japan would not surrender until the Emperor surrendered, and that the Emperor would only surrender if he was humiliated. Dropping the bomb(s) accomplished just this in a matter of hours.

[Ned]

Originally posted by SpencerH


So you feel (60 years on) that we should have accepted a conditional surrender from Japan but unconditional surrender from Germany?

My point is that we in fact accepted the condition in August that was offered in June.

[Patroklos]

Ned, It is uncontrovertable truth that the Japanese had no intention of surrendering beforet the bomb, and it is undeniable truth that the only reason they did after the bombing is becasue the emperor forced them too. You may be right in that they offered conditional surrender, but as has been stated, over an over again at nauseum, that was in no way shape or form acceptable. Hiroshima was a military base, in fact I het you could have dropped a bomba t randam at that time and hit a military base. Hiroshima, like any other idustrial/military support center, was a legitimate target. The details of the deaths of the civilians IE burning to death in a much more brutal firebombing or being instatly killed in a flash DOES NOT MATTER.

-Pat

[Patroklos]

We didn't accept a thing Ned, we gavd them something later as a completely different measure.