Japan remembers 67th Anniversary of Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima. Voices anti-nuclear sentiment. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37116670]haha another one of those loons that doesn't immediately wave his american flag when he thinks of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians being vaporized/melted/irradiated :rolleyes: japan was already surrendering dude, and if anything i think we could have chosen a better target for our little fireworks show, preferrably somewhere that wasn't full of civilians[/QUOTE] Your right, should have hit Tokyo, Damnit!

[QUOTE=counterpo0;37116776]Your right, should have hit Tokyo, Damnit![/QUOTE] epic trollage dude

[QUOTE=thisispain;37116685]i agree only because we know that historically the Soviets aren't bothered at all by mass civilians deaths. [editline]6th August 2012[/editline] absolutely not correct at all. you keep forgetting that Japan was extremely worried about the soviet invasion. Japan wanted to surrender before the bombs were ever dropped and we know by the writings of the people involved in the decision of the bombing that the motivation had nothing to do with japan's surrender.[/QUOTE] Yeah people seem to underestimate just how "early" the Cold War started. The Soviets were ready to go hard in Japan and the Pacific. The United States wanted to end the war with Japan as soon as possible. If the war had continued, Soviet forces would have gone into mainland Japan as well as American forces. The United States couldn't afford to lose the strategic advantage of having complete control of the Japanese mainland. It's why the United States needed to end the war quickly and decisively. Any sort of half-heated surrender could have extended the conflict and given the USSR the chance to grab parts of Japan for itself. It's why the United States obliterated two completely civilian areas multiple days apart. They needed a surrender now, not weeks or months down the road.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;37116718]Japan was trying to hold out for one more decisive victory on their side to try to gain a favor with the Soviets. Trying to negotiate with a rival that was curbstomped a few decades ago also does not bode well anyways so they decided to turn to the United States.[/QUOTE] I'm gonna ask for a source again. The only attempts for any sort of peace or surrender that I know of are in late June to mid July with a back-and-forth between Sato/Togo and the Soviets.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37116796']I'm gonna ask for a source again. The only attempts for any sort of peace or surrender that I know of are in late June to mid July with a back-and-forth between Sato/Togo and the Soviets.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html[/url] this is a nice read

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37116764']I'm gonna have to disagree on this. I'm not a historian, but I do know that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the Korean colony was hardly Japan's major concern, and that they knew well enough that the Soviets had no interest in invading the Home Islands, mostly because Japan and the USSR had open communications and a non-aggression pact for the majority of the war. The Soviet invasion of Japanese territory in China took them by surprise, but not so much as to stop them from offering multiple peace deals. The Soviets weren't interested in actually fighting with Japan all that much either, and really only got involved because they wanted a stake in dividing up the Eastern Front and use it for ground to barter for the Western Front. I've yet to see anything that suggests that the Soviets supplied any major threat to the Home Islands and that they played a significant role in the defeat of Japan outside of Manchuria and Korea. By my measure, it seems as though the primary concern for the Japanese before the fall of Germany was protection of the Home Islands, to the point where they sacrificed victories for their colonies in the Pacific (and likely in China) in order to prepare defenses for the assault on the Home Islands.[/QUOTE] Again, the key point here isn't USSR vs Japan. It's cold war mentality. Japan is a massive strategic advantage to the United States. The Soviet Union was drawing up plans to invade the northern islands and eventually move south. The Soviet Union had already declared war on Japan. The only reason their conflict ended early was because of the Japanese surrender to the US.

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;37116791]Yeah people seem to underestimate just how "early" the Cold War started. The Soviets were ready to go hard in Japan and the Pacific. The United States wanted to end the war with Japan as soon as possible. If the war had continued, Soviet forces would have gone into mainland Japan as well as American forces. The United States couldn't afford to lose the strategic advantage of having complete control of the Japanese mainland. [/QUOTE] Disagree, again. The USSR only intended to use Manchuria as a bargaining tool in slicing up the post-war world. While I agree that the Cold War started in the end of WWII, I think you're putting the wrong intentions to the Soviets. While American forces were already preparing for an invasion of the Home Islands by November, the Soviets were making a good time of sitting on their asses at the Korean border and relocating Manchurian industry while fighting Japanese guerrillas. I don't think the Soviets had any intentions of actually spending the manpower on Japan, who they had no quarrels with. Hence the reason why they didn't even bother to participate on the Pacific Front really until the final months of the War. The invasion of China/Manchuria was really just a last-ditch effort to grab something to negotiate with, and less of the opening of a new front for the Soviets. Their real enemy was the Germans who came in and fucked their shit up, they could care less about the Japanese. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;37116823][url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html[/url] this is a nice read[/QUOTE] But it's also a biased and unreliable source. The IHR is hardly scientific or neutral. This was the exact website I was alluding to when I mentioned that the only sources I knew were biased "news" sites and progressive blogs. I mean, read the Wikipedia page: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review[/url]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37116823][url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html[/url] this is a nice read[/QUOTE] I went to the author biographies to check the credentials of the author of that, and found the author Dr. Arthur R. Butz. He wrote this. [thumb]http://www.ihr.org/images/hoax.gif[/thumb] It's a Holocaust denial book. One of the key books of the Holocaust denial movement. I then looked further into this website. And by further I mean it's front page. [url]http://www.ihr.org/[/url] It's a Holocaust denial website, filled with Holocaust denial authors like [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving"]David Irving.[/URL] Any article is [I]at the very least[/I] suspect.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37116860']Disagree, again. The USSR only intended to use Manchuria as a bargaining tool in slicing up the post-war world. While I agree that the Cold War started in the end of WWII, I think you're putting the wrong intentions to the Soviets. While American forces were already preparing for an invasion of the Home Islands by November, the Soviets were making a good time of sitting on their asses at the Korean border and relocating Manchurian industry while fighting Japanese guerrillas. I don't think the Soviets had any intentions of actually spending the manpower on Japan, who they had no quarrels with. Hence the reason why they didn't even bother to participate on the Pacific Front really until the final months of the War. The invasion of China/Manchuria was really just a last-ditch effort to grab something to negotiate with, and less of the opening of a new front for the Soviets. Their real enemy was the Germans who came in and fucked their shit up, they could care less about the Japanese. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] But it's also a biased and unreliable source. The IHR is hardly scientific or neutral. This was the exact website I was alluding to when I mentioned that the only sources I knew were biased "news" sites and progressive blogs. I mean, read the Wikipedia page: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review[/url][/QUOTE] jesus christ holocaust denial come on but they cite sources so whats the biggie [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] wow ok sorry that was terrible i just googled it for the sake of finding something helpful and wow how embarassing

