There are a lot of people all over the world who do not understand that more people were killed in the undefended city of Dresden, Germany, over two days of fire-bombing than were killed in BOTH Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the atomic bombing there. But because of the political profits that many Japanese officials today make from the atomic bombing, these facts are conveniently forgotten in the efforts to make Japan look like a victim.

It is a FACT that not even one Japanese soldier ever surrendered during all of WWII. Instead of surrender, they killed themselves. Those who were captured, were found unconscious from their wounds. As the Allies were preparing to invade Japan, the Japanese citizens were being trained to fight with sharpened bamboo poles. This is how crazy the propaganda of the Japanese Government had made the Japanese People. In the "glory" of fighting for the Emperor and the Sun Goddess, these brainwashed people were going to commit national suicide. And in the tradition of the samurai-robots of the olden days, the Japanese People would have become an extinct race, even helping to kill each other!

The only thing that saved Japan and the Japanese People from self-inflicted extinction, was the surrender of Japan brought on by the atomic bombing of those two cities.

So, instead of listening to a bunch of self-serving Japanese politicians cry about how the "poor" Japanese were viciously bombed with "ruthless" atomic weapons, it would be better to drink some tea and reflect upon how nice it is that Japan is still a great country inhabited by a great people who survived terrible times thanks to being bombed with an invention that stopped the war dead in its tracks.

if japan wasn't nuked, they wouldn't of became an extinct race

I think that you have just written the most ridiculous argument I have ever had the pleasure of reading.

How about you go to Hiroshima and tell the people who are STILL suffering from the physical after effects of that bomb and tell them how it SAVED them and see what their response is.

The atomic bomb was the most inhumane, unjustified act of the 20th century and the suffering that resulted from it, terrible.

I'm not too sure about that.

Weren't we arguing about this somewhere else?

Ok! I retract any statement that seems to cite my opinion and I stick with



Better?

Maybe. I don't remember arguing about the a-bomb at all, but you didn't have to get all snippy.

It's like saying " Man I saved you cuz I stabbed you in your chest"

I'm not snippy! I'm sorry!

I am going to have to disagree with your statement.

Noted! Not wanting to get into an argument but what are your reasons for thinking that?

Personally feel like the holocaust was much more inhumane and unjustifiable than some atomic bombs that were dropped in the 20th century.

Perhaps it would be better stated, "Instead of shooting you in the head when you refused to surrender, I just shot you in the leg and you lived."

You'd have a fair argument there but both were atrocities committed against innocent people, both cause a great number of fatalities and an immense amount of suffering to those who suffered.

Also the emotional damage over the years afterwards to the survivors was great in both instances. Why I thought the atomic bomb was worse was because of the physical after effects which last even to this day.

...shot ya in the leg with an shotgun at point blank range.

Don't get me wrong I'm believe in all the reasons for the use of the A bomb, i got $hit from my Japanese professor for it this morning for arguing against...

...but dude we don't have to shove it to Japanese people face that "we saved them by beating the fu-k outta them"

Interesting...I wonder why you view the atom bomb as a bigger atrocity than the British conventional bombings of German cities...it was no worse in death toll, even counting those still feeling the effects today.

I don't see how the atomic bomb is more inhumane and unjustifiable compared to the holocaust. The way I see it the holocaust was a regime of genocide, as for the atomic bomb it was a result from pearl habor and the war.

I wouldn't condone any bombing of civilians. You want a war, fight it between the soldiers...leave the innocents out of it.

Not like I'm an expert in the chronology but didn't the German airforce bomb British cities first?

That's beside the point though, reason I think the atomic bomb is worse is because they didn't know what the longterm effects were going to be but they still used it. It was a nice, convenient excuse to use a new weapon don't you think?



Yeah, let's blame the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the actions of the Japanese government and airforce against a naval base. Great argument there

Anyways , you seem like you are whining about the A-bombs more than the Japanese themselves. If it really was the greatest attrocity of the 20th century wouldn't they speak up for it themselves?? 2 2 2

*Laughs* Yeah let's complain about the country that has a huge military presence in our country and a president who hasn't exactly got a "peace-loving" reputation.

