The most tasteless and insensitive museum exhibit ever.

[Q Classic]

?

you do realize i meant any exhibit about the bomb itself, as in, documenting the history and development of the manhattan project and so on?

[Kropotkin]

It was a joke!

[Q Classic]

ah. my mistake. i took it seriously as my viewpoint here is obviously not quite in the majority... and i appear to be taking a bit of flak for having that position.

[Kropotkin]

Understandable, have done the same misstake myself during more or less heated debates. The face with rolling eyes and a stupid red hat makes it quite obvious though.

[Q Classic]

no, it doesn't.

the makes it obvious. the is patronizing as if they didn't get you the first time.

'course, it's better than me just deadpanning it, which got me restricted once.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

No, its not debatable. In recent years the Japanese government has released much of their end of war documentation and paperwork. The History Channel aired a series analyzing some of the info. The most amazing thing I discovered from it was that the two atomic bombs had no impact on the Japanese decision to fight to the death. Their ministry simply readjusted their timetable on when the entire Japanese populace would become extinct and the number of American soldiers they would kill in the process.

The actual event that caused the Japanese to surrender was the declaration of war on Japan by Russia. They considered Russia their ally and Russia declared war because they were afraid America would occupy all of Japan after Russia saw the results of the two Atomic bombs.

Not entirely true. The cabinet was still split after Nagasaki and the Emperor ordered the surrender.

[Ned]

The central question is whether the Japanese would have surrendered with the ONLY condition that they would have retained their emperor. That appeared to be the only condition they asked for when they offered to surrender months earlier. Truman never explored their conditional offer, instead went forward with the bomb. The argument being made by many in his adminstration was that this would impress the Soviets who had been pushing Truman around at Potsdam.

Eisenhower and most of the top military opposed the use of the bomb on human grounds. Eisenhower told Truman this at Potsdam. The top military wanted to accept Japan's conditional surrender primarily to head off the Soviet invasion of China.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

No, its not debatable. In recent years the Japanese government has released much of their end of war documentation and paperwork. The History Channel aired a series analyzing some of the info. The most amazing thing I discovered from it was that the two atomic bombs had no impact on the Japanese decision to fight to the death. Their ministry simply readjusted their timetable on when the entire Japanese populace would become extinct and the number of American soldiers they would kill in the process.

The actual event that caused the Japanese to surrender was the declaration of war on Japan by Russia. They considered Russia their ally and Russia declared war because they were afraid America would occupy all of Japan after Russia saw the results of the two Atomic bombs.

First, the History Channel is infortainment--it's not a particularly authoritative source. I've seen them present ludicrous whoppers. Just watch any of their Nostradamus specials, wherein whackos are given credible air time as "experts." The same channel also aired a docudrama about the Japanese cabinet, showing a strong sentiment to surrender from many factions.

Second, your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense if the first were true. Why would Japan care about surrendering once the Russians entered if they were already willing to die, to the last man, to fight an invasion? What difference would it make?

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Agathon:

Re: The most tasteless and insensitive museum exhibit ever

Besides, when you say "tasteless", aren't you implying subjectivity (as taste naturally is subjective); and if so would you not agree that, perhaps, historically, an underlying goal of the study of history has been objectivity? Furthermore, would you suggest that historical revisionism or omissionism serves as a means of correcting social or economic injustices?

Inquiring minds want to know...

[Imran Siddiqui]

The central question is whether the Japanese would have surrender with the ONLY condition that they would have retained their emperor.

Perhaps, perhaps not... but why would we take a 'conditional' surrender? Did we really want a repeat of WW1, where you still have vestiges of the old regime still around stiring up trouble (Ludendorff being a part of the early Nazi movement)?

[monolith94]

I'd be perfectly fine to amend the exhibit to mention the Japanese losses, once the Japanese government recognizes the atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers in China during the second world war, and starts to teach this historical fact in its school system.

[Q Classic]

monolith

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sava
from reading this thread I've learned:

glamorizing the murder of civilians is good because the japanese army was bad?

but I guess America is so arrogant, ignorant, and heartless to acknowledge that dropping nukes on defenseless civilians wasn't such a bad thing...

You don't get it, do you?? I believe that the nuclear bombings were not justified -- it was nothing but part of the first Cold War political act against the Soviet Union, in my opinion.

BUT at the same time, maintaining objectivity, I also know that Japan would like the rest of the world to focus exclusively on being nuked twice, so we can forget about their crimes against humanity.

[Asher]

Agathon's in the right on this one, clearly the name of all of the victims, along with their age and address and email contact for current relatives, ought to be posted against this plane.

And when P-51s are shown, we must show respect to all of the Zero pilots by doing the same.

I'm sure everyone cares.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
There was nothing glorious about that mission. It represents a profound failure of reason on all sides. I don't blame Tibbets and the others who were just doing their job, and I'm not sure I even blame Truman, even though I am not convinced of the military value of the bombing.

Truman was the de jure leader of the American nation. I find the attempt to redeem him questionable.

Firstly the American people, I guess, were not consulted in regard to the actual use of nuclear weapons.

The deployment and use of nuclear weapons have since been a cause of great distress to the human race.

It might be that he was overly influenced by Air General Curtis le May. After all he suggested nukes to be used offensively against China during the Korean conflict. Nevertheles the call was made by Truman. Granted Truman was an apparatjik in the Democratic Party machine, but you would guess that even a vice-president would be able to be aquainted with moral clarity. Maybe that is too much to ask off a clothes dealer?