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37116929]jesus christ holocaust denial come on but they cite sources so whats the biggie [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] wow ok sorry that was terrible i just googled it for the sake of finding something helpful and wow how embarassing[/QUOTE] The only source he actually cites is Gar Alperovitz in his book, but Alperovitz has been criticized as a cherry-picker an a revisionist. The quotes by historians never make any argument that Japan attempted a surrender with America. The quotes from Macarthur is unverified and the quote from LeMay is used out of context. [quote] LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb? . . . LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.[/quote]

In WWII, to paint either side as entirely good or entirely evil is idiotic. Total war is a decidedly evil affair. For every Reinhardt Heidrich, the Allies had madmen like Arthur "Bomber" Harris (the mastermind of the genius "let's bomb the civilians until they surrender" plan in Europe). Personally, I do think the bombings were necessary. Evil and horrible, but necessary, as I've yet to see sufficient evidence that it didn't have a profound impact on accelerating the surrender of Japan. The Japanese are right to demand the extinction of Nuclear Weapons (though not Nuclear power). Anyone who thinks that stockpiles of nuclear weapons are a good thing needs to watch a little film by the name of [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQo0BQM3OlQ"]Threads.[/URL]

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37116023]... I can certainly understand why they feel the way they do on an emotional level, but logically nuclear power is the best source of power we have right now. ...[/QUOTE] Eh, how do you qualify something as the "best" source of power? Not even counting the risk of accidents, nuclear fission reactors produce highly toxic waste that lasts thousands and thousands of years. I would hardly qualify it as the "best source of power". Especially when we have green and clean powersources such as wind power, solar power, geothermic power and tidal power.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37116860']Disagree, again. The USSR only intended to use Manchuria as a bargaining tool in slicing up the post-war world. While I agree that the Cold War started in the end of WWII, I think you're putting the wrong intentions to the Soviets. While American forces were already preparing for an invasion of the Home Islands by November, the Soviets were making a good time of sitting on their asses at the Korean border and relocating Manchurian industry while fighting Japanese guerrillas. I don't think the Soviets had any intentions of actually spending the manpower on Japan, who they had no quarrels with. Hence the reason why they didn't even bother to participate on the Pacific Front really until the final months of the War. The invasion of China/Manchuria was really just a last-ditch effort to grab something to negotiate with, and less of the opening of a new front for the Soviets. Their real enemy was the Germans who came in and fucked their shit up, they could care less about the Japanese. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] But it's also a biased and unreliable source. The IHR is hardly scientific or neutral. This was the exact website I was alluding to when I mentioned that the only sources I knew were biased "news" sites and progressive blogs. I mean, read the Wikipedia page: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review[/url][/QUOTE] [quote]Unbeknownst to the Americans, the Soviets were preparing to follow up their invasions of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands with an invasion of the weakly defended island of Hokkaidō by the end of August, which would have put pressure on the Allies to do something sooner than November. On August 15, the Japanese agreed to surrender, rendering the whole question of invasion moot.[/quote] [quote]From late August to early September 1945, the Soviet Union occupied the islands of Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan and Habomai. After that, by the Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet of February 2, 1946, these islands were incorporated into the then Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic.[/quote] The first is off of wikipedia, the second is from this: [url]http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/territory/edition92/preface.html[/url] I think the USSR definitely had the intentions of invading Japan. They already took various islands north of Japan. I can't imagine they would stop there. The problem wasn't whether or not they wanted to but whether they actually could. The Soviets didn't mobilize en mass because of the huge effort it would require. Extending the war with a US invasion favored the Soviet effort greatly.