The Japanese can only say so much.

Wow that is such a coward mentality of their government and people ,not even speaking up for the "The most inhumane, unjustified act of the 20th century" , no wonder why some people call Japan American's dog. 2 2 2 Thanks for making it clear.

And the point would be? I recall the Japanese starting war with us and not vice-versa. So are you justifing the 'atrocity' for me?


Typical British thinking and also shows a lack of education in an American History. Not that I fault you, because I know very little of British History, but I don't go formulating opinions of atrocities. Fact is, the bombing was Truman's choice. He had no desire to see the long-term results. He was a humanist and he didn't make the decision irresponsibly. He chose what he felt was right, he chose what he felt was the lesser of two evils. I've even seen reasoning by other Brits that it was an atrocity because we dropped two bombs. Apparently, the fact that we used two was proof of malicious intent. No, its a fact that we dropped leaflets in Japanese warning citizens of the upcoming bomb. We warned the government to surrender. They didn't. We dropped one bomb. We waited for surrender. Didn't get it. Dropped bomb #2. For awhile we feared they still would not surrender and the nukes would be for nought. We didn't have a third bomb. Luckily, they did surrender.

We didn't blame the citizens. That's how wars are fought. Not between soldiers, but between nations. Do you support the British troops? Maybe not in idealogy, but you support the economy that funds British troops. I do the same for Americans. Everybody is involved in war, directly or indirectly. Wars are won through logistics and atrition, not killing the man shooting you. You kill the man making the rifle, the man making bread for the man who makes the rifle, etc. This is also why war is to be avoided at all cost. The British bombed the fu-k out of 'innocents' in WW2, we bombed the fu-k out of 'innocents' in WW2, Germans bombed people, Japanese bombed people, everybody bombed innocents.

My point is that it was "more of the same". German bombed British citizens then Britain did the same. Japan bombs a military base so let's use a new weapon on two large cities against a country that has been decimated and can hardly fight anymore anyway.

Even if the Japanese government continues the war when losing, no justification for dropping the A-bomb on citizens, they don't decide whether the war was being fought or surrender was to be made.



Well the American education system has done a good job with you. No leaflets for the citizens and that's from someone who was living there. It makes a nice story though, we warned the citizens with leaflets and they still defied...yeah but not true. I don't blame you, I suppose if I dropped the A-bomb on unsuspecting citizens...I would also in subsequent years make up a story along was lines.

Apart from being Truman's maid or something, no I cannot verify what kind of person he was...only his actions do so. British commanders at the time reported that Japan could be invaded and defeated within a week. So don't try "the A-bombs were necessary to end the war" either.



We know we're not talking about idealistic situations, it sometimes happens that civilians will be bombed...but we're talking about the A-bomb here. A new weapon whose effects in the long-term were unknown and its need to be used, at best, seriously questionable.

The military strength Japan had at the time in August would be equivolent to dropping the A-bomb against Rwanda or something. Best word for it is "over-kill".

Okay now your just being ignorant. I'm done with this thread. Are you even reading what BrianT's wrote?

I've read it.

How about instead of insulting people, you explain to me what part I missed?

Oh, so you were living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the 1940s? Bull$hit.


What's the difference between me bombing you with napalm or bombing with a nuke? I just don't get it. The British always make some distinction to justify their acts in bombing innocent civilians and our bombings.


Yes, read his actions. Unless the A-Bomb is the only action you know him by, which goes back to your total lack of knowledge on American History. Again, that's what British commanders said. I've never heard of it, but I know what American commanders were saying and it was death tolls for both the Japanese and Americans would be catastrophic. If you want to get into some wierd conspiracy theory that American generals were lying out their teeth so they can test a bomb that was already tested than fine. Go for it!

