• The Nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
    43 replies, posted
Those Japs did not want to give up. You gotta do what you gotta do.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34015617]Well that's war for you. I never said I liked war, but to say one amount of killings is worse than another is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] i don't accept "well it's war" as a justification for anything. i believe there can be acts of war which are less moral than others. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;34015617]Plus the American's have a moral high ground as it was the Japanese who attacked them first, which is why they're usually portrayed as morally superior in WW2[/QUOTE] not if they start killing tens of thousands of civilians. some sort of claim to "moral superiority" does not allow someone to get away with anything that happens after that.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34015834]not if they start killing tens of thousands of civilians. some sort of claim to "moral superiority" does not allow someone to get away with anything that happens after that.[/QUOTE] Every single major nation involved in World War 2 bombed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Quite simply, that was how World War II was.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34015834] not if they start killing [B]tens of thousands[/B] of civilians. some sort of claim to "moral superiority" does not allow someone to get away with anything that happens after that.[/QUOTE] [quote=OP][B]90,000–166,000[/B] people were killed in Hiroshima and [B]60,000–80,000[/B] were killed in Nagasaki[/quote]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34015318]The bombing of Nagasaki was done to frighten the Russians so it was a completely unjustified bombing.[/QUOTE] There are more reasons you know, such as ending the damned war because either way each method would result in massive causalities and using the method that hurts you the least is the most preferable method. I can see your reason being a valid point as demonstrating the power of that single weapon to the world stage would solidify ones presence as a victor. Furthermore the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to me. . . are morally complex, but in the grand scheme horrible yet needed. After the initial bombing of Hiroshima I believe we gave the Japanese a chance to surrender though I may be wrong on this Hiroshima point, correct me if I am. Though I do know even before the bombings we gave them the Potsdam Declaration which they also ignored. You also have to consider the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just random choice, Hiroshima was an important industrial and military city. It was the base of operations for one of the generals Shunroku Hata I think it was which commanded a good portion of southern Japan it also served an important sector for communications. Nagasaki was a large port which speaks for itself, cripple the ports of a seafaring nation and you have crippled them. Nagasaki was also a large industrial area to where they manufactured many things used in the war, munitions, ships, general equipment, and all sorts of stuff. It was a strategic target that would've hampered their ability to respond if they refused to surrender after the initial atomic bombing. Another thing which is kind of unrelated but I can see it as relevant, is Japan's extreme cruelty in the war. The Japanese as hopefully a large portion of Facepunch knows were extremely sadistic in their treatment of people such as the Chinese, Koreans, Prisoners of War, Natives/Civilians of the Philippine islands. They killed well over 30 million people. . . Far more than the Nazi's did, now I don't know how this plays into the nuclear bombings, but I guess it can relate to the scenario that would've resulted if we didn't opt for the nuclear bombing of Japan and instead went forth with land invasion and normal bombing exercises. Now I know the Allies were also responsible for their fair share of atrocities in the Pacific Theater such as firebombing the cities. But hey war is hell and it happened.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34015834]i don't accept "well it's war" as a justification for anything. i believe there can be acts of war which are less moral than others. not if they start killing tens of thousands of civilians. some sort of claim to "moral superiority" does not allow someone to get away with anything that happens after that.[/QUOTE] The American government was looking out for the good of the American people, an invasion would have cost thousands more American lives, so they used the nuclear attacks to bring about Japans surrender. And no, there are no "moral" acts of war, I mean what about conscripts? They don't want to fight any more than any civilians, so why is it okay to kill them but not the civilians in the factories? Civilians dying in a war is no more tragic than the deaths of soldiers in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;34013627]Germany wasn't suing for peace. Germany was trying to bring Britain to her knees and surrender so that Germany can continue their conquests throughout Europe. There is no sense of "peace" during that time. So that's irrelevant. [/QUOTE] Germany had no reason to fight Britain, the terms they offered were generous, Britain would make no concessions but allow Germany to expand into Eastern Europe, but Churchill refused, not to surrender, but to end the war. Many a time peace with Britain was requested by the Germans (Why on Earth do you think Rudolf Hess flew to Scotland??). So it is very much relevant EDIT: I read up on it some more, the Germans even offered to pull out of France, Denmark and Norway for peace with the British. I think the whole fanatical brainwashing is very