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;37117133]The first is off of wikipedia, the second is from this: [url]http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/territory/edition92/preface.html[/url] I think the USSR definitely had the intentions of invading Japan. They already took various islands north of Japan. I can't imagine they would stop there. The problem wasn't whether or not they wanted to but whether they actually could. The Soviets didn't mobilize en mass because of the huge effort it would require. Extending the war with a US invasion favored the Soviet effort greatly.[/QUOTE] I really don't think the Soviets were in a proper state to just start invading at that time. I'm sure it was at least considered, but they then settled just for opportunistic territory snagging since most of it was lightly defended. edit I'm pretty sure I'm just reaffirming what you said, it seemed like you were making a different point at a glance

Everytime I think of the hiroshima bombing I'm reminded of Barefoot Gen. Warning the video is pretty graphic [video=youtube;BfJZ6nwxD38]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfJZ6nwxD38[/video]

Title made me think they were going to forget that shit,

Trueman said god told him to nuke Japan so its k guys :downs:

[QUOTE=RichyZ;37116516]Speak for yourself. I won't be sorry until the USA ceases to whitewash and deny it's war crimes.[/QUOTE] Be sorry for what? I'm not supporting the U.S. in anything. In fact, it has committed very heinous war crimes itself (nothing like what Japan has done, however). [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;37116549]to be fair the US did essentially reveal it dropped the bombs only to scare the Soviets. we know that via documents released far after the bombings.[/QUOTE] What does this have to do with my post? What does this have to do with anything I said? Why did you bring this up? What are you being "fair" about? I'm talking about Japanese war crimes against the Chinese population. If anything, your "to be fair" would have to be some snipe about China.

[QUOTE=abcpea2;37116169]ignorant idiot[/QUOTE] Are you trolling or a republican?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37116506]you don't feel sorry for hundreds of thousands of innocent japanese civilians killed in what was essentially a field test for the most powerful weapon in the world?[/QUOTE] He's totally right. I studied Nuclear Anxiety at university, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberately spared from strategic bombing, so the they had a 'clean slate' to test the bombs on. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ice445;37117183]I really don't think the Soviets were in a proper state to just start invading at that time. I'm sure it was at least considered, but they then settled just for opportunistic territory snagging since most of it was lightly defended. edit I'm pretty sure I'm just reaffirming what you said, it seemed like you were making a different point at a glance[/QUOTE] You're kidding right. The Soviet invasion against the Japanese was some of the most effective fighting of the entire war. They literally brushed aside an entire Japanese army, and the Japanese sure were alarmed by the massive armour divisions they were preparing to throw at them. Hence the efforts to conditionally surrender to the Soviets months before the bombs were dropped.

using a memorial for political dogma and propaganda, disgusting.

Nuclear power ain't the solution either, p.s.

I never understood why Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb dropped.

[QUOTE=Rich209;37119716]I never understood why Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb dropped.[/QUOTE] They didn't even understood fully what had happened until weeks afterwards. How could they? EDIT: I like how this is 'dumb' yet it was well documented.

[QUOTE=redBadger;37119703]Nuclear power ain't the solution either, p.s.[/QUOTE] Well it does generates enormous amounts of energy without polluting the environment and is safe(unless you place it next to a shore or allow incompetent personnel to work there)

I'm glad that Japan continues to remember the 'atrocities' committed on them known as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but conveniently continue to feign ignorance about the horrible acts they committed to other countries; namely, the rape of Nanking for one. This is all of course forgetting the fact that Japan was the [B][I]aggressor[/I][/B] in the war between Japan and the United States, after bombing Pearl Harbor without anything close to a formal declaration of war. The conflict starts with a bomb; the conflict ends with an even better one. (Well, I guess two, but that's besides the point.)

[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37120783]I'm glad that Japan continues to remember the 'atrocities' committed on them known as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but conveniently continue to feign ignorance about the horrible acts they committed to other countries; namely, the rape of Nanking for one. This is all of course forgetting the fact that Japan was the [B][I]aggressor[/I][/B] in the war between Japan and the United States, after bombing Pearl Harbor without anything close to a formal declaration of war. The conflict starts with a bomb; the conflict ends with an even better one. (Well, I guess two, but that's besides the point.)[/QUOTE] You do realize that the people remembering the bombings and the people who were responsible for the warcrimes are separated by 70 years?

Nukes are the future. You are all ignorant. :downs:

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37116332]By that logic, Japan should be anti fire, since WWII firebombing killed even more Japanese and left thousands more horrifically burned.[/QUOTE] So should the Germans, and the people in the cities they were occupying when they got torched by the British.

[QUOTE=Stopper;37120906]You do realize that the people remembering the bombings and the people who were responsible for the warcrimes are separated by 70 years?[/QUOTE] Ah, so 70 years is enough time to forget the atrocities they committed, but not long enough to forget the ones that were committed on themselves? You do realize that a large proportion of Japanese citizens aren't even aware of things like Nanjing, or the fucked up torture squads that far surpassed Nazi methods. The Germans don't have the luxury to forget things like that; what makes Japan so special?