That's all I have to say on the subject and it's obvious it's turning into a 'British commanders said this, Americans said something different.'

My girlfriend's grandma was though...if you're ever in Hiroshima, a fascinating lady who has had a challenging life. If you're so sure of the A-bomb, I advise you to have a talk with her and ask her about the "leaflets" and the warnings.



Whoa! Don't get me stereotyped as some stupid Brit with the "We're the good guys" attitude. I think Winston Churchill was an idiot and I wouldn't have fought in it myself because it was an unjust war (if you want the reasons for this, ask me seperately, though I doubt anyone cares what I think).

The difference is that the Americans used something that they didn't know would still be ruining people's lives even now. That's my problem with it. If you'd carried on using regular bombing, better, if you'd used napalm, maybe acceptable....but you have to admit, the chance to use a newly-developed weapon was oh-so-tempting.



Yes, let's not try to get into the what each of us were taught etc. It was never meant to come like that. In historical matters, we are pretty much limited by our education. My American history will obviously not be as good as your's but I know a little about Truman...so don't paint me as a complete idiot whose views are easily dismissed because I'm an idiot. I stated an opinion and now I'm trying to back it up...so if you have something to contradict my opinion, please tell me otherwise I'm just holding bad opinions!

But don't you think that maybe the British commanders' ideas on a possible invasion might be a little less biased than those of a country that (might) have been wanting to test a new weapon?

By the way: This isn't intended to get flamy etc. but thanks for actually putting some content into your posts and trying to exchange views and information, wish I could say the same for khu91x.

My main objection is a lack of motivation. The weapon was already tested. The effects of radiation were already known. Hell, even the length of time the radiation would last was roughly known. It's not like this weapon was totally untested and some American general was like, "Hot damn! Let's see what this muthafu-ka can do!" We didn't do this to show our might either. There was nobody left. Communist Russia at the time was an ally, Germany was gone, we were bombing Japan, who to impress and scare? Nobody. The only motivation was to gain surrender without the loss of American lifes.

Umm I can see where you're coming from..but it's going to be a flip on which side you fall here.

1) The atomic bomb was tested, out in the desert, on small buildings and maybe dummies or human substitutes. Was a chance to use it against actual humans in wartime and being seen to be justified too good an opportunity?

2) Well we are know radiation isn't great for you...but into the 1940's, we didn't know exactly what the long term effects were for people suffering from radiation poisoning. It's true that they probably had a good idea of how long the radiation would stay around for but they didn't know the long-term effects on people.

3) The might argument is one that is used, particularly in this country as to why America used the bomb and it is mostly in relation to Russia. I didn't use it because I don't particularly buy it and don't think America would commit such an act just to scare off a potential enemy. But don't you think that the idea of showing off the weapon was a minor factor? Or at least an extra incentive?

So basically, unless you're in the American government at the time of the A-bomb, you won't know the true reasons for it happening. The fact is that there are discrepancies in how the A-bomb has been reported and looked upon in American history but I think you'll need a leap of faith to get to the point where I am.

I think the evidence when considered as a whole is enough to at least suspect that there was more to it than simple victory...but how far you want to go is up to you.

If it was an action just to spare the loss of American lives, then maybe it is defendable but looks to me to be irresponsible.

In direct response to your comment, I think there was a little motivation there (not as much as some would claim) but I think that little motivation becomes so much more important when there is the chance that you can do something and still come off looking like the good guy.

BTW, thanks for the talk BrianT, it's been an interesting talk at least and you're pretty well-informed.