much exagerrated, I say this from family alive during the war but that's beyond the scope of this post. One need only see the calm and obedience the Japanese offered during the occupation, much to the surprise of the Americans who had delayed it for fear of troop safety. As for Japanese war crimes I must admit they were much much worse than anything the allies have done, but this is about the atomic bombings. You portray the bombings as necessary to end the war, they were however as I've said numerous times only to be ignored, they were only necessary to end the war with unconditional surrender of Japan essentially becoming vassal to the United States, the war could have been ended with an armistice with more leaniant terms, that would nonetheless evacuate the Japanese from their conquests annd dissarm them. Indeed we are judging past happenings with modern standards, however the indiscriminate killing of civilians was considered unjust by the allies at the time and we (allied nations) executed axis commanders responsible for it at the conclusion of the Nuremberg and Far East trials. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;34016046]The American government was looking out for the good of the American people, an invasion would have cost thousands more American lives, so they used the nuclear attacks to bring about Japans surrender. And no, there are no "moral" acts of war, I mean what about conscripts? They don't want to fight any more than any civilians, so why is it okay to kill them but not the civilians in the factories? Civilians dying in a war is no more tragic than the deaths of soldiers in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Once again you fail to realise the importance of Soviet entry in the war in precipitating Japanese surrender and assume that invasion was necessary to end the war. It was only necessary for unconditional surrender and total US dominance of Japan, hardly a necessity.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually had large military presences rather than just civilians. According to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima#World_War_II_and_Atomic_Bombing"]Wikipedia[/URL], [QUOTE]During World War II, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.[/QUOTE] As for Nagasaki, also according to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagasaki"]Wikipedia[/URL], [QUOTE]During the Meiji period, Nagasaki became a center of heavy industry. Its main industry was ship-building, with the dockyards under control of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries becoming one of the prime contractors for the Imperial Japanese Navy, and with Nagasaki harbor used as an anchorage under the control of nearby Sasebo Naval District. These connections with the military made Nagasaki a major target for bombing by the Allies in World War II.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=chumchum;34016048] As for Japanese war crimes I must admit they were much much worse than anything the allies have done, but this is about the atomic bombings. You portray the bombings as necessary to end the war, they were however as I've said numerous times only to be ignored, they were only necessary to end the war with unconditional surrender of Japan essentially becoming vassal to the United States, the war could have been ended with an armistice with more leaniant terms, that would nonetheless evacuate the Japanese from their conquests annd dissarm them. Indeed we are judging past happenings with modern standards, however the indiscriminate killing of civilians was considered unjust by the allies at the time and we (allied nations) executed axis commanders responsible for it at the conclusion of the Nuremberg and Far East trials.[/QUOTE] Focusing on your Armistice statement, you should consider the Japanese culture at the time, and still today, they're an extremely Nationalistic group of people who in some cases would rather die fighting than succumb to defeat and what they perceive to be humiliation. Now I fully realize that a surrender at the time might have been possible, but it is also perfectly debatable that the sheer display of force is what had them surrender, specifically speaking the emperor at the time asking them to surrender. Even then it was believed the emperor was vulnerable to assassination attempts so he was replaced with a current prince at the time. Even during the surrender multiple military officers committed public suicide and other army officers even hacked American military men to death with swords from the sheer rage they filled themselves with after their surrender.
And you believe that unconditional surrender is more acceptable to these nutcases than a face saving armistice? It is these madmen who insisted upon the terms I spoke of earlier and that Japan must continue to fight to secure them in a peace treaty rather than have the humiliation of an uncnditional surrender. They were not fighting to win the war but to try to sign a treaty on those terms. The attempted coup against the Emperor was because of his acceptance of the Potsdam declaration (with an exception - he, and successive emperors would remain head of State of Japan ) They would have not done so in the case of an armistice signed on the terms THEY had demmanded. And this Japanese fanatacism is exaggerated in regards to civilian populace, the war had become EXTREMELY unpopular ammongst the Japanese people , but they were kept quiet from sheer fear of the Kempeitai. Indeed from those I've met who'd lived in wartime Japan the one thing they wanted was food, nothing else, everyday life and survival takes precedence to everything. That is why the Japanese were so obedient and hard working during the occupation, the citezenry was simply fed up with the madness the State had dragged them into for the past eight years.