Uhhh the Japanese killed about 8 million Chinese during their conflict with China a huge number of them being innocent women and children. Im not saying any country deserves to be nuked then again im not saying Japan shouldn’t have been nuked either. And I read somewhere that a large number of the people who died from the nukes were Koreans who were forced to work for the Japanese. America chose to nuke those areas probably because they had lots of workers and factories there. Unlike ordinary Japanese who could flee(Americans dropped leaflets warning them to leave), the Koreans were forced to work and never given a chance to flee. Seriously pathetic how you believe Japan is innocent or never deserved the nuke. Its extremely regrettable that several Koreans were killed and may they rest in peace as well as all those killed by the Japanese. And the Japanese didn’t build a memorial to the huge number of Koreans who died? The same people who were forced to work and killed because of your own selfishness? Seriously pathetic. If japan ever chooses to become militant again, ill have no qualms with supporting another nuclear strike to Japan. Preferably by either China or United Korea followed by a full invasion.

I agree.



100% though there aren't any concrete figures on the amount but you're right.



No leaflets in Hiroshima. Even the newspaper (Chicago Daily Tribune) reports that the leaflets were dropped AFTER the first bomb.



Putting words in my mouth. Innocent, no....deserving of the A-bomb, no.

I find your supporting a future atomic strike against Japan scary...if you had said "If Japan does so and so then...." I would disagree but I could at least understand. You just sound like you don't like Japan at all.

Your argument that because Japan had committed atrocities before, then it is justifiable to drop the bomb against civilians in this instance is very vigilante. Any crimes the Japanese committed against other nations are to be settled in an international court and not to be simply retributed.

Your's is a scary attitude but I imagine reinforced by anger towards Japan.

We're getting a little off-topic by debating whether the Atomic bomb was justified or not and are forgetting how ridiculous the opening post was "The Japanese were very lucky to get nuked".....

EDIT: Monument for Korean victims at West Honkawa Bridge, peace park, Hiroshima.

An invasion of the main Japanese islands would've cost the allies hundreds of thousands of men, and the Japanese possibly millions. Japan was far from beaten by the time of Hiroshima, they were going to fight to the last man. The Atom bomb saved lives, or would you have preferred a bloody invasion to have occured instead?

Really? What about the D-day landings? Japan was in a weaker position than Germany was at this point and what were the losses there?

Your claim about Japan fighting to the last man seem a bit too broad also. It is well documentated that the Japanese people in the last year of the war, steadily increased in opposition to the war where in fact, at the end the pro-war public was well in the minority. The anti-war public became very anti-government.

You can't use counter-factual examples as they are not logical. We're not talking about he militaristic implications of an invasion or whatever because it didn't have to be an invasion. As stated before, it could have been a napalm attack or heightened bomb raids.

So in summary,

1) I disagree with your statement that Japan was far from beaten.
2) It seems that your "fighting to the last man" statement is at least over-generous.
3) In any case, actual figures for an invasion are not overly-important as there were alternatives to the A-bomb.

I'm not advocating a position against the military action against Japan, just the A-bomb remember?

Extra note: Saving lives of your own military does not count as a reason for Atomic action otherwise every war in the last 50 years was a situation where an A bomb could have been justifiably used.

[quote=GeGeLee,Apr 12 2005, 07:36 AM]
[QUOTE]There are a lot of people all over the world who do not understand that more people were killed in the undefended city of Dresden, Germany, over two days of fire-bombing than were killed in BOTH Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the atomic bombing there. But because of the political profits that many Japanese officials today make from the atomic bombing, these facts are conveniently forgotten in the efforts to make Japan look like a victim.[/QUOTE]

I think one of the main reasons that hiroshima and Nagasaki are focused on more than the other bombings was simply because was an attack on a civilian population that had unique affects of which had never been seen before.


[QUOTE]It is a FACT that not even one Japanese soldier ever surrendered during all of WWII. Instead of surrender, they killed themselves.[/QUOTE]

Mind you that the americans shot japanese people even when surrender was attempted. I don't blame them for their suicides. I would have done similar.

[QUOTE]Those who were captured, were found unconscious from their wounds. As the Allies were preparing to invade Japan, the Japanese citizens were being trained to fight with sharpened bamboo poles. [/QUOTE]

It was much more wide ranged than bamboo poles. Though that was one aspect.

[QUOTE]This is how crazy the propaganda of the Japanese Government had made the Japanese People.[/QUOTE]

Meh. Japanese people didn't know how or what would happen if the americans took over. I don't blame the government for what it attempted to do here.

[QUOTE]In the "glory" of fighting for the Emperor and the Sun Goddess, these brainwashed people were going to commit national suicide. And in the tradition of the samurai-robots of the olden days, the Japanese People would have become an extinct race, even helping to kill each other![/QUOTE]

I love you little jabs at us. Though the more and more I think about extinction would have been the best answer for the people of japan.

[QUOTE]So, instead of listening to a bunch of self-serving Japanese politicians cry about how the "poor" Japanese were viciously bombed with "ruthless" atomic weapons, it would be better to drink some tea and reflect upon how nice it is that Japan is still a great country inhabited by a great people who survived terrible times thanks to being bombed with an invention that stopped the war dead in its tracks.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Hiroshima and nagasaki should never be forgotten as anything other than a ruthless attack by the american "people". I hardly think that japanese should be thankful for the atomic bomb at all.

I disagree. Hiroshima and nagasaki were the most horrific events to happen to people during the 20th century. The holocaust and Nanjing were simply a larger scale of cruelty.

No we havent built one specifically for the korean victims of the atomic bomb. Monuments are made to all of the atomic bomb victims. Not just the koreans.Why the hell should we have gone out of our way for them? If the koreans want a memorial specifically for their a bomb victims let them build it themselves.

Eh whatever I personally feel the atom bombs were justified.

2 this is ridiculous. I wonder how many people actually believe that the “A-bomb was necessary to end the war” because that’s what they read in their US textbook. And people are getting all worked up over one Japanese textbook used in less than 1% of the schools. 2

You got to be kidding me there was no need to drop the A-bomb. A better analogy would have been “after shooting you in the leg I decided to shoot you in the back as well just to let people know I’m not to be fu-ked with.”


Yup, that’s what some people where saying. Kind of reminds me of though of something what US officials were saying a year ago. “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.”

But apparently not all US officials where agreement.


Some other guys who were against the use of the A-bomb


Japan was defeated way before Hiroshima. Carpet bombings from B-29’s made sure of this. From March to May US air raids left the country in ruins. Do you really need a bat to beat up on a crippled?


http://www.doug-long.com/


Tested in a desert on a bunch of rocks. I guess you could get a rough idea of what it could do but to drop it on a city full of people. Hot damn! We’ll really get to see what this muthafu-ker can do!

United States Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 stated



Russia was an ally the duration of the war but they weren’t exactly the best of friends. It is interesting to note though that Japan was seeking a way to surrender way before the drop of the first A-bomb.


http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/1945.html

Conspiracy theorists say that Japan was looking to surrender to Russia who planned on entering the war against Japan on Aug 8. However two days before that date the US had already dropped the first A-bomb and dropped another one the day after. Thus insuring Japan’s surrender to the US and initiating the start of the cold war.

Here’s an interesting quote from Truman

"I don't think we ought to use this thing [the A-Bomb] unless we absolutely have to. It is a terrible thing to order the use of something that (here he looked down at his desk, rather reflectively) that is so terribly destructive, destructive beyond anything we have ever had. You have got to understand that this isn't a military weapon. (I shall never forget this particular expression). It is used to wipe out women and children and unarmed people, and not for military uses." (David Lilienthal, The Journals of David E. Lilienthal, Vol. Two, pg. 391)

It was total WAR remember? The US doesn't owe Japan anything, Japan can't even own up to its own past. The D-day invasion cost us more than 22,000 men, however we lost double that during Okinawa, and that was not even one of the main Japanese islands. The US had every right to use the atom bomb.

The Japanese Government were training Women and children to fight an Allied invasion, they were far from beaten, an invasion of Japan would've made Okinawa look like a walk in the park. Plus the Japanese government were warned beforehand to either surrender unconditionally or face utter destruction. The Japanese still wanted to surrender conditionally, that was unacceptable considering what Japan had done throughout the war. Face it, if we didn't use the atom bomb, more Japanese would have died from the resulting invasion.