[QUOTE=chumchum;34016330]And you believe that unconditional surrender is more acceptable to these nutcases than a face saving armistice? It is these madmen who insisted upon the terms I spoke of earlier and that Japan must continue to fight to secure them in a peace treaty rather than have the humiliation of an uncnditional surrender. They were not fighting to win the war but to try to sign a treaty on those terms. The attempted coup against the Emperor was because of his acceptance of the Potsdam declaration (with an exception - he, and successive emperors would remain head of State of Japan ) They would have not done so in the case of an armistice signed on the terms THEY had demmanded.[/QUOTE] Fair point, but the sheer will and determination that drove the Japanese people to some of their actions in the war is notable even if for their needs of agreement. Along with the near complete military control of the government in Japan as that might have compounded diplomatic situations. The Emperor in their culture is highly regarded so if he originally spoke out it could have preemptively ended the war. But it could of also resulted in him being assassinated by military figures on the grounds of "treason" which would have massively complicated the political and military scenario. I have to say I'm ambivalent on the nature of the surrender in some views I support the unconditional surrender in others I hate it, in others I'm neutral. Its a complex thing. Also do you have a link to the armistice they demanded? I would love to read it. EDIT: Read your addition (is it an addition) To the fed up thing, that does sound true, and I can quite believe that, but even then a frightened slave will still strike out if their master demands it from then for fear of repercussion to not only them, but their family to. I guess it sounds like the civilian situation of North Korea. Very interesting point.
[URL]http://www.doug-long.com/anami.htm[/URL] This was the leader most adamant on persisting the war and who's terms listed here were the most excessive of the peace offers. Of course it doesn't rule out other concessions to be made to the allies. What most wanted was the assurance that the emperor would remain, eventually these assurances were made and sure enough the Japanese surrendered at Showa's request.
[QUOTE=chumchum;34016625][URL]http://www.doug-long.com/anami.htm[/URL] This was the leader most adamant on persisting the war and who's terms listed here were the most excessive of the peace offers. Of course it doesn't rule out other concessions to be made to the allies. What most wanted was the assurance that the emperor would remain, eventually these assurances were made and sure enough the Japanese surrendered at Showa's request.[/QUOTE] Thanks for that, I find it quite interesting...
[QUOTE=chumchum;34016048]I think the whole fanatical brainwashing is very much exagerrated, I say this from family alive during the war but that's beyond the scope of this post. One need only see the calm and obedience the Japanese offered during the occupation, much to the surprise of the Americans who had delayed it for fear of troop safety.[/quote] The fanatical brainwashing isn't that exaggerated. I'm not saying the ENTIRE country was ready to die for their emperor but the military, which virtually ran Japan anyway, made sure their doctrine of bushido was enforced into women and children. I mean, at the very least it shows how far Japan was willing to go. Then that superiority complex comes in... Have you seen the documentary series World at War? It's fantastic and they do some brilliant segments on Japan during and even before WWII. [quote]As for Japanese war crimes I must admit they were much much worse than anything the allies have done, but this is about the atomic bombings.[/quote] The point of even mentioning it is to put into perspective their brutal military exuberance throughout the pacific theater. Couple that with invasions of Okinawa and Iwo Jima and the brutal aftermath of those battles, they became the precursor to what a potential invasion of the Japanese mainland was to be like only several times that. [quote]You portray the bombings as necessary to end the war, they were however as I've said numerous times only to be ignored, they were only necessary to end the war with unconditional surrender of Japan essentially becoming vassal to the United States, the war could have been ended with an armistice with more leaniant terms, that would nonetheless evacuate the Japanese from their conquests annd dissarm them. [/quote] Their choice of 'silence' (the Japanese word starting with an 'm'...can't remember) in response to the Declaration was reckless. I'm not really sure what their point of duking it out further was but it's a fair assumption to say they just didn't believe in surrender until the bitter end. They got just that. I'll find a quote regarding it. Also, If you read the points of the Potsdam Declaration they don't seem unrealistic or unfair and I wouldn't really consider that close to Vassalage. If you honestly believe Japan had ANY room to make any calls regarding the conditions for surrender, you're mistaken. They did not. [quote]Prime Minister Suzuki met with the press, and stated: [i]I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.[/i] The meaning of mokusatsu, literally "kill with silence," can range from "ignore" to "treat with contempt"—which fairly accurately described the range of reactions within the government. But [b]Suzuki's statement, particularly its final sentence, leaves little room for misinterpretation and was taken as a rejection by the press, both in Japan and abroad, and no further statement was made in public or through diplomatic channels to alter this understanding.[/b][/quote] As a general note: No nation could compete to the same degree of industrial strength that the United States had. Many Japanese officers and officials knew it was unlikely any good would come out for Japan after waking the "sleeping giant". Yet there was not enough of that dissent. I don't think the populace was "afraid" so to speak of speaking out, I just think they didn't know any better. Propaganda, a dramatic social shift in the 19th century into the Bushido code, nationalism and territorial expansionism. They felt invincible and had undying faith in their Emperor and his decisions. Even though many of them didn't even know what he really looked or sounded like until he made that public address following their surrender.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.