As I said in my previous post, there is a monument just for Korean victims of the bomb in Hiroshima.

Here's a picture:






You're getting off the point once more. This was against civilians. The US may have not owed the Japanese military or even the Japanese government anything but the civilians?

I'll quote this again to give emphasis:


This is NOT the issue. There is no way that more Japanese civilians would have died from an invasion than from the A-bomb (That is of course is the US army behaved itself in the invasion, who knows right?) and even that is besides the point. We're talking about the way these people died and the suffering that lasted for years afterwards. In comparison, a gunshot in the head doesn't seem that bad.

How can you argue against American-educated people in this subject when they are taught that their army had dropped leaflets warning of the A-bomb when this is entirely untrue?!

You've got to wake up...

Wait a minute, you said it in one of your post that leaflets were dropped, but just for the second bombing. So how is that entirely untrue? I'm not using public school education. University professors are not really known for sucking the c@ck of the US government. In any case, I still see no motivation. That's what your argument lacks. You say for testing. I say bs. Tell me what information they gained from blowing up cities over the testing grounds in the desert? What that it decimated the city? I bet the US had no idea that would happen. In any case, you can argue conditional surrender is acceptable, but Americans don't find it acceptable. We don't even settle for conditional surrender when fighting ourselves. Look up Grant and unconditional surrender. He was famous for it.

As for America owing Japanese civilians anything, no they don't. It serves and protects American citizens. Call it what you want, but the President swears an oath to American citizens, not Japanese citizens. That Truman quote should show that he didn't take the bombing likely and would never do it under good conscience just for 'testing.' Even then he had regrets and doubts, but ultimately he did it to save American lives. I personally wouldn't get in an argument about saving Japanese lives, because your right, it's a beating either way. But to line the atomic bombing even in the same realm as the Holocaust or even above it is just completely insane. To save American lives is the president's responsibility and that's why he dropped the bomb.

Selfish? Maybe. But let me ask you, if the British prime minister was told that one out of two men had to die, one was British, the other was American and he knew nothing else about them, who do you think he would choose?

You also seem to forget that Japan is a jungle and mountainous terrain. Any military leader should know that jungles are not easy taking. Vietnam anybody? American forces were vastly superior in technology and in force, but we ultimately withdrew. My grandfather fought in WW2 and it's good possibility if the Army had to invade Japan, he may not have made it. My father wouldn't be alive, he never would have met my mother, and neither I or my sister would be alive to argue the principles of dropping atom bombs. The president chose American lives over Japanese not out of some centrilistic, egotistical idea, but out of duty.

"This is NOT the issue. There is no way that more Japanese civilians would have died from an invasion than from the A-bomb (That is of course is the US army behaved itself in the invasion, who knows right?) and even that is besides the point. We're talking about the way these people died and the suffering that lasted for years afterwards. In comparison, a gunshot in the head doesn't seem that bad."

In any invasion casualties almost always, in major wars, come from civilians. By that time Japanese where starving to death, if you put fighting there and if they didn't surrender at the time that they did, there would have been more dying from starvation and attacks. And you have to remember most of Japanese are located in a small tight area, most of Japan is mountainous. So typical battles would have occurred in the cities and urban or population centers.

Really? If there was nothing to gain, then why were the American government paying for medical records from Japanese doctors who were treating the victims? Sounds like they wanted to know the long-term effects on humans of their new weapon.



I know which he would choose but we're disgressing. There is a difference in my view between the death of a soldier doing his job and the death of a civilian by a military strike. The point I've actually been trying to make was that a normal military strike and there wouldn't be so much commotion, the A-bomb is different. You have two choices when defending it, to say that

a) The American government knew the EXACT effects of the A-bomb before they dropped it and the years and years of excessive suffering it would cause. If you accept this, I can only describe the action as diabolical.

b) The American government did not know the exact effects of the A-bomb when they dropped it. If you accept this, I would describe them as heavily irresponsible.



That's a very nationalistic view. If the American government's responsibility is to protect the lives of American citizens, why go to Iraq? Why send soldiers there to die? I agree with your point in principle (though I find it, amazingly over-trusting) but I don't see it as one that has always been practiced in reality.

But you are right, there was going to be a beating anyway you turn.



For the point about the surrender, I don't argue that America wanted an unconditional surrender as opposed to the conditional one offered. But can you tell me whether this was a justified, objective desire or wanting to humiliate Japan for Pearl Habour?

OH! I over-generalise in my last post about the leaflets, I had described the situation in two previous posts but was rejecting the US taught view that the leaflets were dropped before Hiroshima. They were dropped afterwards in Nagasaki warning of a second strike.

@flipcombatmedic The war after the invasion wouldn't have lasted very long at all. The Japanese military was decimated, they feared Russian invasion and the long-standing view that the Japanese civilians would fight is heavily doubtful. So although civilian casualities would occur, it is doubtful they would have equalled the number of victims the A-bomb produced and definitely any deaths would have been preferable to those who died (and are still dying) by the bomb.


Good talk guys, it's been a successful discussion.

It was more than likely an afterthought. If the government wanted to know the long-term effects, I'm sure they would have no problems experimenting on some captured spy or something.


I'm going with A and once again it was to save American lives. Take that however you want.


Oil possibly though it doesn't seem to me that we gained any. Highly like it was preemptive strike on a possible threat. I have no problems admitting that liberation was a secondary goal.



Once again, we settle for no less. Go back to Grant in the Civil War. He did it countless times and fought when conditional surrender was offered. I suppose it's the American way, right or wrong. You would have to go along the lines that Grant just wanted to humilate other Americans, which would be entirely untrue.

I'm not trying to put out America has this saint-like savior nation as you can obviously see by my arguments, but I just don't see the atomic bomb being a malicious atrocity along the lines of the Holocaust.

You are saying a bunch of women and children with bamboo sticks is what frightened US officials so much? I forgot what kind of weapons US soldiers were using at the time. Bottle rockets? 2 An invasion of Japan near the end of the war would have made any battle during the war look like a walk in the park.


Yes they were told to surrender unconditionally. The government’s problem at the time was relinquishing the Emperor who was viewed as God. If Jesus was walking around right now how many people would just hand him over to their enemy? The US was aware of this little stipulation and all they had to do was mention that the Emperor could stay. Was this so unacceptable?

Former President Herbert Hoover speaking to President Truman

Secretary of War Henry Stimson in a memo to President Truman

You know the funny thing though is that they ended up letting the Emperor stay anyway. The US made no qualms about it.

American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.”


Maybe. But come on the excuse as to why the A-bomb was “necessary to win the war” is basically just a myth told to the American public so they could sleep well at night believing their government did the right thing.

About the leaflets Jaimu-Jaimu, is right there were no leaflets dropped before the bombing of Hiroshima. Leaflets where dropped on Nagasaki on the 10th but didn’t they bomb Nagasaki on the 9th. The US government must have been really concerned about those civilians. 2 I can imagine some house wife snatching one of those pamphlets falling down from the sky. “Hmmm, so it was an atomic bomb that melted the flesh off my three children and husband. You know I thought it was something new, because them regular bombs just don’t have that same affect. Well that’s nice to know.” 2

IMO the US didn't give a $hit about civilians.

"@flipcombatmedic The war after the invasion wouldn't have lasted very long at all. The Japanese military was decimated, they feared Russian invasion and the long-standing view that the Japanese civilians would fight is heavily doubtful. So although civilian casualities would occur, it is doubtful they would have equalled the number of victims the A-bomb produced and definitely any deaths would have been preferable to those who died (and are still dying) by the bomb."

I beg to differ. It wouldn't have lasted long, but it would be longer than if it didn't surrender, which of course after even more resistance, it did with the usage of the bomb.

Also you did know that the rations they were getting were barely enough, in fact a text book I read said that most were at least "half-starved". Upon surrender, the reasons why most Japanese actually like the conquerors is the fact that they airlifted food stuffs, and that they rebuilt the railroad in which supply traveled. This in fact according to the author, "probably saved more people from starvation".

And also was it Tinian, that they were jumping off the cliffs, just proves that there would be some sort of civilian involvement or reaction to conquering. That's why in fact Hirohito in his surrender speech urged the Japanese to "endure the unendurable".

Very difficult to get the wide range of effects testing on an individual. They wanted a large sample of civilians (varying ages etc) and also different distances from the hypocenter. The US ended up taking samples and documents relating to people from every distance (even the tissue samples of those who died immediately).

So I don't think they could just test on a few spies etc.



Ok.



I can see how the "possible threat" line might get thrown about but I imagine the first case is more likely. Iraq has no WMD's...didn't look like such a threat. I don't think many people buy the government's line.

Protecting lives of US citizens seems to be secondary when there are economic/political gains to be made.



Well I would say it is the wrong way to go about things but we'll leave it there as that is an entirely different discussion. I wouldn't be forced to say Grant wanted to humiliate other Americans as it could be any number of reasons why he did so. I'm just offering a possible reason for the Americans in Japan.



It was an unreasonable request from the US, but you'd be surprised at how many of the Japanese citizens were seriously considering turning against the emperor. Even nowadays people blame the emperor more than the US for all that happened.



Looks like it worked.



Ah doesn't surprise me. I'm not so informed on the Nagasaki bomb as it was less reported in the newspapers and I don't know or have spoken to any eyewitnesses from there. I wonder if the leaflets dropping on the 10th was an accident or someone's idea of humour? I suppose at the least, it gives you an excuse in the media to be economical with the truth and say "We warned them with leaflets" and just leave out the dates. 2


@flip are you saying that the people who are still dying from A-bomb related illness now prefer that situation to the possible dying in a military invasion?

and yes the rations were poor but still better than those that were being experienced in Britain at certain points of the war. The main problem for food came in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the A-bombs when soldiers couldn't get there to deliver enough food and water for the victims.

And yes, the emperor was an idiot. A view which most Japanese hold to this day.

But isn't a little ironic that the US let him stay anyway? What was the point in that? It boggles my mind. It's like telling someone in elementary school "I'll have to beat your @$$ ifyou don't give me your blueberry muffin" when I don't even like blueberries. 2 So after beating the kid’s @$$ I tell him he can keep it.

You know if Japan were to have dropped the A-bomb on a US city it would have been considered a war crime and the people responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of civilians’ lives would have been hanged. But since the US was the victor you got some people thinking it was all good.

'The populace of the target cities had been warned. Leaflets had been dropped on 11 Japanese cities on July 27, telling the citizens that America was "in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man." There had been other warnings given to the Japanese during the preceding weeks, while the Twentieth Air Force's Superforts firebombed the country's principal industrial cities.'

That's from about.com

"@flip are you saying that the people who are still dying from A-bomb related illness now prefer that situation to the possible dying in a military invasion?

and yes the rations were poor but still better than those that were being experienced in Britain at certain points of the war. The main problem for food came in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the A-bombs when soldiers couldn't get there to deliver enough food and water for the victims.

And yes, the emperor was an idiot. A view which most Japanese hold to this day."

I'm sure nobody would have liked that. So is starving to death slowly, or getting shot and bleeding to death.

That’s a nice story. On July 27. Say do you know where they dropped these leaflets by chance? And exactly what they were talking about?

The US did not plan on letting Japan know exactly where and when the A-bomb would be dropped.

Here’s a copy of Official Bombing Order given on July 25, 1945



http://www.dannen.com/decision/handy.html

Not one of those four cities mention received any leaflets prior to a bomb being dropped on them (Hiroshima nor Nagasaki).